• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Featured Articles

The Abomination of Enslavement … Is At The Heart of Proud Black Culture

May 18, 2025/0 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles, General/by Tobias Langdon

A meteor in the media. That’s what the proud Black woman Lydia Mugambe will be. The story of her conviction has flashed through the headlines and will shortly disappear forever. There will be no agonized analysis of her shocking crimes, no solemn intoning of stern conclusions. Not by leftists, that’s for sure. And why not? Because analyzing her crimes and drawing conclusions from them wouldn’t be good for leftism.

Lethal for Leftism

The truth isn’t good for leftism, you see. In fact, the truth is lethal for leftism, which is why Mugambe will be a meteor in the media. Her crimes remind me of this line in Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known.” The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, is thinking about a photograph that reveals how the Party’s power is based on a vast system of lies, censorship and illogic. Lydia Mugambe’s crimes reveal the same about leftism. That’s why she will be a meteor malefactor.

So who is she and what did she do? She’s a strong Black woman from Uganda and she committed one of the worst crimes in the world. She enslaved another human being. But it gets worse: her atrocious crime wasn’t the act of an errant individual, but obviously a settled part of her homeland’s culture. That’s right: in the proud Black nation of Uganda, slavery is shamelessly practised by strong Black women like Lydia Mugambe.

The unrepentant enslaver Lydia Mugambe in her judge’s wig (images from Daily Mail)

But it gets worse still. Lydia Mugambe isn’t just a Strong Black Woman — she’s a highly educated S.B.W., from the cream of Ugandan society. She’s a High Court Judge in Uganda and when she committed her appalling act of enslavement she was studying for a PhD in law at Oxford University. And three months after she was arrested for enslavement, she became a judge for the United Nations! But the worsening of her wickedness keeps coming. As a legal expert, Ms Mugambe was well aware that she couldn’t put a notice in the local paper: “SLAVE WANTED.” So she did the natural thing. It’s obviously natural for highly educated Strong Black Women from Uganda, that is. She sought the help of the Ugandan embassy and the Proud Black Man John Mugerwa, who was then the Deputy High Commissioner. And Mugerwa arranged for a young Black woman to be brought to Britain from Uganda in full knowledge that she was to be enslaved by Lydia Mugambe. Here are the depraved and deplorable details at the BBC website:

A United Nations judge has been jailed for six years and four months for forcing a woman to work as a domestic slave. Lydia Mugambe, 50, was studying for a doctorate in law at the University of Oxford when police discovered she had a young Ugandan woman at her home carrying out unpaid work as a maid and nanny.

Mugambe, who is also a High Court judge in Uganda, was jailed at Oxford Crown Court on Friday after she was found guilty of modern day slavery offences in March. In sentencing, Judge David Foxton told the defendant she “showed absolutely no remorse” for her actions and she had looked to “forcibly blame” the victim for what happened.

Mugambe fraudulently arranged a visa for the woman but it stipulated she would be paid to work as a private servant at the diplomatic residence of John Mugerwa, Uganda’s former deputy high commissioner based at the country’s embassy in London. Prosecutors said Mr Mugerwa sponsored the victim’s visa knowing she would actually work in servitude for Mugambe.  In return, Mugambe would provide him assistance in relation to a separate court case in Uganda in which he was a defendant, the court was told.

The trial heard Mugambe paid for the victim’s flight and picked her up from the airport — but the young woman then became a slave at the judge’s home in Kidlington, Oxfordshire. Mr Foxton described it as a “very sad case” as he outlined Mugambe’s legal accomplishments, including her work in the protection of human rights.

In a written statement, read to the court by prosecutor Caroline Haughey KC, the victim described living in “almost constant fear” due to Mugambe’s powerful standing in Uganda. The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she “can’t go back to Uganda” due to fear of what may happen to her and added that she may never see her mother again. […]

The Crown Prosecution Service authorised police to charge Mr Mugerwa with conspiracy but he had diplomatic immunity, which the Ugandan Government did not waive. Mugambe had denied forcing the young Ugandan woman to do household chores and said she “always” treated her with love, care and patience.

Ch Supt Ben Clark, of Thames Valley Police, said there was “no doubt” that Mugambe had known she was committing offences. […] A University of Oxford spokesperson said the institution was “appalled” by its student’s crimes. “The university is now commencing its own disciplinary process, which has the power to remove students convicted of serious criminal offences,” the spokesperson added. (“UN judge jailed for keeping housekeeper as slave,” BBC News, 2nd May 2025)

As you can see, the worsening of the wickedness continued in that news-report. The proud Black nation of Uganda refused to waive the diplomatic immunity of John Mugerwa, despite Mugerwa’s involvement in the abominable act of enslavement and his corrupt conspiracy with arch-enslaver Lydia Mugambe to evade justice in Uganda. So a highly disturbing question has to be asked. Do proud Black Ugandans not take slavery seriously? And here’s the even more disturbing answer: No, they don’t. Obviously not. Slavery is obviously a settled part of Ugandan culture. And of Nigerian culture too. In my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I discussed another pair of highly educated Black African enslavers, the obstetrician Emmanuel Edet and his wife Antan, “who kept a man in servitude for almost a quarter of a century after illegally bringing him to Britain.”

The deepest wound on the Black psyche

That was in 2015 and Emmanuel Edet soon became a meteor malefactor. His atrocious crimes flashed through the headlines and then disappeared forever. The same will happen to the atrocious crimes of Lydia Mugambe and for the same reason: because the truth is lethal to leftism. And the truth is certainly revealed by those two stories about highly educated African Blacks committing the abominable act of enslavement in Britain. Let’s “interrogate” what many righteous anti-racists regard as the central evil of human history, that is, the enslavement of African Blacks by European Whites. You might call it the worst patch of “racist vomit” splattered across the world by White supremacy and the deepest wound inflicted on the Black psyche by Whites. Logic dictates, therefore, that slavery must be deeply abhorrent to Black Africans, and particularly to those Black Africans who are educated enough to understand the true horror and depravity of the Atlantic slave-trade.

But reality laughs at logic. Highly educated Black Africans pretend to find slavery abhorrent only when they’re trying to guilt-trip Whites. At the same time, they routinely enslave their fellow Black Africans from the lower classes. And those Black enslavers take full advantage of the lying leftism that grants Blacks special privilege and endows Blacks with special virtue because they’ve allegedly suffered so much at hands of wicked Whites. Central to leftism’s indictment of wicked Whites is slavery, which leftists present as an unforgivable crime on an appalling scale committed by cruel and vicious Whites against gentle and virtuous Blacks. If they could, leftists would claim that only Whites practised slavery and only non-Whites suffered as slaves.

The toxic truth about Black culture

They can’t claim that, but they still present Whites as uniquely culpable for slavery and pretend that slavery was the all-powerful engine of Western success. It wasn’t and the only unique thing Whites ever did in relation to slavery is to make it illegal and abolish it. When Whites kept slaves, so did everyone else. And nobody regarded it as wrong. Christianity permits slavery, Judaism and Islam positively celebrate it. Slavery was practised in Africa long before Whites arrived and is still being practised there now. The toxic truth is this: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture in Africa. And when proud Black Africans come to the West, they bring their slave-culture with them. That’s why stories about highly educated Black Africans keeping slaves appear again and again across the West. You’ve seen two such stories from Britain. Now try America, where the Nigerian couple Chudy and Sandra Nsobundu were convicted of forcing “a Nigerian woman to work nearly 20 hours a day taking care of their home and five children and home without pay for two years.” In France, a Black girl called Henriette Akofa Siliadin was trafficked from Togo when she was fourteen. A leftist website goes on: “She was vulnerable and dependent on others. However, the people accompanying her took away her passport and made her work as an unpaid servant, all day long, seven days a week for over four years.” By “the people,” the leftist website means “other Blacks.”

As I said: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture. But it’s also at the heart of proud Filipino culture. The late Filipino-American journalist Alex Tizon won widespread acclaim in 2017 for his essay “My Family’s Slave,” a moving and disturbing account of a woman who was exactly that: a slave to his family for fifty-six years. Just like Lydia Mugambe and Emmanuel Edet in Britain, Tizon’s parents — “[m]y father had a law degree, my mother was on her way to becoming a doctor” — were highly educated non-Whites who simultaneously enslaved a vulnerable woman and took advantage of the special privileges granted to non-Whites in the West because they have allegedly suffered so much at the hands of Whites. And just like Lydia Mugambe in Britain, Tizon’s parents were obviously following a settled custom of their non-White homeland. Tizon says that the enslaved woman, Eudocia Tomas Pulido, was “18 years old when my grandfather gave her to my mother as a gift.”

Omnia Ex Alea, Omnia Ex Albo

So slavery is at the heart of proud Filipino culture. That’s why, just like the crimes of Lydia Mugambe in Britain, the crimes of Tizon’s parents were “published to the world” but their significance was never “made known.”

There was no agonized analysis by leftists and no stern conclusions were drawn about Filipino culture. After all, Filipinos are non-White, which means that, in leftist eyes, their culture is axiomatically virtuous and unimpeachable. In fact, these stories about non-Whites enslaving other non-Whites explode the two contradictory principles that lie at the heart of leftism: omnia ex alea and omnia ex albo (si mala). Those Latin phrases mean “everything from the dice” and “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).”

Black is Beautiful — except in Jewish Israel, where you will never see race-mixing propaganda like this

Omnia ex alea is the guiding principle of the Jewish scientist — and pseudo-scientist — Jared Diamond. He has done genuine science, but he was peddling pseudo-science in his best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), which claims that the blind forces of biogeography account for the apparent over-achievement of Whites and under-achievement of Blacks. According to orthodox leftists like Jared Diamond, all humans are the same under the skin and capable of exactly the same high achievements in cognitively demanding fields like science, mathematics and technology. It’s just that the biogeographical dice rolled the right way in Europe and the wrong way in Africa. Whites in Europe had large mammals that were easy to domesticate, Blacks in Africa didn’t. Whites in horizontally aligned Europe could trade easily to east and west. Blacks in vertically aligned Africa couldn’t trade easily to north and south. And so on. That’s why, according to Diamond, Europe flourished and Africa foundered.

“The cancer of human history”

But at the same time as Diamond and his fellow leftists peddle omnia ex alea, “everything from the dice of history,” they also peddle omnia ex albo (si mala) — “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).” As the acclaimed Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag once put it:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

I disagree with the anti-White Jew Susan Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the Innate Depravity of White Europeans. But those two principles are only self-refuting in the minds of those who believe in logic. Leftists like Sontag and Diamond don’t. Instead, they believe in doublethink, which Orwell defined as “hold[ing] simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”

Not All Bioweapons Come From A Lab — if Black migration was good for the West, leftists wouldn’t want it

The story of Lydia Mugambe and her Black slave reveals the doublethink of the left on slavery and race relations. Mugambe is a proud Black woman who not merely enslaved another Black but “showed absolutely no remorse” for her abominable act of enslavement. Indeed, she tried to “forcibly blame” her victim. She is an entitled enslaver and she explodes the lies of leftism. That’s why she’ll also be a meteor malefactor, someone whose crimes flash through the headlines and disappear for ever, receiving no analysis and prompting no conclusions about proud Black culture. Except at hate-sites like the Occidental Observer and Unz Review, where we don’t believe in doublethink but in reality.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2025-05-18 10:52:482025-05-18 10:52:48The Abomination of Enslavement … Is At The Heart of Proud Black Culture

E. Michael Jones on Identity

May 18, 2025/3 Comments/in Featured Articles/by James W. Smith

There seems no reason to question E. Michael Jones’ sincerity. By current standards, he is brave, courteous, and he is willing to debate anyone. Few commentators have such a comprehensive understanding of the threats posed by Jewish supremacism, and fewer still discuss the issues in such an articulate and engaging way.

The problem arises with his understanding of identity as a means of resisting and eventually reforming Jewish-dominated power structures. To begin with, identity is a slippery concept. Identity can be imposed externally or constructed from within, and it can be based on immutable human traits, ideology, behavior, and any number of other factors. Identity can also be fleeting. Catholics can become atheists and vice versa. It should also be noted that people need not be schizophrenic to simultaneously hold multiple, and even conflicting identities.

It might be easier to simply discard the notion of identity when discussing solutions to Jewish supremacism. This would be a bad idea for the following reason. Jews have steadily increased their international dominance precisely because they identify as Jews. Jewish identity cannot be defined according to language spoken, religious practices observed, or even physical characteristics. Yet Jews create networks and collaborate based largely on identity. It follows that any movement that is to successfully counter Jewish power will need to develop its own identity or form some sort of coalition of existing identities. Given Jewish skillfulness at infiltration and divide-and-conquer strategies, one or two unified identities may achieve greater success in resisting Jewish power than a smattering of well-informed interest groups.

Jones argues that Catholicism is the only identity suited to this endeavor. His arguments in favor of Catholicism and against White identity are that 1) Whiteness is an artificially constructed identity; 2) individuals must decide upon whether they identify as White or Catholic because they can’t be both; 3) Catholicism affords critics of Jewish behavior a layer of protection against Jewish persecution.

Jones argues that Whiteness was imposed as an identity upon European indentured servants who provided labor in the Virginia colonies. The term ‘White’ was assigned to the European workers as a divide-and-conquer tactic, giving them a relatively higher status than the African slaves next to whom they toiled. Although this initial White identity may have been artificial, it has little bearing on current day Americans and, for example, Australians whose ancestors came from Europe.

Jones describes himself as bi-racial, meaning that he is German and Irish. This description may have resonated with denizens of American White ethnic neighborhoods prior to the ethnic cleansing of those neighborhoods in the 1960s. At present, however, most Americans who appear White have ancestors whose origins lie in disparate parts of Europe. It is therefore natural that, if they identify themselves according to race, they might say that they’re White rather than providing a (possibly inaccurate) list of the regions from which their ancestors came. This, incidentally, applies both to Whites who are proud of having European heritage and those who are ashamed of it. Perhaps if America were a White only country, no one would identify as White. If it were White only but still dominated by a tiny Jewish minority, its citizens might identify as gentiles. We have no way of knowing. What is important is that Whiteness is not a ‘category of the mind’ as Jones would have us believe. It is a category of reality simply because White people know who they are and can recognize each other—and because it is rooted in the evolutionary trajectory of the European peoples. To the extent that it is important, non-Whites can also recognize us as White, usually not as Irish or German or Italian, but as White. It is therefore irrelevant whether Whiteness is only 500 years old—as Jones asserts—or more than 20,000 years old.

There is little doubt that language and culture play an important role in identity, but languages, cultural practices, and cultural perspectives can be learned. Jones may describe himself as half German, but he acquired his knowledge of the German language and culture because he lived in Germany as an adult. He was not born German, but he was born White.

Jones claims that White identity is a trap set by Jewish interests and that Americans (and presumably other Whites) who identify as White are internalizing the commands of their oppressors. On this point, he is partially correct. Among some White nationalists, there is a tendency to view all non-Whites with disdain or hostility. Naturally, this might hamper universal efforts to combat Jewish supremacism. Whites are not the only adversely affected group. Arguably, meaningful change will not happen without the type of multi-cultural coalition that is incompatible with ardent White identitarianism.

But at some point, the issue of whether Whites are internalizing the commands of their oppressors becomes irrelevant. Prior to arriving on American shores, Blacks would have identified themselves as Fulani or Mandingo or any number of other ethnicities. None of these identities would have been useful to the American Black Power Movement of the 1960s, however. People can argue about the movement’s propriety, but there can be little doubt that it resulted in an increase in Black power. In the long run, Whites may have no choice but to identify as White, particularly in areas where they are outnumbered by hostile non-Whites and have no option to relocate. If, on the other hand, White identity can be normalized sooner rather than later, Jewish efforts at ethnic cleansing will become less successful and most Whites can look forward to a more secure future.

Before the Modern Period, most Western people’s identity was fixed at birth. These identities encompassed religion, sex, locale, language, vocation, social status, and so on. Urbanization and its concomitant social and geographic mobility have left a vacuum and people in industrialized countries, if they even contemplate identity, construct their own identities. In part due in part to Jewish denigration of Whiteness, many White Americans manufacture for themselves frivolous identities determined by their sexual practices, or the brand of motorcycle they favor, or the music they listen to. Jones argues that Catholic identity affords some protection against persecution by Jews. Certainly, in the past the Church often effectively prohibited predatory Jewish practices like usury. But with the rise of the nation-state and globalism, the Church has neither the power nor the will to dismantle Jewish power networks. If every White American were to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, there would still be a staggering amount of consciousness raising to do. A direct development of White identity based on recognition of collective White interests, and a shared understanding of how these interests are threatened, seems the most effective approach.

This is not to say that the Catholic Church and other churches have no role to play. Networks of White advocacy should build strength and legitimacy in all institutions. Jones’ assertion, however, that Catholicism is incompatible with White identity makes little sense. Scholars universally accept that people hold multiple and often conflicting identities. The issue of whether Catholic Church doctrine discourages White identity can be left to the Magisterium, but surely White identitarians won’t be excommunicated based on thought crime.

Many Whites now recognize and resent the ethnic cleansing, wealth extraction, denigration in academia and the popular culture, perversion of history, and other assaults their people have been subjected to. They also understand the source of these assaults. Jones may be correct that the Catholic Church provides protection. Moving forward, however, we shouldn’t need protection when we point out lying, cheating and stealing. It has yet to happen, but the time must come when the perpetrators are shamed for their behavior rather than truthtellers shamed for antisemitism.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 James W. Smith https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png James W. Smith2025-05-18 07:14:542025-05-18 10:11:34E. Michael Jones on Identity

Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

May 16, 2025/7 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Kevin MacDonald

Submitted as comments by Harald

WARNING

I have warned you not to publish these ultima verba until long after my death.

In my little cemetery, I am now safe from the Marchandeau law, the LICA and the killers of the Israeli secret services.

But you, the French of today, your days are numbered. These French days are steadily dwindling, and soon this country of mine, which was once yours, will join the Third World club.

It’s a question of time… it’s a question of Jews or not.

Remember to defend yourselves by all means against those who work to destroy you with their exacerbated racism, their demonic dream of world domination, and above all, never forget that their power only exists through our baseness, our futility and our cowardice.

(Thanks to my faithful friends)

Rueil, April 1972
Marcel Jouhandeau

ULTIMA VERBA

What I published before the war would be absolutely impossible in today’s advanced “democracy”.

National emblems have given way to the Star of David, and we are under its yoke. Already, at the turn of the century, Maurras asserted: “The Jew opens the door to the metèque.” As I predicted in 1938, the “victory” of 1945, i.e., the victory of the Jews, has transformed the Frenchman into a sort of bewildered chatterbox, game for all basenesses, all humiliations, all cowardice, applauding only the Jew, rejoicing only in his own death. Even the instinct for territory, the instinct for self-preservation, has disappeared.

The “Jewish Peril” of 1938 is now, in 1972, well and truly with us, and we’re all going to die from it.

From Christianity to the gas chambers, from Anne Frank’s diary to Chagall, this race has distinguished itself by its incredible imposture and its gift for demolishing non-Jewish souls and complexing them to death. It has to be said that the stupidity of white non-Jews is unfathomable.

Ever since the Diaspora (2,600 years ago), these hysterical people have never integrated into their host countries. And it’s they, the worst racists, who now have the nerve to make us digest millions of immigrants, by-products of over-birth, who hate us and infest France!!!! Cry havoc…!

Right now, this Talmudic spawn is preparing public opinion for an anti-Bolshevik crusade, and do you know why, my little ones? Quite simply because all Eastern European countries are viscerally anti-Semitic. Russians and Poles in particular.

The Bolshevik revolution, 95% Jewish, is no longer Jewish today, any more than it is socialist. The Jewish crusade with Aryan breasts is not over. Israel has set fire to the entire Middle East, and peace will only return after its total destruction, like Carthage.

Now that the Third Reich has become the Soviet Union, the danger of war is the same as in 1938, and for the same reason – the same “crime”:

Not to allow ourselves to be enslaved by the Jews.

HOW I BECAME AN ANTI-SEMITE
Article published in October 1936

At nineteen, when I left my home province, I didn’t know what a Jew was. In the nearly thirty years I’ve been living in Paris, I’ve met many Israelites from all walks of life, and I must confess that I’ve only found sympathy and friendship among them, and only once hostility, which had no effect on me.

So it wasn’t out of self-interest, envy or personal grudge that I came to regard the Jewish people as my country’s worst enemy, the enemy within. It was my patriotism, as dormant as it was, that suddenly alerted me.

I was at a friend’s house, maybe two years ago, when I saw a Jew X walk in, uninvited by the way, hiding behind someone and pretending he’d only come to meet me.

So X approaches me, flatters me (they’re very good at it) and thanks to this maneuver gets in, little by little lets me go and there he is in the foreground with his feet on the table, ham on his knees and up to his hair. X has a lot to say. On his return from America, he triumphantly brings back the good news that France has been banished from the world.

Not content with merely reporting this opinion, he approved of it, and added to it the further comment that, no matter how much he read and reread the history of our country, it was in vain, to his great regret, that he looked for a sympathetic figure, or even the slightest selflessness, a single act of generosity, even the shadow of greatness; that no doubt there was Napoleon, whom he alone admired, but unfortunately Napoleon wasn’t French.

I would have forgotten all about this adventure, had I not met young P. by chance a few weeks ago, and pointed to X, my fat Jew who was approaching, recalling before him with disgust what judgment this gentleman had dared to pass on our story. To my astonishment, young P., without hesitation, replied that he was sorry to upset me, but that he agreed with X, his master, I imagine.

The ugliness of French history made him blush, too, French as he was, and he didn’t even except Napoleon. On the other hand, he had a great admiration for X, he confessed, because X lived on a houseboat.

“As far as I’m concerned,” I replied, “X could live on the Vendôme column, but he wouldn’t interest me. If there’s a piece of bacon hanging in my cellar or attic, I don’t take any notice of it, not going to look for it unless it stinks and the house is full of it, so that I can shove it out the window.

Thus, at the same time as he exalts within himself, to the point of adoration, the esteem of his own blood, as he proves, as soon as one touches his race (he’ll make it clear), the Jew openly teaches the little Frenchman contempt for France, and the latter, docile, not only follows the lesson, he goes beyond it; he not only despises his homeland, he surrenders it to the contempt of the Jew.

Didn’t I hear another young Frenchman, not long ago, say to me sincerely, without wishing to taunt me: “You wouldn’t be proud, Monsieur, to be a Jew?”

Again, I think he would have liked to say, but I don’t know what modesty prevented him from daring: “You wouldn’t be prouder, would you, of being Jewish than French?”

No comment.

However, up until then my emotions had remained mediocre, when I happened to glance at La jeunesse d’un Clerc by the Jew Benda in the NRF (July-August 1936). Now, all things considered, I was obliged to note that Mr. Benda is not as far from X as we thought, and I deduced that Jewish patriotism is not only questionable, but suspect.

The passages I’m about to quote and comment on will prove it. Mr. Benda begins by talking about his ancestors: “And now,” he writes, “I suddenly find myself thinking about them, about my parents‘ parents and my parents’ parents. I see a succession of intelligent, hard-working, ironic Jews, friends of science, while almost everything around them languishes in superstition.”

We’re talking about our French grandfathers, whom Mr. Benda takes the liberty of scorning and humiliating in such an unabashed manner. Let’s lower our heads.

And Mr. Benda turns once again to exalt them at the expense of our own, to his forefathers “agents of human liberation on whom all parties of progress rely”. In truth,” he concludes, ”I’m ashamed to have come so late to feel so proud to be descended from such an elite.”

That’s all there is to it. They are the elite!

Later, a more important confession: “My parents’ patriotism will be of interest to the historian. It was, I believe, that of most French Jews of the time (after 1870), and perhaps even of those of today. My parents had a deep attachment to France (my father had stopped seeing a friend, X’s grandfather no doubt, who always spoke badly of it), but this attachment was above all intellectual: it hardly included any instinctive, carnal, irrational element.”

This is a very judicious analysis of patriotic sentiment, and highly instructive for us, because it explains precisely the fragility, inconsistency and non-existence of the Jew’s love for his adopted homeland.

By Mr. Benda’s own admission, the Jew’s patriotism will always lack what is essential to all love, which is that instinctive, carnal, irrational element (what is an attachment that interests only the intelligence and not the guts? ), which is why I will henceforth be justified in maintaining that it is a serious insult to France and the French to consider a Jew, whoever he may be, as a French citizen, and that it is one of the most profound inconsistencies of the French Revolution to have given Jews the right to live among us.

Mr. Benda continues: “Never did they (my parents), sing me the glory of Du Guesclin or Jean Bart or even Napoleon.”

From Saint-Louis and Joan of Arc, there was no danger, I mean, there would have been too much danger.

“Chauvinism,” he concludes (translate: true patriotism, the patriotism of the French who are not Jews), “seemed to them good for concierges. (Les concierges, c’est nous). What my father really loved in France was French civilization (civilization in general, but not France in particular), the great liberal tradition (he’s getting to that), the Revolution.”

I believe you! What Mr. Benda’s father loved in France was his own self-interest. If it weren’t for the Revolution, the Jews wouldn’t be oppressing France.

Because the Jews oppress us. Monsieur Benda is willing to explain, with his customary candor, how they came to do so. It’s like reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The marvel is that, while the Jews reject the Protocols as apocryphal, Mr. Benda signs his book: “Since the modern state opened every door to us,” he admits, “we had to take advantage of this opportunity, which was finally offered to us, to prove that we were not the inferior race our detractors claimed, but on the contrary, a race of the first order in its working power and gifts. (It’s easy to see why). We had to strive for the top positions. What the entire Jewish bourgeoisie of the time held up as a model for its sons were the three Reinach brothers, who had just won every prize in the general competition. It was only natural that the Jews of the time were so keen to show who they were.”

They show it so well that they occupy all the top places today, indeed. High finance, industry, commerce, agriculture (wheat trafficking), French thought, the Sorbonne, all the Academies belong to them, and Monsieur Blum with all his Israelite sequel is in power. Monsieur Léon Blum is the true successor to Louis XVI. This is what the Revolution did for Israel. It made him King of France. And when Israel is King…

But the Jews don’t just oppress us, they hate us. I still quote Monsieur Benda (NRF, September 1936, p. 448): “Very attached to France, my parents were well aware that, even on my mother’s side, they had not been established in this country for more than three or four generations, and they would never have accepted the comicality of claiming to be part of the French tradition. It is properly (in what they have of universal, of superior to the accidents of time and place), that I learned to respect human virtues.”

So far, so plausible. We’re just a little surprised by so much ingenuity, so many accumulated blunders through which we can discern the very fabric of everything that Mr. Benda’s fellow creatures are so careful to remedy.

But where Mr. Benda unmasks himself a little more, a little too much, and suddenly becomes intolerable, is after confiding to us “his worship for values set in the eternal”, when he expresses to us “his hatred of those who salute them only in the historical.”

Hear that? Just that, his hatred, the hatred of this little Semitic clown, and you know who it’s going to? To you, to me, to us who have traditions and the strength to love and respect them. Although he claims to be a French citizen, not content to repudiate them on his own account, because they disturb not only his own beguiling idealism, but the aims of his race, Mr. Benda forbids us to love our traditions and respect them on pain of being hated by him. Because it has pleased Mr. Benda, as he claims, to get rid of his own, we are no longer free to keep ours, without exposing ourselves to his wrath, to the wrath of this foreign gnome, this intruder whose authority is due only to our patience.

I said foreigner, and indeed for my part I’ve always instinctively felt a thousand times closer to our German ex-enemies, for example, than to all that so-called French Jewish scum, and although I have no personal sympathy for Monsieur Hitler, Monsieur Blum inspires in me a far more profound repugnance.

At least I know where I stand on the Führer’s feelings towards us, and the Führer is at home and master of his house, whereas Blum, Benda and X are not from my house and they are at my house, and what’s stronger, Monsieur Blum is master of my house or about to become so again, when I’ve never known, and no European will ever know, what an Asian thinks (there’s grey and grey matter), and it’s here, and only here, on the logical level, which is only the other side of the physiological level, that the question of race arises and takes on its full importance.

Experience has constantly confirmed my feeling that the principle of identity, for example, does not have the same rigor for the sons of Shem as it does for us, that there is not for the Jew and for us the same distance between YES and NO. When my man says yes, it’s the opposite of no, but all the while the Jew is ironizing, and his smile alone fills the gap.

Is there only a nationalist polemicist by trade and half-Jewish to demand Herriot’s head in a public lecture, while clutching to her heart, like a talisman, the photograph of the Pasionaria, and is there only a Christian Jew who could boast (a Christian back home would never have even suspected it was possible), who could boast, I say, of fooling God every morning at communion. I can still hear him whistling in my ear: “And in the end (after all this pretending), God is fooled.”

No, we have nothing of these conjurers, and if they have succeeded in deceiving us up to this point, we are free to let ourselves be completely annihilated to allow them to further prove their excellence or to react.

As far as I’m concerned (and God knows I’ve been sensitive to their charms, from which I’ve had to defend myself with violence), as much as I’d be willing to escort them with palms and gifts, if they didn’t decide to return to Palestine, I vow here and now to report them to the vindictiveness of my people, as long as there’s a single one left in France who isn’t subject to a special status.

NOTE:

X has claimed since the publication of the above article that he had alluded before me, in condemning it, only to nineteenth-century France. Assuming that my memory has deceived me, which I deny, and that one can feel the deepest disgust for the governments that have led us for a hundred years, these governments are not the country.

The Jew, more than any other, should at least have the discretion to keep quiet on this matter, given that Jewish high finance and Jewish agitators share with Masonry the responsibility for our debacles.

Incidentally, an ethnographer writes to persuade me that we are all of mixed race. He must be worried about his own blood. I’m not worried about mine. All I have to do is look back at my grandparents, and in front of them, I am immediately aware of the something that I don’t know, something horrible for us, which accompanies every Israelite face, gesture and word. The difference is immediately perceptible, obvious, striking: what a paucity, if you don’t have this criterion!

One day, a long time ago, I put a famous Jewish poet face to face with my mother — a humble woman who didn’t know he was a Jew or what a Jew was. Well, the reaction was swift, by which I mean the instinctive repulsion he inspired in her and, as a new convert, when, in an attempt to gain admission, he took out his rosary, Franchise had turned her back on him. “You can tell she was born under the sign of Aries,” he confided. “She defends her door. And what a look she has!”

This is the truth. So I won’t complain that I’ve made as many enemies as there are Jews in France and as many friends as there are Jews in France. I’m only sorry to see how deep the evil is, “gangrene generalized” and “scabies with pleasure doesn’t itch”, as the saying goes.

Because he flatters the worst in us, the Jew triumphs over us. Fortunately, a few others with me retain the pure memory of a provincial corner that allows them to defy the virus. Lonely enough never to love what I love to my heart’s content, of all the fans and admirers I’ve lost, I care as much as the filth left behind by the athlete who’s just got out of the bath.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-05-16 09:05:092025-05-17 08:09:21Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

Make America Uganda! Liberals Meltdown over a few White Refugees

May 16, 2025/13 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ann Coulter

Make America Uganda!

Liberals are furious that President Trump is admitting refugees who are actually being persecuted because of their race, as opposed to our usual policy, which is to admit poverty-stricken illiterates from totally dissonant cultures who will need government assistance for the next six generations — PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT WHITE.

Since 1970, the United States has brought in 1 million Haitians and more than one-quarter of the population of Mexico. Somalis are flown in from 8,000 miles away — then they vacation in Somalia, you know, where they were allegedly being persecuted.

Trump could have accomplished the same thing — saving White South Africans from probable genocide — by offering refugee status only to immigrants who are unlikely ever to need government assistance. As luck would have it, that’s already the law (8 USC 1182 (a)(4)(A)).

Or only to those who’ve been fully vaccinated against mumps, measles, polio, etc., and, in light of the typical refugee, also against cholera, malaria, leprosy, yellow fever, typhoid fever, Ebola and other medieval diseases. That, too, is already the law (8 USC 1182 (a)(1)(A)(ii)).

Or to no one who is a witch doctor, Santeria priest or voodoo practitioner. (Again, already the law: 8 USC 1182 (a)(5)(B).)

These and many other provisions of federal immigration law have been entirely ignored for the past 50 years in order to bring in the poorest of the poor, who have no concept of Western civilization, preferably with wildly expensive medical problems and no means of support apart from criminal activity, who will require taxpayer support for the rest of their lives. But their selling point is, they’re not white.

The other night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof were in high dudgeon over Trump admitting English-speaking, non-welfare-receiving, Dutch-descended South Africans who are currently being threatened with dispossession and death by officials in their own government. (The Economic Freedom Fighters — Motto: “Kill the Boer!” — with 10% to 15% of the vote, are insistent that land and businesses be confiscated from White owners and redistributed to Black South Africans. The New York Times reports that “a large segment” of the governing African National Congress agrees.)

First, let’s review Kristof’s expertise on refugees. He spent a decade promoting a total fraud, Somaly Mam, who claimed she’d been beaten and prostituted as a child in Cambodia, sold to a brothel and tortured with electrodes. She wasn’t White, so Mam became an instant celebrity, feted by Time magazine, Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg, Meg Ryan and Oprah.

Then it turned out her whole story was an elaborate Nigerian Prince scam, completely apocryphal from beginning to end, as was finally exposed by Newsweek magazine.

So we should definitely listen to Kristof when it comes to humanitarian cases.

Anderson and Kristof’s main argument is that there are millions of non-Whites out there! Why can’t we get them instead of being saddled with 59 tall, healthy, educated, English-speaking South Africans?

It’s hard to argue with that.

On the other hand, their beloved Afghans, who “saved the lives of American troops,” according to both Cooper and Kristof (Cooper heard it from Jussie Smollett, and Kristof heard it from Somaly Mam), prefer to live under sharia law.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the Taliban, their version of sharia prohibits women from leaving their homes without a male relative, forces them to wear head-to-toe burqas, and still employs stonings, public hangings and amputations as criminal punishments.

To each his own, but wouldn’t the 99% of Afghans who told Pew they want to live that way be happier in one of the 35 countries that practice sharia law?

Cooper was especially incensed that we’re not bringing Sudanese and Congolese people to our shores, testily adding, “On this program, we reported on the violence, the plight of people there in a series of programs in 2006.” (Don’t worry if you missed it, nothing’s changed.)

Those countries have been beset by bloody civil wars, involving mass rape and millions dead. WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THAT IN OUR COUNTRY??? Not only that, but Congo has been “fighting for decades.” What’s not to like?

Cooper seems to think Congolese people merely need to be moved to a majority White country, like the U.S., in order to bring stability and safety to their lives. It’s like busing on an international scale.

Unfortunately, the idea of the Great White Father died out with European colonialism. If the mightiest empires in the world could spend decades imposing Western values, the rule of law, modern medicine, engineering and farming techniques on these countries only to have them — immediately, the moment the imperial power leaves — erupt into bloody, violent, corrupt, cannibalistic dystopias, then bringing them here to collect welfare probably isn’t going to help either.

By 1968, British historian Paul Johnson reported, the dozens of decolonized African nations had already experienced 64 military coups. Less than a decade later, 20 of the 41 independent African countries were ruled by military juntas and the rest were dominated by coups, wars, uprisings, massacres, starvation and sadistic rulers. None were democracies.

(Speaking of Congo, when Belgium withdrew in 1960, it had a booming industrial base, the highest literacy rate and most hospital beds in Africa. Five days after Independence Day, the Congolese military erupted in an ecstasy of violence, looting, killing and raping Whites.)

Importing the third world doesn’t turn third-worlders into us, it turns us into the third world.

One of our beloved African refugees was Beatrice Munyenyezi, a victim of the Rwandan genocide that former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power desperately tried to get us involved in. Then it turned out that Munyenyezi was a perpetrator, not a victim of the genocide.

(Once again: I’m totally impressed with our immigration officials.)

And remember that nice pharmacist lady we brought in from Pakistan after she married an American? Within two years, Tashfeen Malik and her “American-born” husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, had committed mass murder in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 and injuring 22. According to the GAO, in the decade after 9/11, a majority of those convicted of terrorism offenses in the U.S. immigrated here legally.

American police say they are being asked to respect Mexican rape culture when 13-year-old Hispanic girls are impregnated by 40-year-old men. One detective said he’ll show up at the house of the girl, expecting the family to be in a blind rage, only to be told “it’s a blessing and we’re so happy. I’ll explain it’s illegal, they cut me right off. I get a lot of those too.”

Cooper and Kristof’s other killer argument against the South African refugees is that they have … White privilege! Please apologize now.

“These Afrikaners,” Kristof said, “are among the most privileged people on the entire continent,” adding that they have “assets 20 times greater than those of black South Africans on average.”

So what? Does having assets mean the government isn’t trying to kill you? Jews had more assets in Germany. Kulaks had more assets in Russia. Or is Kristof suggesting it’s OK to persecute people with assets?

That would be bad news because you know where else Whites have more assets than blacks? Here.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2025-05-16 07:13:052025-05-16 11:32:32Make America Uganda! Liberals Meltdown over a few White Refugees

Jews and the New Deal: Banking and Money

May 15, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jews in Economy/Finance/by Frederick Talmadge

By FREDERICK TALMADGE

Finance and banking during the New Deal had a significant Jewish role. It was, of course, part of a larger historical context that involved both domestic and international finance capitalism in America, which included (but not limited to) such activities as commercial banking, merchant and investment banking, and the stock market, all fields with important Jewish activity. Like the rest of the New Deal, the Jewish versus gentile share of the activity is complex and not easily reduced to accusations of “Jew Deal.” Though the focus here is on the Jews, the gentiles were still the elite at this point and played many roles that can’t be explored in detail here. One can overstate the Jewish role, however it’s just as easy to understate it as well.

This article will deal with some of the major money and banking events of both the First (1933–34) and Second New Deals (1935–36). Some of the topics, like Henry Morgenthau and Charles Coughlin, appear in both periods, and are not categorizable under either as the nomenclature only applies to administrative policy. Significant economic and financial statutes in the First New Deal are the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall), the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. The Second New Deal saw the Banking Act of 1935. 

Banking Background

It’s instructive to start with a short history of investment (also called merchant) banking, which became modernized in the nineteenth century and was internationally led by the Rothschilds.[1] The United States was still “a nation of planters and farmers” until the 1830s, and before the Civil War there were relatively few railroads and relatively little need for foreign capital.[2] In the U. S., the first investment bank was the private banking house of Jay Cooke & Company in Philadelphia, established in 1861.[3] Cooke was the chief financier during the Civil War for the Union side, although German-Jews in the U.S. were beneficiaries of a “bonanza” because of their connections to Jewish investors in Germany in funding the Union’s expenditures.[4]

The post-bellum funding for recovery and the massive industrial expansion meant that foreign financial capital was needed, and Cooke assembled a syndicate with two Jewish houses, the Seligman’s in New York and the Rothschilds in Europe, to finance a refunding issue for the remaining Civil War debt (he was challenged by a syndicate involving the rising “House of Morgan,” which was awarded the business). Seligman would also vie with the Morgans on Wall Street in tapping European markets for railroad investors[5], including Jewish banking houses such as Cohen, Seligman, Bischoffsheim, Goldschmidt, Bleichroeder, Wertheim, Erlanger, and Oppenheim. (Seligman’s 1880 death ended one era of Jewish banking leadership in America, followed by the era of Jacob Schiff).[6]

The establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, modeled after central banks in Europe, was a watershed for managerial power in the United States. Sam Francis says that it “carried forward the incipient fusion of state and economy in the transitional era between bourgeois and managerial capitalism.”[7] The central role played in international finance by Jews secured an invitation to play a role in the Fed’s creation. International banking had been less directly rooted in the United States, and a central bank was difficult to established for a number of reasons including the country’s history of decentralization,[8] constitutional limitations, and because of the bias toward the interests of farmers, who desired to pay back mortgages with cheaper, inflated money.[9] The Federal Reserve system, was the nation’s fourth attempt at central banking, when it was finally inaugurated by elite insiders during Woodrow Wilson’s first term.

It’s well-known in dissident circles that the system was the offspring of the “Aldrich Plan” submitted to Congress in 1911, from a draft proposal at the Jekyll Island Club meeting in 1910. The men who met at Jekyll Island were midwifes of the new central bank and represented the interests of Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., but the immigrant Jew at the meeting, Paul Moritz Warburg, had the exclusive expertise of the international financier and was able to advise a country traditionally hostile to such institutions.[10]

Warburg was convinced to go public with his previously sketched reforms for the U.S. financial system by associate and friend Edwin R. A. Seligman, son of Joseph Seligman, during a gathering at Seligman’s house. This gathering was right before the Panic of 1907, which was the final stimulus needed to bring Warburg’s ideas to national attention by triggering the National Monetary Commission.[11]

After passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Warburg was on the founding board of governors of the Federal Reserve (the government part of the system) from 1914 to 1918 and served for two years within that period as a vice-chairman. After 1918, he was on the Advisory Council for much of the 1920s and continued to play a principal role in running it.[12]

Mainstream discussions of the Federal Reserve’s origins allow that American banking interests were represented and that these interests were tied to the private Fed through capital investments in the Bank or through interlocking directorates.[13] But were these interests answerable to larger firms in Europe, so that the banking system which Carroll Quigley described as a “feudal system” (but in his discussion one limited to the United States)[14] was in fact a subsidiary of international finance centered in London around the Rothschilds, who possessed fons honorum privileges to bestow power on others from higher up the global neo-peerage system?[15]

Eustace Mullins thought so and didn’t beat around the bush when approaching history with this hypothesis. As the cover of his book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (1954) put it, “Exposing the plot behind the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 … placing the nation’s banking reserves in the hands of the Jewish international bankers.”[16] His related 1952 work The Secrets of the Federal Reserve quotes a source that claims that the writing of the Federal Reserve Act was directed by London banker Alfred Rothschild, a direct descendant of patriarch Mayer Amschel Rothschild through his son Nathan. Mullins further explained that the Rothschilds controlled international finance through their manipulation of gold prices through their London office.[17]

Mullins also claims that the Rothschilds controlled the Morgan interests throughout their career, a relationship first cemented by Baltimore dry-goods merchant (and Morgan patriarch Junius S. Morgan’s sponsor) George Peabody. According to this theory, Peabody, who founded a merchant bank in London in 1836, and whose celebrated and well-documented Fourth of July parties inviting fellow financiers in the City of London were actually espionage operations for Nathan Rothschild to spy on fellow bankers.[18] Furthermore, he claimed that J.P. Morgan in the United States (his father J.S. spent much of his career in England) was an agent for the House of Rothschild, and that a percentage of his profits were claimed by his benefactor and, as a result, his fortune at his death was considerably below that of the other Gilded Age millionaires.[19]

Eustace Mullins also claimed to have found the organizing certificates of the Federal Reserve banks, and he provides charts of its international ownership structure.[20] And, as for Paul Warburg, Robert L. Owen, the Senate sponsor of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (a.k.a. the Glass-Owen Act, the progressive modification of the Aldrich plan), is quoted in Mullin’s book as having made a statement years later that Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., where Paul Warburg had been a founder and partner, was a Rothschild representative in the United States, a viewpoint shared by G. Edward Griffin in his book on the Federal Reserve.[21]

These claims are absent (and implicitly repudiated) in Ron Chernow’s The House of Morgan and Niall Ferguson’s The House of Rothschild, who note that the Rothschilds were only occasional partners with Morgan. Chernow quotes Rothschild agent Belmont as lamenting the “utter want of appreciation of the importance of American business,”[22] while Ferguson writes that the “Rothschild interest in American finance was limited” and that the “Civil War had led … to a permanent decline in the Rothschilds’ transatlantic influence.”[23] Nonetheless, Morgan and other American financiers did cooperate with the Rothschilds in this period, including the refunding issue mentioned above and the rescue of the gold standard during the Cleveland administration of the 1890s.[24]

Of course, there is no doubt that Jewish finance was international. Michael Collins Piper says that, “While the Rothschild family held sway through their banks in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, there were also such big names in Jewish finance as Bleichröder in Berlin, Warburg in Hamburg, Oppenheim in Cologne and Speyer in Frankfurt who were also emerging as powerful lords of money who worked in conjunction with one another and with the Rothschilds, competing often to be sure, but all tied together by their Jewish heritage and traditions.”[25] That is, Jewish-owned banking houses had familial and professional links within and across nations, the product of which can be thought of as an organic whole. Furthermore, to invoke the name “Rothschild” in this sense often means the same thing, making it a metonym for what Henry Ford called “International Jewish Finance.”[26] 

Banking in the First New Deal

Paul Warburg would not play any role in the FDR administration, as he died in 1932. His German-born son James, however, was brought into the Roosevelt circle in early 1933 (while he was president of the International Manhattan Co. bank[27]), chosen by brain truster Raymond Moley to be an economic advisor without title or salary after Warburg had turned down undersecretary of the treasury[28] (partly on the strength of the numerous social and business ties between the Roosevelts and Warburgs in America). Author Chernow in The Warburgs called James the “sole Wall Street renegade.”[29]

By the time Roosevelt was elected, the price of goods had fallen catastrophically (64 percent in farm products), and he decided on a multipronged strategy to rescue industry and farmers, the latter trapped in mortgages contracted at higher, pre-crash nominal prices. One option to raise prices was monetary inflation, which could be achieved with greenback printing or by raising the price of gold. An amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act gave Roosevelt the power to do either but Roosevelt chose the gold strategy.

Raising commodity prices by buying gold at successively higher prices was based on the theories of Cornell professor George F. Warren. Warren’s theory was that the price of commodities was always bound with the prices of gold, so to increase one was to increase the other. FDR therefore had Eugene Meyer’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) buy gold at steadily increasing prices. After this brought disappointing results, the gold price was stabilized in 1934 via the Gold Reserve Act.[30]

By that time the paper currency was no longer backed by gold. Warren’s reflation theories did not compel the end of the gold standard—both removing the gold backing from Federal Reserve Notes and circulating minted coins—but Roosevelt abandoned it anyway because it met further administrative goals of credit expansion in the economy.[31] So, by way of successive statutes, by 1933’s end, it became illegal for citizens and private entities (including the Fed) to ‘hoard’ (i.e., possess), export, or contract in gold, ending the standard the nation had been on officially since 1900 and unofficially since 1873. This appeared to be a win against international, deflationary finance; i.e., against “Rothschild finance.”

As far as the history of gold and Jews in America, since the nineteenth century, many leaders of the inflation lobby felt gold to be something adventitious, and it had periodically been associated with Jewry. In the 1890s, the Populists had denounced Grover Cleveland as a tool of Jewish money for striking a deal with the Rothschilds through their American agent August Belmont to save the gold standard. In 1873, the country had been taken off of the bimetallic standard that it had been on since its founding and in doing so had forced deflationary conditions that hurt farmers the most who wanted inflation through silver coinage to pay off mortgage debt. The zenith of this struggle came in the election of 1896, when William Jennings Bryan embraced the Populist formulas in capturing the Democratic Party ticket for U.S. President, losing to William McKinley.[32]

The struggle during the New Deal found inflation proponents among lobbies like the Committee for the Nation. Ihe silverites were chiefly ensconced in the Senate, with many leading Progressives favoring doing something for silver, in the phrase of the day, including Burton Wheeler from Montana and Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma.[33]

If it was a blow to the financial sector, the confiscation and manipulation of gold to raise prices and expand credit had a surprising initial response from Wall St. Given FDR’s experiments with the metal, it was perhaps providential and symbolic for New Deal progressives that “die-hard” gold defender Paul Warburg had died the same year that Roosevelt was elected. Still, his son was among those receptive to abandonment and inflation, conditional on a certain future return to the metal. As a result, James (‘Jimmy’) Warburg was even chosen as one of Roosevelt’s experts on money matters during the Hundred Days.[34] And in those uncertain days, even J.P. Morgan embraced both Roosevelt’s election and his legerdemain with gold in 1933; though there is little doubt that part of this surrender owed to both the ongoing Pecora hearings, which investigated the role of big finance in causing the stock market crash of 1929, and the desperation brought on by the Depression. As for administration bankroller Bernard Baruch, he had as a matter of principle been against inflation, but Schlesinger says that he was the type that hedged his bets, and early in 1933 he craftily used his associate Herbert Bayard Swope to confer with monetary apostates.[35]

In time, however, some of the bankers (like the business community), having rediscovered their pride, would revolt. Warburg was the first, turning on Roosevelt in the summer of 1933, becoming a leading New Deal opponent thereafter. As suggested, the break was over Roosevelt’s decision to abandon gold, nearly agreeing with conservative budget director Lew Douglas’s comment that its abandonment meant the “end of Western Civilization.” Thus, he came back into the Wall Street fold. Chernow also says that Jimmy Warburg was the “true son of a Jewish banking dynasty, for he always favored global coordination and harmony over any naked assertion of national interests.”[36]

The mild and implicit gentile-Jewish wrangling in 1933 over the political and bureaucratic differences in the Department of Agriculture between conservative George Peek and liberal Jerome Frank (seen in Part 1 of this essay[37]) would have an inverted analog in the FDR administration’s approach to monetary policy. In this instance, the Warburgs became the reactionaries that adhered to an international financial order based around gold, while the inflation lobby of the rural West and South (with its residue of Victorian populism) and among some businessmen had a progressive moral order that was set against gold, favoring bimetallism or unbacked greenback printing (expressed in the Thomas Amendment to the AAA).[38] That is, and this is a cardinal takeaway from this study: Jews could be found on both sides of this debate (Morgenthau, discussed below, was not opposed to coming off of gold), so that Jewish activity during the period was characterized less by “conspiracy” than by a general increase in influence.

Warburg was not the only revolting financial baron who had supported FDR. The nation had felt unified by the response to the collective economic struggle during the Hundred Days, but in 1933 some prominent bankers were thought to be behind the Business Plot, the reputed proposed fascist putsch on the FDR government by elements of big business and finance.[39] In short: In late 1934, General Smedley Butler testified at the Congressional McCormack-Dickstein committee that two men, a bond-salesman named Gerald Macguire and a J.P. Morgan executive named Grayson M.P. Murphy had approached him and asked him to deliver a speech to the upcoming American Legion convention in Chicago. The prepared speech was one that announced the evils of taking the nation off of gold.

More seriously, Butler was told in coded language that he might be tasked with marching on Washington with thousands of soldiers to be installed as the nation’s new leader and that Roosevelt would step aside. The establishment of the American Liberty League in 1934, which formed a year after Butler claimed MacGuire asked him to lead the coup, was an anti-New Deal organization that employed some of the same men in the plot and included many of Morgan’s men, such as Morgan’s chief attorney John W. Davis, who had written the pro-gold speech.[40]

What’s interesting for our purposes is that powerful Jews put their support behind the Business Plot, the Liberty League, and other significant pro-business and anti-New Deal organizations, some of whom funded an array of other, anti-communist and antisemitic organizations. John Spivak, a communist journalist for the Marxist-oriented New Masses magazine in the 1930s, explored the byzantine links between financiers and (his definition of) American fascism, giving special attention to the plot against Roosevelt. In the article, one learns, for instance, of the business ties between the interests of the Morgans, Hearsts, Gianninnis, Rockefellers, Duponts, and Kuhn-Loebs. Spivak identifies Morgan as the “ultimate fountain-head of the whole fascist conspiracy of Wall Street” but does not shy away from the conspicuous role of Jews within Spivak’s galaxy of fascist organizations.[41]

So, for example, Judge Joseph Proskauer, on the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee, was a director of the American Liberty League while the A.L.L.’s president Jouett Shouse, a gentile, married the daughter of Abraham Lincoln Filene of Filene’s Department Store, whose vice-president was Louis Kirstein, who was also on the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee.[42]

According to the communist Spivak, in furthering their class interests as capitalists, the Liberty League and the American Jewish Committee, motivated by the common perception that Jews were communists, were both invested in backstairs dealings with anti-Jewish organizations to fight real or suspected communism, emboldened by the dominance of the left in this period. This was a period when a lot of the press was abuzz with the sentiment that “a Communist is a Jew and a Jew is a Communist”[43] (my next essay will explore this). The former funded the Sentinels of the Republic[44] and the latter, through Lessing Rosenwald, funded Harry A. Jung’s American Vigilance Intelligence Federation. Among other things, Jung had distributed copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[45]

Spivak also claimed that Felix Warburg orchestrated the McCormack-Dickstein Committee investigations from behind the scenes. The Committee’s mandate was to look into both National Socialist and Communist activities, but Spivak claimed that Warburg and the American Jewish Committee had an interest in restricting it to Communism only. That explains the Committee’s merely half-hearted, pro forma investigation into the plot. As a result, Spivak concluded that Jewish class interests could trump their racial interests[46], but I would add that powerful Jews probably felt that they were in a position to manage the situation, not unlike Jewish support for the alleged neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in the ongoing Ukrainian war today. An important point as well is that during this period many Jews were communists (agitating from below) and some Jews were capitalists (influencing from above).[47] 

Henry Morgenthau

The summer of 1933 saw the meeting of leading Western bankers and politicians called the London Economic Conference. It was here that the decision was definitively made by Roosevelt (through his delegation) to practice economic nationalism—that America’s interests would be put above those of the international bankers, whose gold standard had a deflationary tendency and resulted in unstable price levels.

Jews were the advisors for the American delegation—James Warburg was a financial advisor, William Bullitt was an executive officer, and Herbert Feis was chief technical advisor.[48] In fact, it was to these three men that Roosevelt entrusted the entire American preparation for the conference.[49] In trying to avoid offending European sensibilities, Roosevelt (who did not travel to London) initially assented to general agreements with Britain and France for currency stabilization and an eventual return to the gold standard, but in an impudent turnabout borne out of necessity, he ultimately nixed any commitments and finally cabled that the United States would not make pledges to either goal and would to try to inflate their way out of depression. This is when Warburg decided to break relations with Roosevelt, reflecting the sentiments of much of Wall Street as well.[50]

Jimmy Warburg did not want Bernard Baruch to attend the conference because he was, for one, a mere Wall Street speculator, but also because he didn’t want Jewish opponents to see it as an “international Jewish delegation.”[51] Whether or not that was sufficient to dispel the perception of the outsize Jewish presence at the conference, it probably didn’t help Jewry against charges of elite global power that Henry Morgenthau Jr. as treasury secretary would be the nation’s chief advisor of all economic and financial matters, nationally and internationally.[52] Morgenthau would serve in this capacity until July 1945, a few months after Roosevelt’s death, when Truman accepted his resignation over not being allowed to go to the Potsdam Conference, telling Henry Stimson, “I’m not taking any of those jew boys, not Morgenthau, not Baruch” to Potsdam.[53]

Morgenthau’s elevation to Secretary of the Treasury was not based on objective merit. He was the son of the famous lawyer and ambassador to the Ottoman empire Henry Morgenthau Sr. in the Democratic progressive Wilson administration. Many Jews had embraced progressivism and the Democratic Party to further their interests. As Benjamin Ginsberg put it, the process of elite formation between the industrialists and the old-money Americans in the Gilded Age excluded Jews by the end of the nineteenth century, and Jews improved their political fortunes by supporting progressivist candidates, becoming early supporters of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.[54] Morgenthau Sr., like Baruch, had been an influential supporter of Woodrow Wilson’s presidential run in 1912.[55]

The young Morgenthau had wandered irregularly in youth. His poor grades forced him out of Exeter and later Cornell University, which his own son, Henry Morgenthau III, thought due to undiagnosed dyslexia.[56] He decided on becoming a farmer (unusual for a Jew), perhaps in part because he wanted to be free of his father[57] or because he found people “difficult and forbidding.”[58] He focused on dairy farming and apple growing, and biographer Herbert Levy assures the reader that farming for Morgenthau was more than “just bookkeeping entries” (i.e., merely a business), and says his interest was genuine, quoting Morgenthau’s son who said that he “loved nothing better than to ride horseback through the rows of apple trees at all seasons.”[59]

In 1913, Morgenthau, Jr. and Sr., jointly chose to purchase 1,000 acres in Dutchess County, New York, becoming Franklin Roosevelt’s neighbor. This was not long after Roosevelt had won a seat in the New York State Senate in 1910.[60]  Considering their later association, this fate would be judged miraculous if assumed governed by chance, but the more likely explanation is that it was a calculated strategy by the Morgenthaus to associate with probable future influencers in the Democratic Party.[61]

Nonetheless, while Roosevelt entered politics beginning in 1910, Morgenthau cut his teeth on agriculture, which continued through the 1920s. When Roosevelt became governor in 1928, he hired his erstwhile neighbor to direct the Agricultural Advisory Commission, and Morgenthau was now a political insider, gaining the chief financial office in the federal government only five years later.[62]

Levy mentions that Morgenthau “had an innate skill to run a bureaucracy,“ and that he performed it with aplomb under FDR.[63] This is a marriage of two facts, the Progressive idea of the state and the knack Jews have for administration. A Progressive creed for statecraft was summed up by Roosevelt himself during a 1930 campaign speech: “that progressive government by its very terms must be a living and growing thing, that the battle for it is never-ending and that if we let up for one single moment or one single year, not merely do we stand still but we fall back in the march of civilization.”[64]

The Jews possess managerial talents along with very able strategies for getting to the top (Baruch ran the economy for the final months of the First World War, for example). Thus, Morgenthau as commissioner of the Department of Conservation established a scientific bureau to study land management, created an advisory council of non-partisan experts, restructured the organization, and streamlined its finances.[65]

And as a technocrat he was committed to implementing the policies of the government official whom he served.[66] Morgenthau was devoted enough to Roosevelt and the nascent potential power within the rising ranks of Democrat Progressivism enough to take an unpaid position when chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Commission in Roosevelt’s first term as governor in 1930.[67] This was the beginning of Morgenthau’s union with Roosevelt for the rest of the latter’s life. Morgenthau could be relied on to deliver obedience and would provide funds for campaigns, but Levy writes that the real reason FDR liked Morgenthau was that he possessed the capacity to decode the thoughts and motivations of the sphinxlike Roosevelt.[68]

Morgenthau was more qualified to be Secretary of Agriculture, but Levy says anti-Semitism among farmers prevented this.[69] A Time Magazine article from 1934 noted that Morgenthau Jr. was no financial expert, that he consolidated his power like a dictator at Treasury, that he operated out of loyalty to FDR, and was thought to desire the subordination of the Federal Reserve to the Treasury through personal rule.[70]

Nonetheless, despite his closeness to the true-blue Morgenthau, many sources indicate that Roosevelt was not easily influenced by his advisers; James Warburg says that there was no possible power behind the throne with Roosevelt, who always called the shots in the end.[71] Morgenthau was even the chief target of an occasional and subtle sadism that Roosevelt characteristically displayed in ribbing his subordinates.[72]

Morgenthau got the Treasury job when FDR improvised a legal solution to getting the government to buy gold, one that met with consternation by Undersecretary of Treasury Dean Acheson.[73] Acheson, who was acting Treasury Secretary with a dying William H. Woodin, was forced to resign by Roosevelt. In looking for a replacement, he chose Morgenthau, based on thin qualifications as a financial expert. When Morgenthau got the news, Levy reports that he “broke out in a cold sweat,” knowing little about the “effects of currency flow or banking.”[74]

Prior to his appointment in January of 1934, Roosevelt had been using him as an “unofficial ‘minister without portfolio’—a ‘troubleshooter’” in occasional money matters. Whether connected or not, during the Hundred Days Roosevelt had been informed of George Warren’s theories on Morgenthau’s recommendations and was compelled to use his inflation theories when the midwestern radical Farmers’ Holiday Association threatened a farmers’ strike on Washington. The Association was headed by Milo Reno, who was one of those who would charge in 1935 that the New Deal was a “Jew Deal.”[75]

Since our discussion carries us to only 1936, we will not deal with the issues arising from the war, most notably the Morgenthau Plan, for the destruction of post-World War II Germany for which he is assuredly best remembered. In 1935 and 1936, he would help coordinate international exchange policy, at one point charging Hitler with violating Smoot-Hawley through a currency devaluation, getting new import duties on Germany over the objections of the State Department, impressing the French socialist government of Léon Blum, and allowing Franco-American exchange talks to go ahead.[76] Whether based on economic need or not, these international transactions among Jews could not have escaped the attention of the Hitler government.

Silver  and Father Charles Couglin

Since his opinions tended to follow Roosevelt’s, Morgenthau had helped Roosevelt set the prices each day for gold when Professor Warren’s theories were being experimented with. They both, however, opposed mandatory bimetallism as advocated in the Bryan tradition through the coining of silver, which was in the interest of the rural South and West and was represented by pro-silver senators, such as Key Pittman and Burton Wheeler.[77] Schlesinger writes that, “Gold was the rich man’s metal, the creditor’s metal, the banker’s metal; silver, the poor man’s metal, the debtor’s metal, the worker’s metal—and that had been true ever since the House of Rothschild in Populist folklore had begun a century before to drive silver out of the currencies of the world.”[78]

The Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 had authorized the Treasury to buy and mint silver, but neither the President nor the Secretary of Treasury had acted. The silver bloc in Congress in early 1934 was as vocal as ever and Roosevelt was forced to compromise, resulting in the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, which required the government to buy and mint silver, though according to Schlesinger it wasn’t the monetary panacea the lobby anticipated.[79]

From a contemporary standpoint, during this period the silver issue as well as anti-Semitism are both associated with Father Charles Coughlin, who had made a name for himself in the 1920s from his Detroit ministry. Roosevelt was being threatened during his first term by the twin demagogic political and cultural surge of Coughlin and Senator Huey Long of Louisiana for the allegiance of the nation.

Coughlin (pronounced “COG-lin”[80]), had a brief row with Roosevelt and Morgenthau in 1934 during the silver debates at a time when “The Radio Priest” was waging warfare against capitalism, particularly its financial sector.[81] To retaliate against Coughlin, “Morgenthau had launched an investigation of silver speculators. … The most interesting feature was the revelation that, while Father Coughlin had been demanding the ‘mobilization of all Christianity against the god of gold,’ his secretary had been prudently investing the funds of the Father’s Radio League of the Little Flower in silver futures.”[82] Betraying the association of gold with Jews, Coughlin responded by saying, “Mr. Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, has completed his clumsy effort to protect the gold advocates, the Federal Reserve bankers and the international bankers of ill-repute” and that silver was a “gentile” metal (Morgenthau himself, as an FDR loyalist and pragmatist, was not against ending gold).[83]

For years Coughlin had preferred to couch his monetary critique in somewhat vague abstractions, frequently denouncing “international bankers” and the “money changers.”[84] It was only after Roosevelt was elected that he began floating the names of specific changers. Alan Brinkley noted that, despite the anti-Semitic impression many people in the early 1930s got from hearing his speeches—when Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Eugene Meyer, and Bernard Baruch were named—gentile banking firms and individuals were cited 50 percent more often by Coughlin from 1933 on, including Andrew Mellon, Odgen Mills, Thomas Lamont, but especially J.P. Morgan. For Coughlin, Morgan was the symbol par excellence of the evil banker.[85] His “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” were Morgan, Mellon, Mills, and Meyer.[86]

Prior to 1938, he only occasionally denounced the Jews as Jews. In an August 1936 convention in Cleveland campaigning for Union Party presidential candidate William Lemke, he said “You appreciate the fact to my dear friends, that, among other things, in the National Union for Social Justice, we are Christian insofar as we believe in Christ’s principle of love your neighbor as yourself, and with that principle, I challenge every Jew in this nation to tell me that he does not believe in it!”[87] By 1938 he entered a more explicitly anti-Jewish phase, serializing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his newspaper.[88]

Coughlin’s radio program was reaching millions at its peak, but in the later 1930s Coughlin was attacked by the administration, which imposed new regulations on radio broadcasters, which he was able to temporarily work around until America’s entry into the Second World War, which pressured him into permanent silence under the threat of America’s sedition laws.[89]


Monetary Policy and Banking in the Second New Deal

In the second book of his FDR trilogy, The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger writes about the end of laissez-faire in the financial sector:

In the twenties, the national monetary policy had been run to a great degree in New York by Benjamin Strong and the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Decisions basic to the nation’s economic future were made not by government officials accountable to the people but by bankers in Manhattan board rooms. In 1933, as a result of Roosevelt’s gold policy—and even more, perhaps, of such reforms as the new banking legislation and the control of margins under the Securities Act—this situation came to an end. The nation asserted its control over its monetary policy. In this process, the financial capital of the United States began to shift from Wall Street to Washington.[90]

The Federal Reserve Board is the government side of the Federal Reserve system, originally created to provide for public oversight as a necessary counterweight to  the influence of bankers.[91] The control by the Federal Reserve banks during the 1920s was so total as to “reduce the public Board in Washington to impotence.”[92] Monetary policy was run by officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in cahoots with those in the Bank of England, with the former oftentimes carrying out policy for the latter’s interest.[93] However, once nations were forced off of gold during the financial crisis (Britain in 1931 and the U.S. in 1933), Fed policy increasingly took orders from the White House during 1933–34, and in 1935 the balance of the decision-making was tipped in favor of the government.[94]

The Banking Act of 1935 was the brainchild of Marriner Eccles, a Mormon banker who joined the administration soon after impressing Rexford Tugwell and Roosevelt with the content and the vehemence of his gospel of deficit spending (i.e., Keynesianism) and his desire to reform the banking system to subordinate the Federal Reserve banks to the Federal Reserve Board. He had felt that the Federal Reserve system was run by private concerns with a view to their interest and felt an overhaul was in order for the national interest. To this end, his bill made a number of changes to the Fed including public management of open-market operations (through a Federal Open Market Committee) and a reorganization of Board membership to favor selecting fewer bankers.[95] In 1934, Henry Morgenthau’s assistant Jacob Viner, an influential Jewish economist from the University of Chicago, had chaired a committee to recommend changes that would make the Fed more accountable to the public, but Eccles’s repudiated them as insufficient.[96]

Jimmy Warburg opened the attacks against Eccles’s bill when Virginia Senator Carter Glass opened hearings on it (Glass, who was Eccles’s biggest critic in Congress, had helped author the original Federal Reserve Act in 1913). A momentary split had developed between Eccles and Morgenthau during the debates, with Morgenthau to the left of Eccles, desiring stock ownership of the Federal Reserve banks by the government, based on a casual suggestion by FDR, to which, however, Roosevelt remained non-committal. Morgenthau backed off and after some political wrangling by Glass that proved to be more theater than horse-trading, the bill was passed, essentially originally what Eccles had wanted, which put banking in control of the government.[97]

 

Frankfurter, Brandeis, and the Security Acts

I want to close this first inquiry into Jewish influence in the New Deal—whether the “Jew Deal” charge had merit—with the two men who were most associated with it, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter. Bernard Baruch and Gerard Swope influenced the First New Deal of the NRA and the AAA. Brandeis and Frankfurter’s influence was predominantly in the Second New Deal, about which much more will be will be said in a future essay.[98]  Still, Brandeis and Frankfurter had an impact during the First New Deal in securities and exchange legislation, in their opinions on the chief recovery statutes, in early legislation written by Frankfurter and his students, or traceable to Frankfurter and Brandeis’s own ideas as progressives.

Known as the “people’s lawyer,” Brandeis, since the Homestead Steel Works strike of 1892, devoted himself to an intensely moralistic social justice posture, fighting for the worker, unions, the consumer, and the citizen against corporate giants and political corruption.[99] He won fame while battling J.P. Morgan in a multi-year struggle over a New Haven Railroad monopoly beginning in 1907, bringing hatred from the Boston WASPs.[100]

Among Progressives, Brandeis had been for protection of the individual against modern corporations through “regulated competition, unhampered enterprise, and economic freedom,”[101] and for decades he had not changed his conviction that “bigness,” whether of business or government, was a danger to the individual’s liberty. His conception of freedom was based on economic liberty within an ideal Jeffersonian republic of smaller businesses, and he opposed the prevailing trend towards large corporate organization, the financial powers of Wall St., and the trusts and holding companies. As the author of the New Freedom strategy of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign, utilizing the power of his characteristic sense of moral superiority, he would insist on the certainty of invoking antitrust legislation to better ensure that ideal republic.[102]

Frankfurter, like Brandeis, was a lawyer who heeded the liberal progressive call to action, after hearing a high-minded speech Brandeis himself gave in 1905 before the Harvard Ethical Society while Frankfurter was a young, idealistic student at its law school.[103] A friend of Frankfurter said that he “collects people”, inveterately networking across his career to help construct the liberal state.[104] In doing so, he would mimic Brandeis in numerous and varied ways, from directly following him as counsel to Florence Kelley’s National Consumer League in the battle over worker rights in Oregon, to being a leader in American Zionism, and all the way to the Supreme Court as a Justice (it’s no wonder then that when Brandeis became a justice in 1916, Frankfurter cemented a “half-brother, half-son” relationship.[105])

Contemporary journalist John Franklin Carter said about the pair that Frankfurter, “more than any other one person is the legal mastermind of the New Deal, although he is in large part only the transmitter of the apostolic succession of Louis D. Brandeis.”[106] Still, though Frankfurter had maintained similar convictions in copying his master’s habits and beliefs as fellow front-line liberals, there was never a complete committal to “Old Isaiah’s” ideological blueprint, which created contributive flexibility.[107] By the time the FDR revolution emerged, Frankfurter had decided to assist the left New Deal planners of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Administration, and its “bigness” designs, owing to his not being the ideologue that Brandeis was; he was more pragmatic,[108] much like FDR himself, continuously following the twisting road of history as it revealed itself bit by bit and to strike at opportune moments. And from his professorship at Harvard Law School (and during the early New Deal from Oxford University), he could influence events through his advice and by being a “one-man recruiting agency” for New Deal talent.[109]

As a result, he was involved with the creation of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933; Frankfurter helped draft some of its labor provisions, and after its passage he was Hugh Johnson’s first choice for NRA general counsel.[110] He would also play a lead role in attempting to save the NRA two years later. In 1935, Brandeis voted in the judicial majority against NIRA in the Supreme Court Panama Refining and Schechter cases which struck the law down, after which Brandeis scolded Frankfurter’s proteges Benjamin Cohen and James Corcoran, telling them that the President was living in a “fool’s paradise.”[111] For his own part, Frankfurter predicted it would fail because it wasn’t drafted to satisfy Chief Justice Charles Hughes’s agency requirements for delegation of powers. As a result, Frankfurter insisted on writing better legislation to conform to what the Hughes Court wanted, which would pay dividends for the later New Deal.[112]

Several securities acts were important New Deal monetary policies. While Frankfurter was doing his best to nourish the New Deal from overseas in England (while teaching from the fall of 1933 to the summer semester of 1934), the Pecora Commission in Washington was grilling influential bankers and stockbrokers to get to the bottom of the causes of the crash of 1929.[113] Two statutes that resulted from this inquiry, the Securities Act of 1933 (for new security issues) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (for secondary market securities), had heavy Jewish input. (The other statute that resulted was Glass-Steagall.)

The Securities Act of 1933, one of the Hundred Days statutes, was in many ways the New Deal sequel to a bill, drafted in 1914 by Texas Congressman Sam Rayburn with Brandeis’s assistance, that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission more control of the issuing of railroad securities.[114] Almost 20 years later and with a revived progressivism, Rayburn led the way in Congress for a proper securities bill. Needing assistance, he appealed to advisor Ray Moley to find someone suited to help draft a proper bill. Moley would turn to Frankfurter. To assist, Frankfurter sent his students, most notably James Landis and the “Gold Dust Twins,” Thomas Corcoran and Benjamin V. Cohen, who were Frankfurter’s most important disciples in the New Deal.[115]

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established the Security and Exchange Commission, was also a very Jewish affair. The first draft of what would be the act was written by Samuel Untermyer before being discarded. Untermyer, Jewish lawyer Max Lowenthal and the Pecora Commission’s chief counsel Ferdinand Pecora, anticipating a request for a stock exchange bill by the government, called on Frankfurter’s star pupil Cohen (also a protégé of Lowenthal’s[116]) to pen a replacement draft. Cohen reunited with Thomas Corcoran (from the earlier Securities Act) with help from Landis, and several months of constant work and testimony (by Corcoran) and battling for the bill in Congress by many congressmen, including Senate Banking Committee chair Duncan Fletcher and Sam Rayburn of Texas in the House, produced the bill.[117]

At this point, Snyder writes that charges of a “Jew Deal” and Communism “cropped up with increasing frequency” by businessmen, writers, and Congress. Frankfurter’s circle came under direct fire by Congressman Frank Britton who charged that the House of Truth in Washington (a quasi-Jewish thinktank) was a breeding ground for subversive and alien ideas.[118] A school superintendent in Gary, Indiana named William A. Wirt also made headlines for alleging that the New Deal was part of a design to communize the United States.[119]

As mentioned, the attacks of 1934 were part of a reenergized business community, no longer pliant as in the heady and desperate Hundred Days. The attacks would resume until Roosevelt regained momentum in 1935. Once Frankfurter was back from Cambridge, Roosevelt requested to see him immediately, as the New Deal was in trouble and would face legal headwinds, that would ultimately need to remediated by the Second New Deal.[120] And the Jews would contain to play a role. The Second New Deal is explored in my next essay.


[1] ”The nineteenth century saw the rise of several prominent banking partnerships such as those created by the Rothschilds, the Barings and the Browns. At this point, investment banking had started to evolve into its modern form, with banks underwriting and selling government bonds.” In “The History of Investment Banking,” International Finance Institute.

See also: Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme (American Free Press, 2009), 111.

[2] John Moody, The Masters of Capital (Yale University Press, 1919), 9.

[3] Jay Cooke, Wikipedia, last modified September 16, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Cooke

[4] Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990), 13.

[5] Ibid., 36, 30.

[6] Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 64. Joseph Seligman was powerful enough to elicit an invitation by President Grant to become Secretary of the Treasury in 1869, a role that Henry Morgenthau would fill under Roosevelt. See Ginsberg, 59.

[7] Samuel T. Francis, Leviathan and Its Enemies (Washington Summit Publishers, 2016), 375.

[8] Paul Warburg once wrote, in despair of ever launching a central bank, that an “abhorrence of both extremes”—that is, of Washington and of Wall Street—“had led to an almost fanatic conviction” in favor of extreme decentralization. Roger Lowenstein, “The Jewish Story Behind the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank,” Forward (November 29, 2015). https://forward.com/culture/325447/the-man-behind-the-fed/

[9] Verne B. Johnston, “Origins,” Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (December 30, 1983), 1. Niall Ferguson notes suspicion of big banks in particular. Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets 1798–1848 (Penguin Publishing Group, 1998), 369.

[10] The others were senator Nelson Aldrich, economist A. Piatt Andrews, and bankers Henry P. Davidson, Benjamin Strong, and Frank Vanderlip.

[11] Harold Kellock, “Warburg, the Revolutionist,” The Century Magazine (May, 1915, 81). https://archive.org/details/centurymagazine90newyrich/centurymagazine90newyrich/page/79/mode/1up?q=Warburg.

[12] Paul Warburg, Wikipedia, last modified October 5, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

[13] For an example, see Arthur Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (Harpers & Brothers, 1954), 44.

[14] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope (The MacMillan Company, 1966), 530.

[15] This is not to say that scholars don’t discuss transnational links. Ron Chernow, for example, mentions merchant banking interlocking partnerships on an international scale. See Chernow, The House of Morgan, 33.

[16] Eustace Mullins, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (Common Sense, 1954).

[17] Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (Bankers Research Institute, 1952), 23, 48.

[18] Ibid., 49.

[19] Ibid., 57 (footnote). Mullins would presumably agree that this is what caused Andrew Carnegie to assert, upon receiving news of the elder Morgan’s death, “And to think he was not a rich man.” In Chernow, The House of Morgan, 159.

[20] Mullins, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, 34. He doesn’t give any citation for the claims, but the numbers and detail of the claims would be inspired if a hoax.

[21] Ibid., 17. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island (American Media, 2010), 5. Griffin claims that Warburg bought his partnership in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. from Rothschild money. In Ibid., 18.

[22] Chernow, The House of Morgan, 40.

[23] Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker 1849–1999 (Penguin Publishing Group, 1999), 117–18.

[24] Chernow, The House of Morgan, Ch. 5.

[25] Piper, The New Babylon, 114.

[26] Ibid., 117. For example, Jacob Schiff’s father had worked for the Rothschilds as a broker and the Schiffs and the Warburgs married into the Loeb family of America. “Jacob Schiff,” Wikipedia, last modified August 9, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

“Paul Warburg,” Wikipedia, last modified October 5, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

[27] James Warburg, The Long Road Home (Doubleday, 1964), 111.

[28] Ron Chernow, The Warburgs (Random House, 1993), 385. Also in Warburg, The Long Road Home, 112.

[29] Chernow, The Warburgs, 385.

[30] Eugene Meyer was the fifth chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1930 to 1933. Meyer’s financial interests had ties with Baruch’s, and Meyer, like Baruch, was important in the First World War, heading the War Finance Corporation, which became the basis for his Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1933. With its capitalization by bankers, the RFC attempted to revive the economy using loans to troubled banks during the banking crisis that began in 1931 with the failure of the large Jewish-owned The Bank of United States in New York, setting off a chain of bank failures until Franklin Roosvelt shut down the banks the week he took office. See: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957), 236–238. See also: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959), 239, and “Eugene Meyer (financier),” Wikipedia, last modified October 23, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Meyer_(financier).

The Jews were so well connected, that Henry Morgenthau Sr. was asked to represent the stockholders (he refused). His son, of course, would become important in FDR’s administration and was responsible for the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany after the Second World War. Roosevelt sent governor Herbert Lehman to effect a merger of other failing Jewish-owned banks with the Bank of United States (it failed). Lehman is listed by Schlesinger as having been one of the top donors to Roosevelt for President, behind Morgenthau Sr. See: Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957), 280.

[31] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959), 199.

[32] Chernow, The Warburgs, Ch. 5.

[33] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 248–249.

[34] Chernow, The Warburgs, 386.

[35] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 196.

[36] Chernow, 387.

[37] Frederick Talmadge, “The Jews and the First New Deal, 1933–1934,” The Occidental Quarterly 25 (Spring 2025): 63–105.

[38] The two analogous centers were also connected by policy through the emergency. One of Henry Wallace’s strategies at the Department of Agriculture to raise the catastrophically low commodity prices was through inflation, and one method of achieving inflation was through gold price manipulation.

[39] “Business Plot,” Wikipedia, last modified October 22, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[40] Jules Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House (Skyhorse Publishing, 2015), 31.

[41] John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, II,” New Masses (February 5, 1935), 13.

[42] Ibid., 14.

[43] Ibid., 12.

[44] Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House, 31. Archer claimed that “Its members [included some rich businessmen who] labeled the New Deal ‘Jewish Communism,’” and also that they demanded an American Hitler.

[45] John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, I,” New Masses (January 29, 1935), 13. For information on Jung’s activities, see: Ray P. Chase (who represented Minnesota in Congress, 1933–1935), “Ray Chase Seeks to Collaborate with Harry A. Jung, Notorious Extremist Antisemite,” A Campus Divided (1940); source: Minnesota Historical Society, RP Chase, Box 44, Correspondence and Miscellaneous papers, Folder (December, 1940). https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/letter/ray-chase-seeks-to-collaborate-with-harry-a-jung-notorious-extremist-antisemite/

[46] Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, II,” 14.

[47] For information on Jews and Communism, see: Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners, Jews as a Hostile Elite in the Soviet Union,” The Occidental Quarterly 5, no. 3 (Fall, 2005): 65–100. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf

[48] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 209.

[49] Ibid., 204.

[50] Roosevelt began to feel that a group set up by Warburg to study the monetary issue was beholden to New York interests. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 237.

[51] Chernow, The Warburgs, 391.

[52] “United States Secretary of the Treasury,” Wikipedia, last modified October 12, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury#Powers_and_functions

[53] Lucinda Franks, Timeless: Love, Morgenthau, and Me (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014), 52.

[54] Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace, 61–62.

[55] “Henry Morgenthau Sr.,” Wikipedia, last modified October 14, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Sr.#Political_career

[56] Herbert Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.: The Remarkable Life of FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury (Skyhorse publishing, 2010), 62.

[57] Ibid., 88.

[58] Ibid., 241.

[59] Ibid., 117.

[60] Ibid., 90.

[61] See Jeff Gates, Guilt by Association (State Street Publications, 2008), 52.

[62] Roosevelt would rely on many Jews as governor, including speechwriter Sam Rosenman and Jessie I. Straus, who was the first leader of the state Temporary Emergency Relief Administration program. See: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Governor_of_New_York_(1929-1932)

[63] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 187. This was fortunate for him because his farm “sustained huge losses” most of the time. Ibid., 117.

[64] “Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

[65] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 228–230. As another example, consider that Felix Frankfurter gave suggestions for the reorganization of the War Department during World War I. See: Brad Snyder, Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (W.W. Norton and Company, 2022), 96.

[66] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 117; 241.

[67] Ibid., 228.

[68] Ibid., 200-01.

[69] See: Talmadge, “The Jews and the First New Deal, 1933–1934.”

[70] “The Cabinet: Atlas & His Burden,” Time Magazine (September 17, 1934). https://time.com/archive/6895177/the-cabinet-atlas-his-burden/

To be fair, Warburg pointed out that the previous Secretary, William Woodin, had no financial experience as Treasury Secretary either. It’s worth pointing out that James Warburg was offered the Undersecretary of the Treasury by FDR in 1933, but declined. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 196.

[71] Warburg, The Long Road Home, 113.

[72] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 537.

[73] FDR’s solution was to create a subordinate agency under the RFC to buy the gold instead of the Treasury (which Acheson said could not buy outside of the statutory price of $20.67 per ounce). The RFC would buy the gold under the condition that the gold would be collateral for the loans the Treasury would make to the RFC which the latter would need to purchase the gold. Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 259–60; Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 238.

[74] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 265.

[75] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval (Houghton Mifflin, 1960), 27.

[76] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 285.

[77] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 248.

[78] Ibid., 248.

[79] Ibid., 257.

[80] Clyde Haberman, “The Father Coughlin Story,” PBS, Exploring Hate (March 9, 2022). https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/03/09/today-in-history-the-father-coughlin-story/

[81] See Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 18–20.

[82] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 251.

[83] Abba Hillel Silver, “Father Coughlin,” Jewish Daily Bulletin (May 6, 1934).

[84] Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest (Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 271.

[85] Ibid., 271–272.

[86] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 18.

[87] “Coughlin ‘Challenges’ Jews to Adopt ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Precept,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (August 18, 1936), 4 You can watch him say it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ljscYrxr8.

[88] Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest (Alfred A. Knopf, 1983); see Appendix I for a short essay about Coughlin and the Jews.

[89] “Charles Coughlin,” Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Backlash

[90] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 247.

[91] David C. Wheelock, “Overview: The History of the Federal Reserve,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (September 13, 2021). https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-history

[92] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 292.

[93] This was not just because the center of international finance was the City of London, but also because it needed America to raise its domestic discount rates to stop Britain’s continual hemorrhaging of its limited gold supplies after it returned to gold in 1926. During the First World War, the belligerents were forced off of gold to fund the conflict; the priority for international financiers after the war was for nations to return to—to “stabilize”on—the gold standard. See Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, 342.

[94] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 301. See also: Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 278; Wheelock, “Overview: The History of the Federal Reserve.”

[95] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 293–294.

[96] “Banking Act of 1935,” Wikipedia, last modified June 19, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_Act_of_1935#Origin

[97] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 298–301.

[98] Brandeis and Frankfurter’s contributions are more significant than Swope and Baruch because the agencies they had the most impact on, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Social Security Act, were not struck down by the courts.

[99] Leonard Baker, Brandeis and Frankfurter: A Dual Biography (Harper & Row, 1984), 35. As an example of his reputation, Brandeis’s contrarian professional crusades led him to be “thoroughly hated by most of the leaders of the bar.” Ibid., 17.

[100] Ibid., 46–47.

[101] Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 20.

[102] Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order, 28–31. Though always opposed to “bigness”, under the real constraints of Wilson’s first term, Brandeis quickly capitulated in order to promote new agencies of government that could be regulated.

[103] Ibid., 40.

[104] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 38.

[105] Ibid., 72.

[106] Carter, The New Dealers (Simon & Schuster, 1934), 317.

[107] “Old Isaiah” was FDR’s nickname for Brandeis.

[108] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 219; 251.

[109] Ibid., 224.

[110] Ibid., 223. Chicago progressive Donald Richberg (a gentile) got the job.

[111] Paul D. Moreno, Moreno, The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 255. His admonition to Cohen and Corcoran over the fate of NIRA had nothing to do with Brandeis being against Roosevelt or to progressivism, which remained undiminished over the decades. As stated, in that case, he merely disagreed with the philosophical approach.

[112] Daniel Ernst, Tocqueville’s Nightmare (Oxford University Press, 2014), 60-61.

[113] Pecora Commission, Wikipedia

[114] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 440. See also Baker, Brandeis and Frankfurter, 283.

[115] Leonard Dinnerstein, “Jews and the New Deal,” American Jewish History 72, no. 4 (June 1983): 461–476, 468. Corcoran was an Irish Catholic.

[116] Max Lowenthal, Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Lowenthal#Private_law_practice

[117] Carter, The New Dealers, 156; see also: Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 456–58.

[118] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 237. Frankfurter had been in contact with Cohen and Corcoran over the phone the entire time and displayed the characteristic coolness and excitement for battle.

[119] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 457–460.

[120] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 238.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Frederick Talmadge https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Frederick Talmadge2025-05-15 07:24:532025-05-16 09:11:50Jews and the New Deal: Banking and Money

Tucker’s Interview with Ernst Roets on South Africa: The good, the bad, and the ugly

May 14, 2025/13 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Kevin MacDonald

Also of interest: US Halts Aid To South Africa ‘Immediately’ As Trump Offers Fast-Tracked Citizenship For Persecuted White Farmers | ZeroHedge

This is an interesting interview. Lots of good stuff on the failure of post-apartheid South Africa—crumbling infrastructure,  incompetent government unable to provide electricity and water on a regular basis—or even carry out anti-White measures apart from taxation (“virtually every sphere of society is collapsing, with the exception of taxation”), that it’s unrealistic to expect Africans to respect or develop democratic institutions, the threat of mob violence, the need to hire private security services because the government protects neither property nor lives, and a law allowing land seizure from Whites given to Blacks without compensation (and if a Black South African sells his land to a White, the land can still be seized without compensation; but wait! The media claimed that there was compensation—null compensation, so just relax). And, as throughout the West, there is anti-White hate in high places based on American Critical Race Theory (“which essentially boils down to a theory that justifies the targeting and extermination of the white minority” because they “are not truly human”; “so they would say, no, [“kill the Boer”] is just a metaphor, but it’s preceded by a speech about how white people are criminals and should be treated like criminals, how everything they have is illegitimate and stolen, in which people are encouraged to go and invade their farms and so forth. And then they chant, “kill the Boer”). It goes without saying that The New York Times et al. would be thrilled if in fact there was genocide against White South Africans.

But despite all this, the commitment of White South Africans to stay in South Africa and their attachment to the country remains, and Roets predicts few Boers will take up Trump’s offer of refugee status and expedited path to citizenship. According to Roets, Trump would contribute far more if he had the U.S. pressure South Africa to ensure self-determination of different groups, including for the Boers. Roets’s solution is for communities to band together against the hate and violence and eventually develop a state of their own. He cites examples where armed Whites have stood up successfully against threats of mob violence and against murdering White farmers to the point that farm murders are declining. But Roets realizes this is not a long-term solution and that the Boer-descended people must have self-determination.

What’s frustrating is their discussion of why all this is happening—why so much anti-White hate that is applauded or ignored in the Western media. For example, Tucker asks this question and never has anything close to a satisfactory answer. They discuss the Whites-only town of Orania:

A neighborhood, a community of 3000 people, which is tiny even by South African standards, has received unrelenting negative media attention in the West. Why is that? Such a moral crime, such an outrage to have a community like that? …

Why, why, why the hostility. And that’s true globally, by the way, there’s not any White majority country. There are very few left. Very few left. But they’re just suspect because they exist. What is that?

 Various possibilities are tossed around—affluence, World War II, nationalism are rejected. The closest they come to getting it right is when Roets hints that there is a hostile elite that dominates all the high places in Western societies, in politics, the media, and academia, but they don’t make a serious analysis of who constitutes that elite and why they hate White people:

Ernst Roets [00:50:18] I’d like to believe, and I hope that I’m right, that it’s it’s a minority within the Western world that really believes this stuff [i.e., the idea that Whites are evil and don’t deserve a homeland].

Tucker [00:50:24] I think.

Ernst Roets [00:50:25] But they have significant power and influence.

Tucker [00:50:27] They do that.

Ernst Roets [00:50:28] They are the editors of newspapers. They are the prime ministers. They are professors at universities and so forth. And those are the people who are promoting this type of idea.

In other words, Roets has listed the three main sources of Jewish power in the West: The media, politics, and academia. They mention World War II, but neither try to come up with a serious theory of why the Western elites changed after World War II. My theory of course is that the post-World War II era saw the rise of a hostile Jewish elite in the media, in the universities, and—via donations enabled by Jewish wealth—in the political culture (e.g., the power of the Israel Lobby enabled by instilling fear in politicians). In other words, it has been a top-down political and cultural revolution enabled at least partly by Western individualism but motivated by Jewish fears of a homogeneous White society (paradigmatically National Socialism) and atavistic Jewish hatred toward the West that’s been festering for 2000 years because of the expulsions, pogroms, attempts at forced conversions, and most recently, the holocaust.

Re individualism, I have emphasized that a powerful mechanism of social control in individualistic societies is the creation of moral communities. Tucker seems to realize this:

But I actually think that the only thing the people currently in charge of most of the world, certainly of the West, are good at, is seizing the moral high ground. And they don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. They’re rotten. Their ideas are rotten, and they don’t deserve to lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority. While they’re endorsing the murder of people for how they were born. Sorry.

Later, Roets seems to understand this:

So, I think what the Afrikaner people need to do is in a large, to a large extent, built their own self-determination. And I think that that’s what we what we intend to do. But it would help a lot if we can get recognition for this pursuit as a legitimate pursuit.

The problem, of course, is that self-determination for any White group is seen by our hostile elite as completely illegitimate.

They mention Elon Musk:

Tucker: But we were required to talk about South Africa in a very specific way and to repeat certain cliches really at gunpoint. And that’s changed in the past couple of months, and it’s really changed due to a South African émigré called Elon Musk. This is my perspective. You tell me yours. But he has made it possible through X, but also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority …, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel about that?

Ernst Roets [00:51:53] Yes. So I don’t know how much of what is in his biography by Isaacson is true, but it does seem from his biography that he’s had some bad experiences growing up in South Africa, which is unfortunate. [In the Isaacson biography Musk describes how brutal South African schools and summer camp were—he had to learn how to fight. So it’s not surprising he hasn’t donated much to them. And no, he did not receive money from his father, a  common myth on the left; he designed a website and sold it. And although he did not found Tesla, when he got involved they had produced no cars and were really more of an idea than anything else.] And we’re still not sure quite how attached he still is to South Africa as a country. But looking at his X and his comments, it’s very clear that he’s interested. And the strange thing is, even though some people are very angry with him for speaking about South Africa, the only thing that he’s really doing is he’s picking up a mirror and he’s saying, look at what’s happening in South Africa.

Finally some good advice for all of us.

Roets:  And I honestly think in the situation we are in, it’s better to on the side of being too bold than to be on the side of having not enough courage or trying to find some form of solution through appeasement. And so we make mistakes in the process. And, and you know, sometimes you say something wrong or you do something wrong, but I’m very much convinced that if we’re on this course and we try to pursue what we are trying to pursue, rather on the side of having too much boldness and too much courage and facing the consequences, then having to face the consequences of having a lack of courage.

In the following somewhat rough transcript provided by TCN I have bold-faced passages that I think are of general interest.

*   *   *

Ernst Roets: Attacks on Whites in South Africa, Attempts to Hide It, and Trump’s Plan to End It

Tucker [00:00:00] So, I think for most Americans, news about South Africa ended in 1994. Both literally. We stopped getting a lot of news from the country, but also people’s views about it stopped evolving. Then that was the year that that apartheid ended, I guess officially you had elections. Nelson Mandela, still a hero in the United States, often referred to by politicians. And it’s only been, I think, in American media in the past couple of months that stories have come out of South Africa that have, you know, a lot of Americans have read that actually, the country seems to be falling apart and that the government is kind of genocidal racist. Yeah. And and then President Trump in the past month has basically said the same, the same thing. And it’s shocking to a lot of people, I think, how bad it is and how just how racist it is, you know, far more than apartheid ever was. And so I’m wondering, since you’ve just landed from South Africa, you live there? What? Describe the state of the country right now, if you would?

Ernst Roets [00:01:25] Yeah, well, perhaps I can start with your reference about the 90s, because it’s absolutely true. South Africa and America was very involved with the setting up of the political system in South Africa during the 90s. And it was, of course, the end of an historical era. Everyone is excited about the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the whole world’s going to be liberal and democratic, including African countries. Yes. And Samuel Huntington actually cautioned against this in 1996, saying, you know, when you wrote The Clash of Civilizations and he said, don’t expect of African leaders and African liberation movements to suddenly become Western when you give them Western constitutions because they are still African, so they will use it’s the democratic paradox. They will use democratic institutions to promote non-democratic ends. And that’s what we see in South Africa. We have a parliament, we have a very liberal constitution. But if you read the Constitution and you compare that to reality in South Africa, it’s two completely different worlds. The de facto [image] in the diaspora [and] reality in South Africa are irreconcilable. And so what has been happening in South Africa is firstly, there was this major excitement about the new South Africa, Nelson Mandela, the miracle story. You know, Oprah was spoke about this and Charlize everyone and and but the reality on ground level was in many ways the opposite. And I think a lot.

Tucker [00:02:42] From the beginning.

Ernst Roets [00:02:43] And gradually so so they started for example, with these be as they call it, its black economic empowerment, which of course has nothing to do with economic empowerment. They started with that in 1996. And so they actually said initially in the 90s that that’s the ruling party’s strategy. They still call it that, the national democratic revolution, which is about using democracy to promote socialist ends. And so the revolution, they say it goes in two phases. The first phase is present yourself as being liberal and democratic and get support, especially international support and local, and then use multi-party democracy as a way of promoting the goals of taking the country down the road to socialism. And so recently, they even went as far as publishing a document saying, we are now ready for the second phase of the revolution. We now have power. We have control of the state. We now you need to use this to become much more aggressive in our socialist policies. And we seeing this in a plethora of new laws all of a sudden in South Africa, which I think, I think it’s gotten to the point where it’s just not possible to maintain the view that people have had of South Africa for the last few decades and look at what’s currently happening in South Africa. It’s two completely different worlds, and hopefully or happily, at least a lot of people are starting to to wake up to this.

Tucker [00:04:03] So you said Samuel Huntington wrote that in 1996, two years after the election. I kind of thought that from day one, simply because I knew people there, and I was more familiar with the details of the mandelas. Yes. So but I think most Americans, I don’t think, had any idea, like, what was Nelson Mandela on Robben Island for? What was in prison for, well, for being black. Was there another reason?

Ernst Roets [00:04:31] Well, literally. So I have I have children and they are taught in schools. And the government prescribes what children should learn in history. And so the the official version is he went to prison because he was a good leader and the government didn’t like that. I should say that he certainly was the best that the ANC has ever had to offer. Yes, but the reason why he went to prison is because they started to contour his way, which was the military wing of the ANC, which became involved with military actions in South Africa with an attempt to overthrow the government. And actually and this is, this is I’m quoting from the ANC’s own policy documents that’s on their own website, so that this operation, when they started, which was used in the Rivonia Trial against Nelson Mandela, it was a strategy called Operation Miyabi. And the slogan of this operation was shamelessly, we shall attack the weak, and shamelessly we shall flee from the strong. So those were the circumstances in the 1960s.

Tucker [00:05:30] Pretty noble policy statement there will attack the weak and flee from the strong…

Ernst Roets [00:05:35] And it’s still on their website. You can find it there. So that was it was an attempt at an armed uprising. Now we can talk about everything that is wrong with the previous political system in South Africa. There was a lot wrong. But but it’s simply not the case that he went to prison for being a good leader.

Tucker [00:05:52] Well, I think that most people would acknowledge a distinction between military action, which is, you know, a a a fight, a war, a battle between militaries. And attacks on civilians, which is the something we call terrorism. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:06:08] So in 1985, the ANC had a conference in Kabwe in Zambia, and they took a formal decision that in their so-called military operations, they would not differentiate between hard and soft targets. So it was officially a policy that says we can kill innocent people. And a lot of innocent people died in the political violence in the run up to 1994. And 90% of the people who died were black South Africans.

Tucker [00:06:34] Right.

Ernst Roets [00:06:35] It was.

Tucker [00:06:36] But noncombatants, women, children.

Ernst Roets [00:06:37] Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Women and passers.

Tucker [00:06:38] By, you know, people had nothing to do with anything.

Ernst Roets [00:06:40] Yes. Yes, especially.

Tucker [00:06:42] And so during that time that Mandela was in prison. I’m 55. So I remember this very, very well. His wife was effectively his spokesman, Winnie Mandela. Yeah. And she was lying, I said. United States, she was a hero. She was the mother of an emerging nation. You know, a woman of of peace and decency, really, a transcendent figure, a holy thing. And and then it turned out that actually, she was a murderer who had, you know, burned to death or supervised the murder of a bunch of different people. Tell us about that.

Ernst Roets [00:07:12] Yes. So let me firstly say that I have a lot of respect for Nelson Mandela, I think in terms of, of his efforts and and as I say, he’s I think he’s the he’s the best the ANC has ever had to offer. Winnie Mandela, his wife. Not so much. So she famously I mean, she’s been involved with a lot of things, including what what was called the Mandela Football Club.

Tucker [00:07:31] Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:07:32] [The Mandela Football Club] was a gang that was involved with violence and killings of innocent people. And she famously said at a political rally with necklaces and all matches, we will liberate this country. Yes. Which, of course is a reference to the necklace murders, which was very popular in South Africa and still happens in South Africa. That’s when you take and a rubber tire, you fill it with petrol or gasoline, and you put it around someone’s necks so that it’s bound around the arms and you set it on fire, and then you stone that person while he’s burning to death. And that happened. They were, I think 500 or 700 people were killed like that during political violence in South Africa. And she encouraged this. Initially, she denied it. And then it came out that it was recorded of her saying this. So, yes, it’s very bizarre that someone like Mandela is a hero today.

Tucker [00:08:21] And was a hero then. And so that to me was a sign that these are these are not, you know, liberators that their oppressors. Yeah, yeah. And so but no one in the West wanted to think that it was like a really simple tale of white oppression, of noble black people and by definition, the black. But I mean, there were oppressed by people, of course, and there were no black people. But the leadership always struck me as evil.

Ernst Roets [00:08:46] Yeah. So? So there were some better and some worse people in the leadership. I think an important component here that is very well documented. It’s not a secret, but a lot of people don’t seem to want to know this or recognize this is the very strong alliance that the ANC has always had and still has with the South African Communist Party and the extent to which they were supported, and not just by the Soviet Union, also by the Vietnamese and by multitudes as well. Implementing a what they call the people’s war strategy that they got from from Mao Tse tung. So, yes, it was very much the ANC saw themselves as being the African or South African frontier of promoting a socialist or a communist revolution.

Tucker [00:09:30] So how did it turn out?

Ernst Roets [00:09:33] Well, if you mean you mean in terms of where we are.

Tucker [00:09:36] Let’s let’s just follow different threads. So let’s just start with I don’t know. Technology and infrastructure. What did in 1993. South Africa was famously the most prosperous society in Africa by far right and up among the most prosperous in the world. Correct. They had nuclear weapons in South Africa? Yes. Yeah, yeah. What is it like now, 30 years later?

Ernst Roets [00:10:02] Well, the reality is that that virtually every sphere of societies is collapsing, with the exception of taxation, of course, in tax collection, that’s still very, very efficient. Maybe I can explain it this way. So America has a somewhat skewed tax system with, if my information is correct, about 85% of tax income tax in America is paid by about 10% of the people.

Tucker [00:10:28] I think that’s correct.

Ernst Roets [00:10:29] So 1 in 10 in South Africa, 85% of income taxes paid by 1 in 30 people. So it’s a very small number of people, a very small portion of of society that pays tax that is heavily taxed. And then about almost half of the population in South Africa get money from the government in the form of social grants. If you add government employees, conservative estimates say that 50% of people in South Africa get money from the government. Some estimates say it’s up to 60% of adults voting age. Adults get money from the government each year. So then this money, of course, is then used. It’s given out to social grants. But what’s left is used to set up these programs that are actively discriminating against taxpayers. Like, I mean, there are so many examples. One of the most recent ones is this is this blacks only fund that the government has set up whereby they give money to black entrepreneurs exclusively. So so this is happening. And then on top of that, so after you spend your tax money to fund these government programs that are discriminating against you, you have to spend what is left to do the things that the government was supposed to be doing. So the classical definition of a government is that it should protect life, liberty and property. The classical liberal view we’re a bit cicerone in, so we think a government has to do more than that. But but if we use those three things, the government’s not protecting our lives. There’s about if this interview that we are about to have is two hours, it’ll there will be about seven murders in South Africa in this time. Government does not protect liberty. It’s actively targeting schools of minority communities [i.e., Whites\, actively denying the identity and the rights of minority communities. And it’s certainly not protecting property. It’s actively involved with the program to empower the government to expropriate private property without compensation. So, so and then we have to use the money that is left to pay for our own private security, to become involved with organizations to for the things that the government was supposed to be doing with the tax money that we paid in the first place.

Tucker [00:12:34] One of the reasons that I find this story so fascinating is not simply because, you know, it’s like the classical, you know, irony of history. This, you know, group comes in with one aim and then achieves exactly the opposite. We’re going to have a, you know, we’re going to end racism and then make racism much worse, but also because they have gone about it in a way that’s almost like American with the same language, the same is our strength kind of sloganeering. And it’s had the same result, which is to basically kill whites. And I mean, this is true, and I, I, I wonder if you see that it’s almost like you imported our kind of intellectual class framework for this project.

Ernst Roets [00:13:17] That’s absolutely the case. So so there’s a theory. There was this video that just went viral on social media of this guy talking about how white people are subhuman and all of that, and they get, well, this is taught at universities in South Africa. There’s a theory called Azania critical theory. Azania is a Ben African word for South Africa. And they actually get this from Americans like Robin D’Angelo. Who’s this? Ibrahim? It’s the Ta-Nehisi Coates, these people, they get it from them. And then they put an African flavor on it, which essentially boils down to a theory that justifies the targeting and extermination of the white minority. And and so the theory, to summarize, goes more or less like this. There’s an African term called ubuntu, which means brotherly ness, or it’s about your internal humanity. It’s a Zulu term. And the theory goes that white people are incapable of having ubuntu. But ubuntu is the essence of humanity. So if you don’t have it, you’re not truly human. So it boils down that the logical conclusion is that if you kill a white person, then you did not actually commit murder. So this is not widely believed in South Africa, but this is taught at universities by university professors, and it’s certainly believed by radical elements.

Tucker [00:14:34] It’s a predicate for genocide. I mean, it’s always the same in every I mean, we’re watching in a part of the world now. They’re not fully human, right? So we can kill them because they’re fully human. Then it’s a, it’s a, of course, a grave sin to kill them.

Ernst Roets [00:14:44] Yeah. Well, well, we’ve always been saying that there’s not a genocide in South Africa looking at what happened in Rwanda and so forth. It’s not the same thing, but it is very alarming to look at some of these claims that are being made and to compare that to what was made in Rwanda.

Tucker [00:14:58] You know, and well, every country and, you know, genocide broadly defined in an attempt to eliminate a group of people on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

Ernst Roets [00:15:07] Yeah. And we have these political parties chanting, I mean, you’ve seen this, you’ve reported on this chanting, kill the bush, kill the farmer to a stadium filled with people. And it’s not just rhetoric. So they would say, no, it’s just a metaphor, but it’s preceded by a speech about how white people are criminals and should be treated like criminals, how everything they have is illegitimate and stolen, in which people are encouraged to go and invade their farms and so forth. And then they chant, kill the Boer, kill the farmer and they make these hand gestures. Of course, the book is a reference to the Afrikaner people. And and but reality is also that the farmers are being attacked and killed on their farms. So it’s not just a metaphor. And and our attempts at researching this has found that there is an increase in farm attacks when obviously when the political climate becomes heated or warmer. And these type of statements are made in a way, in a way that’s highly publicized. You do get an increase in farm attacks. And it and it’s very brutal and very horrific farm attacks that we see.

Tucker [00:16:04] So the farmer texture attacks against white farmers, not.

Ernst Roets [00:16:08] Not not exclusively white farmers, but it’s attacks against farmers in South Africa of which the majority is.

Tucker [00:16:12] White. Right. Okay. So this has been going on a long time. I think it’s been well documented. I believe you wrote a book about it, which has become very sold, a lot of copies on Amazon, I notice. Yes. And so none of this is like a secret and all of it’s verifiable because, you know, dead people are pretty easy to track because they’re dead.

Ernst Roets [00:16:33] Yeah, we have the names of the people who’ve been murdered. Exactly. Yeah.

Tucker [00:16:36] But in the United States, the country that inspired the revolution that you’re living through, our media have ignored that and then gone beyond ignoring it to attack anyone who brings it up as a white supremacist. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:16:51] Well, well, I can tell you so many stories about this.

Tucker [00:16:55] Please do.

Ernst Roets [00:16:55] For example, I was on your show a few years ago to talk about the farm murders and the extent to which we were attacked by American media as a result of that. I had someone from CNN come see me in my office in Pretoria and to interview me about farm attacks. And the entire interview was about you. So you would put things to me and say, did you know Tucker Carlson said the following? Do you agree with this statement? And did you know that Donald Trump said this? And are you comfortable with this? And so I paused them at one stage and I said, what are we doing? I thought we had to talk about farm murders and what’s happening in South Africa. But the only. So. The argument was that because Trump made that comment about farmers in 2018, it has to be a non-existing issue because Trump is a liar and everything he says is false. And the same with you because you spoke about it. That means that the problem doesn’t exist, and we have to prove that it doesn’t exist in order to get to you.

Tucker [00:17:48] But not only doesn’t exist, you’re not allowed to complain about it existing. Yes. Yes. So it’s somehow a moral crime to notice and to not like it when people are murdered for the color of their skin.

Ernst Roets [00:18:04] It’s bizarre. It’s.

Tucker [00:18:05] Well, it’s not bizarre. It’s it’s a they’re telegraphing genocidal intent when they’re telling you, no, you’re not getting killed. And yes, it’s a good thing that you are.

Ernst Roets [00:18:13] Yes and no. You’re not getting killed.

Tucker [00:18:15] What are they [saying?].

Ernst Roets [00:18:16] Saying? Yeah, it’s no, you’re not getting killed. And if you are, you deserve it, right? Because of a variety of things. Because the attackers are poor or because remember all the horrible things that white people have done in South Africa and outside of South Africa. So so there’s always a justification. And so another example, just in 2018, again after you spoke about this and after Trump spoke about this, the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, came to America and he spoke at an event in in New York. And he said there are no killings of farmers in South Africa. And he just flat out denied the existence of the problem. And he said this on an international platform. He said it’s not happening, it’s not true. And and the worst of it all was how the media knew this was wrong, especially mainstream media and South Africa. They knew that it’s not true. And so they immediately rushed to his defense, writing articles like this is what the actually meant to say. And then they sort of justify what’s happening. And so it’s we really do sometimes feel that our biggest battle is not primarily against what the government is doing, but against how the media is.

Tucker [00:19:22] But just consider this. I mean, if, you know, if Trotsky’s in Kalgoorlie in 1994 said, boy, I you know, I lot of us seem to be getting hacked to death by machetes and reporters or political figures said, shut up. You know, you’re a Tutsi supremacist for saying so. I think we could fairly say the people shouting them down are pro-genocide of Tutsis. Yeah. I mean, what what’s the other explanation? I don’t really get it. I mean, what honestly, what’s the other explanation?

Ernst Roets [00:19:53] Well, the the explanation that is used in court cases. So by the way, this kill the Boer chant was found in quote, not to be hate speech according to South African law.

Tucker [00:20:02] Not hate speech. Killing people don’t hate speech. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:20:04] Chanting about killing people.

Tucker [00:20:06] You know why it’s not a hate speech? Because it’s not speech they hate. That’s why.

Ernst Roets [00:20:09] Well, maybe that’s.

Tucker [00:20:10] Because they approve of.

Ernst Roets [00:20:11] So the arguments that that is used or are used to defend this type of rhetoric would always be something like you need to see it in context. You need to remember the apartheid system. You need to remember what these people went.

Tucker [00:20:24] Through that they deserved to be killed. You need to remember that.

Ernst Roets [00:20:27] That’s. Well, so the argument is that the actually commemorating the historic struggle, and that’s why they are still chanting this.

Tucker [00:20:33] I would disagree with you. I think what they’re saying is the people getting murdered deserve to be murdered. So stop complaining about it.

Ernst Roets [00:20:39] Yeah, well, I few people are saying that out loud, but it does seem to be.

Tucker [00:20:43] I mean, look, at some point, you know, I don’t need you to explain your motive. If I have a clear glimpse of your actions. If I know what you’re doing. I don’t have to hear you explain why you’re doing it. I already know because the motive is displayed in the action. Did you know what I mean? Yeah, sure. So, in other words, if I pulled out a gun and shoot you and somebody said, did you not like earnest? Yeah, I can say whatever I want, but I just shot you. So I think it’s kind of fair to infer that I didn’t like you. Yeah, right.

Ernst Roets [00:21:11] Yeah, but. But the motive is also explained in the words. So they’re trying to defend the word. It’s a famous story of Chamberlain and Churchill. You know, when Chamberlain came back from meeting Hitler and he say, no, well, I met him. And, you know, I think we’re going to find peace. And then Churchill said, no. Well, I read what he said and I believe them. Yeah. And so you can just read what they’re saying. If you read the policy documents of the ruling party, they say they want to convert South Africa into a communist society. They want to have a revolution in South Africa. And if you listen to the more radical parties to the left of them, they openly chant about killing white people. So so they say these things out loud.  And now they are obviously more to the fringe. You find the more extreme rhetoric in South Africa. But but it’s very alarming and and how people just rush to their defense all the time.

Tucker [00:21:58] So that’s the part that bothers me. Like I’m not surprised. I’ll just I’ll just say it. I’m not surprised at all. I watched what happened in Rhodesia when it became Zimbabwe in 1980. And, you know, something identical happened. There was a lot of killing, and they drove it, you know, to the bottom rank of nations, the poorest country in the world. And following exactly the same script, I always thought that what happened in South Africa, I want it to be wrong. Turns out it wasn’t. What really bothers me is that the West has allowed this and cheered it on. Because I live in the West, I live in the United States. So like, I don’t want to think that my leaders are for killing people on the basis of race. But watching how they stood by and applauded Barack Obama’s applauded all this stuff. It tells you everything about Barack Obama and other American leaders, doesn’t it?

Ernst Roets [00:22:47] Yes. And this brings us back to the 90s. So during the 90s, it was again after the Cold War, and the world and especially the West was high on ideology. And this idea that, you know, the world will become liberal and everyone’s going to become like us, and everyone in the world is just an American waiting to be liberated, and we just need to go and liberate them from their own traditional beliefs and so forth. And so it really is the case that that America and many Western countries played a very significant role in creating the South Africa that we have.

Tucker [00:23:16] I’m aware.

Ernst Roets [00:23:17] And so it’s we we don’t want other people to fix our problems on our behalf. We want to solve our own problems. But you can certainly make the case that that the West has a moral responsibility towards the people in South Africa.

Tucker [00:23:29] First, the West forced through sanctions, boycotts, the change of government that put the ANC in power. So, absolutely, in the same way the West is armed, Ukraines, they have an obligation to make sure. Yep. You know, to at least know what’s happening and to be honest about it, not to hide their own. Yes, responsibility for the crime.

Ernst Roets [00:23:50] Yeah. And so there’s this false dichotomy in South Africa, all with regard to South Africa, that if you are against what’s happening in South Africa now, that means you want the apartheid system. So you have a choice. And there’s one former judge recently said this who’s retired. He said that we have a choice in South Africa between a moral system that is dysfunctional, which is the current system, or an immoral system that is a functional one, which is the former system. And so the problem is, if you criticize what’s happening in South Africa. Now you get accused of wanting to return to the apartheid system, but the truth is you can reject both. You can say, we don’t want the apartheid system and we don’t want what’s happening in South Africa at the moment. We want to govern ourselves. We want freedom. But but it seems that a lot of people are incapable of making that conclusion or leaving any room for saying that both these systems are wrong and we need a better system, a system that is much more decentralized, a system in which the various nations who live in South Africa, because South Africa’s very big. It’s almost as big as Europe. The various nations living in South Africa should just govern themselves. And that’s not what’s happening in South Africa. And I think it’s a worthy cause to pursue.

Tucker [00:25:00] So can I. I think I’m hardly an expert in South Africa at all, but I am American, so if I can, I just give my overview of what of the different groups in South Africa and you correct me. But just so people following on because I think it matters for reasons I’ll explain. So. So the Africa, they’re basically two big white populations in South Africa. Historically, they’re called the Boers. They Afrikaners who are were religious, basically religious refugees, a mixture of Dutch and French Huguenots, Protestant, Dutch, probably the French who moved to southern Africa for reasons of religious liberty. Okay. And then you had the English with, I think were after the Boer War in power. Yes. Who mostly were there for economic reasons and had in many cases passports back to Great Britain. And then you had a couple of different African black groups, the largest of which, I think to this day are the Zulus. Yes. Who like the Afrikaners, the Boers and the English, were not native to the area at all. They were newcomers who arrived, I think, just right before the Boers did.

Ernst Roets [00:26:11] Yeah, not long before.

Tucker [00:26:12] Okay. This is true.

Ernst Roets [00:26:13] Yes. Yes, yes.

Tucker [00:26:15] And they, you know, as invading groups [Zulus] often usually do kind of exterminated the native population who were what we would call the Bushmen or.

Ernst Roets [00:26:24] Yeah, the Khoi in the San, as they’re also called. Thank you. Yes.

Tucker [00:26:27] Okay. So that’s my, like, dumb foreigner overview. Is that roughly true? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:26:31] So. So just can I tell you a story from. I hope you will. Yes. It’s some people call it the origin story of the Afrikaner people. And it explains a lot about who we are today. So we were settled in the Cape, the Prato Afrikaners, who were still the Dutch, the French and the Germans. We were then colonized the Cape in, I think 1810 by the British. It was during the Napoleonic.

Tucker [00:26:55] When when did the Afrikaners for the Boers first get there? 1652 1650.

Ernst Roets [00:27:02] That’s what, 150 years before the Declaration of Independence or something. Wow. Something like that. Yeah.

Tucker [00:27:07] So it’s a long time ago. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:27:08] So? So my great great great grandfather, Nicolas Roets, who was the first Roets who came to South Africa. Came more or less the time when George Washington was a teenager. So he was eight years older than George Washington. So. So my family has been in Africa since, you could say, since George Washington, since the time of George Washington, just before.

Tucker [00:27:30] The United States was a country.

Ernst Roets [00:27:31] Yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So so the Cape.

Tucker [00:27:34] Do you have another passport?

Ernst Roets [00:27:35] No, no, no, I don’t I don’t really want one.

Tucker [00:27:39] Right. And do most Afrikaners have other passports.

Ernst Roets [00:27:42] No most don’t.

Tucker [00:27:44] Yeah okay.

Ernst Roets [00:27:45] But but this goes to the story I want to tell you. So. So we were colonized by the British. And we, you can call it the proto Afrikaners then said, you know, we don’t want to be governed by anyone else. We want to govern ourselves and to they opted to move into the interior of South Africa, which was called the Great Trek, and they didn’t know what they would expect. They said they reject slavery. They want to foster good relations with local tribes, which they did. There were many treaty signed, an agreement and so forth.

Tucker [00:28:11] And they did not hold slaves.

Ernst Roets [00:28:14] They were slavery in the Cape Colony before that. But when the Great Trek, that was around the time of the abolition of slavery, and they also rejected slavery, they explicitly said so. So they then went into the interior. And the leader of the Great Trek was a guy called Retief.

Tucker [00:28:29] Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:28:30] Who went to negotiate with the Zulu king, then gone. And so he said, what can we do to buy land from you for our people to live? The agreement was they had to return cattle that were stolen by another tribe with a king called Sekunjalo. So they went. They retrieved the cattle. They brought it to the zoo, looking at the Zulu king, then gone. King then says to them that we have to celebrate. So leave your weapons outside the logger, come inside and we’ll have a celebration. During the celebration. At one stage he chanted Bull Lani about which means kill the wizards! So they took Retief and his commando, his group, to a nearby U and they slaughtered him. They had. They slaughtered him. Lost because they wanted him to see. They want to make sure that he sees his people and his son murdered a few months later before so. So after that, they went on an extermination mission. They killed women and children in the loggers and so forth. A few months.

Tucker [00:29:24] No longer is a group of wagons pulled into a.

Ernst Roets [00:29:27] Circle. Yes. Correct? Yes. And so a few months later, his body was found with the treaty on which the Zulu king signed, giving them some land. So they then started a initiated a punishment commando, a group of 3 to 400 men to to counter attack the Zulus, which eventually led to the Battle of Blood River, one of the most significant battles in our history, where they found themselves completely surrounded. They were about, let’s say, 400.

Tucker [00:29:57] Before numbers.

Ernst Roets [00:29:58] Yes, surrounded by 12,000 Zulus. And so they had this wagon, and my great great great great grandfather was was in that lager, and he was the religious leader. His name is Sorrell Sally-ann. So, Sorrell.

Tucker [00:30:11] And what was their religion?

Ernst Roets [00:30:13] Christian.

Tucker [00:30:13] Dutch. Reformed.

Ernst Roets [00:30:14] Reformed, yes. So he said to them, listen, we need to make a vow to God. And so he wrote a vow which they all made. And the vow said that we standing in front of the God in heaven and earth, to make a vow to him, that if he protects us in the battle that lies ahead, we will commemorate this day in the years to come, as a day of thanksgiving and a Sabbath. And we will also tell our children their story, and we will build a church, and we will make sure that the honor of the victory goes to God and not to us. So they made this vow and the battle took place. And the result was that not one of the Afrikaners were killed. 3000 Zulus died in that battle.

Tucker [00:30:56] Not one was killed.

Ernst Roets [00:30:57] Yes. Yeah. And and so the reason why I’m telling the story is not because. Not to point to the Zulu people. We have good relations with the Zulu, and we’ve worked with him. This was, of course, the one major battle, but we’ve had good relations with him over the years. But it just it says something about, firstly, why the Afrikaner people are so patriotic. It says something about why we are so attached to African soil and why why we are still religious with a very religious community. We have some problems in terms of belief and so forth. But broadly speaking, the Afrikaners are compared to Europe and compared to some parts of America, still a very religious people. And it also says something about why we are so attached to the country and why we don’t want to leave. We want to stay there because our ancestors have been there for hundreds of years, and we fought and died for our our space there. And we’ve gotten used to it to to a certain extent.

Tucker [00:31:47] What’s the only country that you have, isn’t it?

Ernst Roets [00:31:49] Exactly. We don’t have any other country. It’s like we can’t go to. We can’t go back to England. We’re not Dutch anymore. We you know, we have there’s a slogan in South Africa, let’s go back to Holland. But, I mean, I’ve been to Holland, I’ve been to Amsterdam. It’s a beautiful city, but I don’t feel like I’m like I’m at home when I go there. It’s no foreign city that I’m attending. We became a people in Africa, which is why we are called the Africans. We named ourselves after the continent and our language. Afrikaans is named after the country.

Tucker [00:32:19] But you’re being called invaders by people whose ancestors were also invaders.

Ernst Roets [00:32:22] Yeah, well, who came from the north of Africa? Yes, from. From where Cameroon is and so forth. Who came down firstly towards the east of Africa and then along the Great Lake Lakes, eventually ending. Ending in South Africa? Yes.

Tucker [00:32:38] I think it’s what you said is really important because I think from the American or the Western perspective, there’s this idea that the Afrikaners, the Boers, are worse. They’re the worst whites, they’re worst. The English.

Ernst Roets [00:32:51] Yes.

Tucker [00:32:52] English, by the way, created the concentration camp during the Boer War. Yes. Yep, yep.

Ernst Roets [00:32:57] That’s true.

Tucker [00:32:57] Winston Churchill was there and kind of behave pretty dishonorably, I would say, on many, many levels for hundreds of years in South Africa. But that’s just my opinion. Yeah, but that the borders are somehow the worst and that they have no right to be there. And I think history suggests something different.

Ernst Roets [00:33:16] Well, absolutely. So on my mother’s side, I descend from the British. My great grandfather fought in the First World War, fought for the British. And so in many ways, culturally, we’ve become very close to the British because of the influence over the years. And I don’t think there’s friction today between the Afrikaners and the British, but it certainly is the case. I mean, the concentration camps were horrible. I recently read The Gulag Archipelago, and Solzhenitsyn writes in there that the first concentration camps were invented by the Soviets, but that’s actually wrong. The first concentration camps that we know of, of at least this type of concentration camps were during the first during the Anglo Boer War, where about 30,000 women and children died. But there was a lot of the great thing about the Anglo Boer War was that it was in many ways a of first for the world. It was, some people call it the first international propaganda war, because it was in a time when newspapers became popular. So there was this propaganda war in Europe with regard to the Boers or the Boer War, with a lot of people saying the Boers are boorish, and that’s where the word comes from. Evidently, if someone told me that’s where the word British comes from, it’s to be sort of, you know, very old style and, you know, not very sophisticated. Rough. Yeah, rough around the edges. And so there was a lot of propaganda like the book is being compared to, to Wild Hogs and things like that, but that’s okay. The word butcher was actually used for a long time as an insult, almost like Jew, like calling someone a Jew. It’s like, oh, you’re a typical butcher. But I mean, we’re very proud of that word. It’s, it’s it’s something that we take pride in. It’s meat in many ways. There’s some debate about the difference between poor and Afrikaner, but it’s broadly speaking, synonymous. But I mean, we’re very proud of our history in South Africa. And we’ve become a very sophisticated community with an immense treasure chest of literature, of poetry, of philosophy, all of it in our own language that we did over the last, especially the last 100 years, which of course is under threat now.

Tucker [00:35:14] Your language not spoken by anyone else in the world?

Ernst Roets [00:35:16] No, it’s some it’s it descends from Dutch. Yes. And so if you spend some time as an Afrikaans person with some Dutch friends, eventually you start to follow. But it’s not Dutch anymore. There’s been influences about other languages and so forth. So? So it’s they are people who speak it all over the world because. But that’s only because people who have left from so many people have left South Africa. Some estimates say it’s about a million people, white people who have left South Africa over the last few decades.

Tucker [00:35:45] How many are left? How many whites overall in South Africa and how many of them are African?

Ernst Roets [00:35:50] So? So it’s more or less about 5 million who are left? The Afrikaner communities, about 2.7 million. And the total population is about 60, just over 60 million.

Tucker [00:36:01] And now it looks like you’re, as you said, entering some kind of final stage where they’ll be. I mean, they’ve been expelled from a bunch of different African countries, as you know. But it sounds like the the plan is to force them to leave or kill them or what is the plan, exactly?

Ernst Roets [00:36:19] So, so. Yann Smuts, the famous general who worked with Churchill, also famously said that South Africa is a country where the best never happens and the worst never happens. And so we sort of believe that, and we hope that the worst outcome is is an unrealistic outcome. We do know that the most important thing that we need to do now is to be very well organized in terms of our own communities, to be very well connected to each other. And, you know, there’s this whole debate about the individual and the community in philosophy. And we’ve realized that if you’re just an individual, you are completely helpless. If you if you’re not part of a community, if you don’t have if you if you’re not given meaning by the community of which you are a member. You, you just you. You’re completely helpless against this. The Leviathan, the state. So? So we need to be well organized. We need to be armed. We need to have well-functioning communities who look after each, after look after the poor, do all the things that the government supposed to be doing, but also look after our safety. So we drive patrols at night. We are involved with tens of thousands of volunteers, involved with patrols, looking after our own safety and so forth. But but I think the bigger question here is the future of South Africa. And this is a controversial thing to say, but it’s so obvious that it’s not sustainable. It’s it’s not going to work and it’s just getting worse. So the only possible solution is not simply to say we need a different party in power, because the underlying foundations is still it’s problematic. The only possible solution is to move toward a system with subsidiary authorities, which could imply something like a republic for the Afrikaner people, it could imply a kingdom for the Zulu people. It can imply different types of authority depending on the community. But South Africa is a country made up of a long list of minorities. It’s a list. If you look at it from a racial perspective, you can say there’s a black minority, a black majority, but the black majority also consists of a variety, as you mentioned, a variety of nations and tribes and so forth.

Tucker [00:38:16] And plus massive immigration into your country. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:38:19] Yeah. It’s that’s a it’s a very serious problem. Yeah. We virtually don’t have borders in South Africa.

Tucker [00:38:23] Right. But and a problem of course, for the country, but also a demographic fact that it’s not as if there’s this like monolithic black majority there all kinds of different components of the black majority. Right. Yes. Don’t necessarily get along. Yeah, yeah. And but a lot of Zimbabweans murdered in South Africa phobic violence.

Ernst Roets [00:38:41] Every now and then there’s this upsurge in violence against foreigners. So they get accused. What typically happens is people come in from the north or the north of South Africa, like Malawi, Zimbabwe and so forth, Zambia and so forth. And then they work and they accept jobs for lower wages. And a lot of them work really hard. Yeah. So that leads to friction because there’s very high unemployment in South Africa already. And so it leads to friction within among the local communities. And then every now and then we have this upsurge in very, very brutal xenophobic violence. And so yeah, it’s the border is it’s virtually non-existent. The border to the north of South Africa.

Tucker [00:39:17] So what would it look like to have autonomous republics? And is that allowed under your 94 constitution? I thought there was some provision for that.

Ernst Roets [00:39:28] Well, it’s interesting that you know this. Yes. So there’s a section in in the South African Constitution, section two, three, five that provides for self-determination for communities. Now there’s some ambiguity in terms of how to interpret that section. But it is there is some constitutional provision for that. And so during the 90s, the negotiations for a new South Africa, the more conservative groups who were white and black, who were arguing for self-determination, were made fun of by the ruling party at the time, the National Party and the ANC, of course, and also some Westerners. This is just backwards. This idea of governing yourself is somehow an old, ancient thing that we should move away from. And part of the problem, part of the reason why they were made fun of is the question is, how do you do that practically? And the only way to practically do that is to have areas where people have concentrated where where people form a de facto majority, and they are such areas like, for example, when you talk about the Zulus and so forth, the Afrikaner people are pretty much dispersed, although there are some areas where we live more concentrated. But this, for example, and there are some initiatives to get Afrikaners to move closer together. And I think I think that’s a solution that, that we need to really focus on is getting the Afrikaners to move closer.

Tucker [00:40:41] Clustered in Pretoria, was my understanding the majority?

Ernst Roets [00:40:44] Yes, Pretoria and in the Western Cape and the south of the country. And then they were on your initiative in the Northern Cape.

Tucker [00:40:52] So tell us about that. What is Orania?

Ernst Roets [00:40:54] So Orania is a is a cultural communities and Afrikaner cultural community. It’s fairly small. It’s about 3000 people, but it’s growing rapidly. It’s growing by about 12 to 15% per year. And the idea is like it’s a culture. It’s privately owned. It’s a community where the Afrikaner culture can survive and flourish, and it has been growing at quite a pace, even though it’s from a small base. But the idea is to say this is an area where we are the majority and we make our own decisions, we make our own laws, we govern ourselves, we make our own decisions in terms of what happens with our tax money, what happens, you know, with our streets, what type of money.

Tucker [00:41:32] Murder other people, repress other people. And then then why? Maybe you have an answer to this. A neighborhood, a community of 3000 people, which is tiny even by South African standards, has received unrelenting negative media attention in the West. Why is that? Such a moral crime, such an outrage to have a community like that?

Ernst Roets [00:41:57] Yeah, it’s it’s bizarre the extent to which Orania has been attacked, especially in the international media. So I spoke with a friend in Europe recently who said to me, I’ve only read negative things about Orania, but that’s why I like it. Because. Because I know who’s right.

Tucker [00:42:12] A lot of us have reached that conclusion. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:42:15] And so? So in South Africa there are many traditional.

Tucker [00:42:17] Lying is just guys pause and just say the lying is unsustainable when you know you’re up. But open up the New York Times and it’s a safe bet that whatever they’re telling you is the opposite of the truth. Then you’ve reached a point where it’s like, why even have media coverage at that point? You know what I mean? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:42:33] Also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority on the, you know, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel that?

Ernst Roets [00:42:33] So in South Africa, there are many cultural communities, like Zulu communities, different, let’s say there are many black cultural communities. And when they are reported on by the media, they would say, this Zulu cultural community, so-and-so or this close our cultural community is doing this. But when it’s raining, they say it’s a whites only enclave. That’s that’s the term they use, even though it’s a cultural community. So so black communities. What has.

Tucker [00:42:55] That? What is that? Why, why, why the hostility. And that’s true globally, by the way, there’s no any white majority country. There are very few left. Very few left. But there’s just suspect because they exist. What is that?

yre has a as a, an explanation of how to make sense of what how how we how we derailed in trying to make sense of the Second World War. I mean, obviously, you know, Hitler was evil and all of that. I mean, no one disagrees with.

Tucker [00:46:09] That, obviously.

Ernst Roets [00:46:09] But so so the wrong lesson from the Second World War is that nationalism is evil or a sense of pride, and your identity is evil. And there are a lot of people who would really like us to believe this, that we need to abolish communal identities.

Tucker [00:46:24] MacIntyre’s line only when they’re white.

Ernst Roets [00:46:27] Yes, yes, yeah, of course, it’s.

Tucker [00:46:28] Actually I don’t think anyone thought the lesson of the war was that nationalism is evil, only that nationalism, when whites do it.

Ernst Roets [00:46:33] Yeah, when whites do it. Yeah. So McIntyre’s line is that that a sense of communal identity and pursuing what is good for your people is a good. And what went wrong with the Second World War was that Hitler was trying to pursue this good at the expense of all other goods. He was detaching this one thing from everything else. And in the end, you cannot do that without committing evil and inflicting evil. And so I think it’s a bizarre situation where we are in currently.

Tucker [00:47:01] But so I thought and think that the lesson the Second World War was that targeting people for violence and discrimination, but especially violence on the basis of their immutable genetic characteristics was wrong. Like I that’s what I was taught.

Ernst Roets [00:47:17] At in here in that.

Tucker [00:47:18] Even I believe that now as much as I’ve ever believed it. And but it’s just crazy to see people say that on the one hand. And then for a lot of people, a lot of our leaders, the lessons the Second World War was no. That’s good. Yeah, actually, you need to target more people on the basis of their immutable ethnic characteristics, their whiteness.

Ernst Roets [00:47:38] Yes.

Tucker [00:47:39] And kill them. Like that’s the lesson. No, that’s the opposite. Yeah. Right.

Ernst Roets [00:47:45] Yeah. Of course. Well, well, so in South Africa and this is part of the bizarre part of it is the ruling party in South Africa. They would write in their own, in their own policy documents. They say our ideology is a blend of race, nationalism and socialism. That’s literally what Nazi means. Now, I’m not saying they’re Nazis, but in some sense they’re calling themselves Nazis. If they say we promote a combination of race, nationalism and sex, I don’t.

Tucker [00:48:10] Think people can hear themselves. I mean, I think even this conversation’s be like, oh, that’s a Nazi. Conversation was like, no, no, we’re arguing. I wanna speak for myself. I’m arguing against what I thought the core idea. Was it or the core bad idea in the Second World War, which is that you should attack people, hurt people because of how they were born.

Ernst Roets [00:48:30] I’m just based on who they are.

Tucker [00:48:32] I’ve always been opposed to that. I will always be opposed to that. But now it’s like complaining about it makes I don’t know. It’s also.

Ernst Roets [00:48:41] You’re not even allowed to say this.

Tucker [00:48:42] It’s also fake. It’s also fake. Like it’s actually this is all a cover for something much more sinister that is not really related to the Second World War. Like, I just don’t think it’s it doesn’t make any sense. As an intellectual exercise, you just, like, immediately hit a brick wall. Yeah. Like what you’re saying is nonsensical. Right.

Ernst Roets [00:49:00] Yeah. Well, it’s difficult to make sense of it because it’s completely irrational.

Tucker [00:49:04] It’s completely irrational. Therefore, I think it’s a lie because it doesn’t even like you don’t even I don’t have especially high IQ. And it’s super obvious to me that it doesn’t make any sense to like what? Really? I guess there’s no answer. I don’t know the answer, but there’s something very deep going on here where the leaders of every country in the world all of a sudden decide this one ethnic group needs to be killed, like, well, I.

Ernst Roets [00:49:28] Think one part of it is something that you’ve said before, which is affluence. The people, people in the Western world have become very affluent and unfortunately, as a result of that, very self-centered. And in many ways they’ve become disconnected from their communities, disconnected from from the tradition.

Tucker [00:49:45] So there’s no doubt about that. But I mean, I would, you know, spend a lot of time in the in the Gulf, in the Persian Gulf. No most affluent countries in the world per capita. I think I mean, they are. And, you know, whatever you think of them, you don’t see a lot of Arab leaders being like, we really were too Arab. That’s the problem where I hate myself for my Arab ness like that doesn’t even occur to them. To their great credit, by the way. I don’t think self-hatred is ever good. I don’t think hating anybody on the basis of race is ever good. It’s it’s only this one group. Yeah, that does it.

Ernst Roets [00:50:18] I’d like to believe, and I hope that I’m right, that it’s it’s a minority within the Western world that really believes this.

Tucker [00:50:24] Stuff, I think.

Ernst Roets [00:50:25] But they have significant power and influence.

Tucker [00:50:27] They do that.

Ernst Roets [00:50:28] They are the editors of newspapers. They are the prime ministers. They are professors at universities and so forth. And those are the people who’s. Promoting this type of idea. And I think most hardworking, ordinary people don’t fall for this.

Tucker [00:50:40] Well, certainly most authentic Christians reject it out of hand immediately.

Ernst Roets [00:50:45] It’s essentially anti-Christian. In many wayw.

Tucker [00:50:47] It is the definition of anti-Christian, I think. I mean, that’s my look. What do I know? Don’t take theology advice from me. But that’s certainly my truest, deepest belief that it’s this is immoral, you know, no matter who it’s done to. Yeah. So one, I should have said this is the answer. But one of the reasons there’s been this real change in people’s willingness in the West to talk about what’s happening in South Africa in an honest way, not with the false pieties of Desmond Tutu was so great. Whatever Desmond Tutu, you know, think of Desmond Tutu. Not much. But we were required to talk about South Africa in a very specific way and to repeat certain cliches at really a gunpoint. And that’s changed in the past couple of months, and it’s really changed due to a South African emigre called Elon Musk. This is my perspective. You tell me yours. But he has made it possible through X, but also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority on the, you know, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel that?

Ernst Roets [00:51:53] Yes. So I don’t know how much of what is in his biography by Isaacson is true, but it does seem from his biography that he’s had some bad experiences growing up in South Africa, which is unfortunate. And we were we’re still not sure quite how attached he still is to South Africa as a country. But looking at his X and his comments, it’s very clear that he’s interested. And and the strange thing is, even though some people are very angry with him for speaking about South Africa, the only thing that he’s really doing is he’s picking up a mirror and he’s saying, look at what’s happening in South Africa. And he’s he’s just he’s retweeting videos from rallies in South Africa and. Exactly. He’s. He’s literally just saying to people, look at this stuff that’s happening in South Africa.

Tucker [00:52:36] Yeah. What do you think of this? Are you okay with this?

Ernst Roets [00:52:38] You know, I think what a lot of people I think I can speak for a lot of people in saying that we’re really, really grateful for what Elon Musk is doing to shed light on what is happening inside.

Tucker [00:52:48] It must be so weird to live in a country that has received so much attention from Western media, so much attention. I mean, there’s no other country in Africa where your average American knows the name of three famous people. You know what I mean? There’s no I’m not even close to the name. Three famous people from, you know, Congo. Yo, you know, but every American knows about Nelson Mandela, probably Winnie Mandela.

Ernst Roets [00:53:11] Desmond Tutu announcements was also very big. Who became this poor general who was a a advisor to Churchill.

Tucker [00:53:19] Who joined the English in the I think in the First World War, like. Right. You know.

Ernst Roets [00:53:23] Yes. First and Second World War.

Tucker [00:53:25] Right. But the first war was, you know, not even 15 years after the Boer War. So that was a pretty remarkable decision that he made. I don’t think most people are that in tune, but yeah, they know the bigger ones. But of what happened post 94 and they know all about apartheid and all that. But it must be so weird to be living in this country where all this stuff is happening and nobody is saying anything about it.

Ernst Roets [00:53:50] Yeah, it’s it’s crazy. It really is. And I have to say, the last few months has been quite a ride in terms of what we, you know, the, the executive order signed by President Trump and statements coming from the US.

Tucker [00:54:03] To tell us about that executive order, if you don’t mind.

Ernst Roets [00:54:05] So so the executive order is, is a very strong reprimanding of what the South African government is doing. It says that the South African government is well, as Trump said, is treating certain sections of society very badly. And and this and that the you ever.

Tucker [00:54:22] Call that’s it. That’s the Trump thing. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:54:25] And ever.

Tucker [00:54:25] Said.

Ernst Roets [00:54:26] And the US will not stand for this. And so it boils down to the sanctions in an important way, which is not. And one part of it says that that they will grant refugee status to Afrikaners if they want to go to the US, which I don’t think, in all fairness, we really grateful for that, for the public stance taken by the US and in a certain sense they haven’t gone far enough. But in a certain sense, I don’t think the the granting of refugee status is is much of a solution. Some people will take that up, but that’s why I told you the story of the Battle of Blood River and The Vow. We are culturally very, very attached to to South Africa. And so most.

Tucker [00:55:07] Think your family got to South Africa around the time my family got the United States, and.

Ernst Roets [00:55:11] This is hundreds of years.

Tucker [00:55:12] Is my country.

Ernst Roets [00:55:12] I think I’m ninth generation. And and so.

Tucker [00:55:16] I also have a mother of English descent. And I’m also on, unlike you. I’m ashamed of it. I’m sorry. Just kidding. Sort of. Not really, but. But you know, of course, I mean, it’s your country. I mean, what? At that point. What? You know.

Ernst Roets [00:55:29] So I think I think what a better response from the US could be is to take a firm stance against what is happening in terms of what the South African government is doing. But then to say, how can the US support minority groups in South Africa who are really working for some form of self-determination? I think America should recognize that it does have part in the problem in terms of what happened. Historic. Are you.

Tucker [00:55:56] Kidding? Yes it does, big time.

Ernst Roets [00:55:58] Yes. And therefore I it’s it’s reasonable and I think it’s fair. And I’m, I’m hesitant to say this because I’m not an American, but I think it’s reasonable to say that America has some form of a moral responsibility not to fix South Africa, but at least to to try to rework this mess that has been created because it was involved in creating this mess.

Tucker [00:56:17] We’ve mobilized our State Department to defend, quote, trans rights in the Donbass. Okay. We’ve wade into every sectarian conflict in this world for the past 80 years. Yeah, I think we can certainly say that a minority group targeted for genocide in the country we’ve been involved in really intimately and for my entire life, that that group has a right not to be killed and to have some measure of self-determination. I think we can do that. Yeah. That’s not too big.

Ernst Roets [00:56:42] Absolutely right. Yeah. And the solution, I would say the most sustainable solution is to help such communities to to govern themselves, to have self-determination. And it’s not only obviously it would be in our interest, but but I think it’s also in the interest of the West and of America.

Tucker [00:56:57] So just on principle, like every other group in the world, has the right to its own homeland, except white people. Like what? Yeah. Like, tell me. Just explain to me how that makes sense. Either no group has the right or every group has the right. It’s really that simple. And if you want to say no, group has. Right. Okay. You might even convince me, I don’t know. I’m not a race guy, actually, by my temperament at all. I’d kind of like to ignore it, but as long as some groups have a right to self-determination, then every group has a right. It’s that simple. Yeah. And if there’s a special carve out where one group doesn’t have a right, you have to explain to me why that group doesn’t have that right. Yeah, absolutely.

Ernst Roets [00:57:30] No, it’s absolutely fair. Well, I think South Africa is a I mean, what the hell is.

Tucker [00:57:35] Why are we playing along with this nonsense?

Ernst Roets [00:57:38] Yeah. It’s this this narrative has become this massive stream that it’s turned into a rapids on a river that just pulls everyone along. And this narrative just says, if you’re white, then there’s inherently something wrong with you.

Tucker [00:57:50] It doesn’t make any sense. And it’s leading toward a really bad conclusion, obviously, as it as it has for every other group targeted in this way has really suffered in a bit. And there are a lot of them. Okay. It’s not you know, there are a lot of them. Yep. And it never ends up well. And I just don’t know why we’re playing along where you’re not even allowed to say how you haven’t been. I don’t care anymore, obviously. But again, either every group has a right to self-determination or no group does. You can’t have this system where, you know, some groups do or all groups do, but one. No, no, no, it’s all or nothing on this.

Ernst Roets [00:58:27] Yeah, well, I can tell.

Tucker [00:58:28] Me how I’m.

Ernst Roets [00:58:29] Wrong. No. Well, I can guarantee you that. That when I get back home, I’m going to be in a lot of trouble for this interview. It’s.

Tucker [00:58:36] I don’t know why, though. I mean, like, what’s the what’s the kind of argument? I don’t I don’t really get it. Like, what is the kind of argument? There’s only one group on the entire face of the planet that doesn’t have the right that every other group has. Like, tell me how.

Ernst Roets [00:58:47] It’s it’s it’s it’s really like.

Tucker [00:58:50] Maybe there’s a good answer. I’m waiting for it.

Ernst Roets [00:58:52] No. Well, we don’t know what the answer is.

Tucker [00:58:53] So there is no answer. And so because there is no answer, the way that uniformity is maintained is just through threats like shut up. Yeah. You’re a bad person for saying that you’re a Nazi. It’s like, no, no, I hate the Nazis. I must speak for myself. Yeah, the Nazis, of course. I hate the idea that people are attacked for something they can’t control, like how they’re born. Yeah. Their genetics. I just don’t believe in that. I never will. I’m a Christian. I don’t believe in it. You can call me whatever you want. I’m actually making the opposite case. And I haven’t done anything to be ashamed of. And if defending the right of people not to be murdered because of how they were born is a crime, then I’ll plead to it. Yep. But I actually think that the only thing the people currently in charge of most of the world, certainly of the West, are good at, is seizing the moral high ground. And they don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. They’re rotten. Their ideas are rotten, and they don’t deserve to lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority. While they’re endorsing the murder of people for how they were born. Sorry.

Ernst Roets [00:59:52] It’s a house of cards, you know.

Tucker [00:59:53] So it’s not this house of cards. It’s exactly right.

Ernst Roets [00:59:56] Yeah, it’s built, and it’s a very shining house of cards, and it’s very proud of its accomplishments, but it’s not sustainable. So South Africa has been a victim of waste and imperialism.

Tucker [01:00:07] I’m aware in.

Ernst Roets [01:00:08] Many ways ideologically currently ideological imperialism. But also but and this is interesting, the ANC that’s governing South Africa today was founded just after the unionization of South Africa in 1910. And they said that this this was one of the major triggers that sparked us to start this movement. And the unionization was after the Boer War, before the Union. South Africa was a a variety of different republics and colonies. Yes, governing themselves and unionization effectively meant that all of these different subsidiary authorities were combined into one big South Africa as we know it today. The borders of South Africa were actually drawn pretty much by the British in 1910, and the ANC were vehemently opposed.

Tucker [01:00:51] A long history of border drawing. Yes.

Ernst Roets [01:00:54] You see this when you have this completely straight, you know, that’s that’s artificial. But and so the borders we have for South Africa today was a product of Western imperialism. And now those in power with love very much like to maintain these borders because they have control. And so if we are truly anti-colonialism and anti-imperialist. We should we should return to a position where people govern themselves. We should rethink the borders.

Tucker [01:01:19] You’ll never be allowed to do that. I mean, let’s just cut right to the the knobs part of this that will not be allowed is never been allowed. You will need either to get to force, which I pray you don’t because I hate that I hate killing. Or you will need the assistance of a powerful outside force, that force that makes it happen. That’s just a fact. Is that fair to say?

Ernst Roets [01:01:42] Yeah. No, I think it’s fair to say.

Tucker [01:01:43] I mean. Right, so anyone who says I want to kill you, you know, kill the boar, you’re subhuman. Those are not people are going to say, yeah, go ahead and create your own independent state and not bother anybody because you’re going to be way more successful and prosperous than they are, and they’re going to hate you on the basis of envy. Of course, that’s already happening.

Ernst Roets [01:02:03] And we have to ask them nicely to make certain concessions.

Tucker [01:02:06] Now, I guess it’s not going to happen. So. So what is your plan?

Ernst Roets [01:02:11] Well, I think the, the plan is to to firstly to be well organized communities, to have a very strong sense of community, a sense of pride in who we are, to remain Christian and have a strong faith, strong family ties and so forth. That’s where it starts. And then other than that, the second step, you might say the plan is to to just create certain realities on ground level. So it’s one thing to say, you know, we want more authority or more self-determination, but you have to, in a sense, create that so that what you have created can be recognized. It’s there’s no point in saying, well, you guys can have your own place, but that place doesn’t exist. So, so I think, I think what the Afrikaner people need to do is, is in a large, to a large extent, built their own self-determination. And I think that that’s what we what we intend to do. But it would help a lot if we can get recognition for this pursuit as a legitimate pursuit.

Tucker [01:03:04] So you don’t think I sort of just didn’t ask you to pause? I should have you began this segment of the conversation by saying the current scheme, the current arrangement, is not going to work. Yep. I think most people I’m certainly I as an outsider, instinctively kind of want it to work.

Ernst Roets [01:03:23] Well, it’s a good story. It sounds like a good story.

Tucker [01:03:25] Yeah. It is. I mean, I’ll admit to being kind of a dopey liberal in some ways. I really prefer the idea of, you know, people living together in harmony. It’s just. I just feel that way. I can help it. That’s my enlightenment legacy or something I think you should do with reality. And I definitely don’t think you should be allowed to kill people because the way they look. Period. Oh, so by the way, why how did these people why did they go on TV? Like they’re on the right side? They’re like endorsing genocide. Like I don’t understand. I don’t understand how they’ve been allowed to get away with being on Winnie Mandela side and feeling self-righteous. I just don’t get that. I think it’s disgusting. Whatever. I said that five times, I can’t say enough. But how do you know it won’t work? Like ANC obviously isn’t a criminal gang. Totally incompetent. You don’t have electricity on the dam. It’s not working. They’re just stealing everything. Got it. Stealing the copper out of the wires. But there’s not another political coalition that could run it effectively.

Ernst Roets [01:04:24] Oh, so. So you mentioned electricity in Johannesburg. The mayor just a few days ago announced that people should just wait seven days and then they will have water. So it’s not just an electricity problem. There’s a water problem.

Tucker [01:04:36] It’s waterproof. You’re gonna have a food problem at some point.

Ernst Roets [01:04:38] Well, if the farmers are targeted. Yes. So so there are many reasons why it’s not working and why it won’t work. And well, everything you can think of points to that direction. One is just the data, as I said, like you can look at the levels of how crime is increasing, how unemployment is increasing. Our government service delivery is increasingly failing. Everything, everything. I honestly health how health is, is deteriorating everything except tax collection. That’s one aspect of it. Another aspect of it is just the extent to which people in South Africa are turning their back on politics. There’s this political vacuum in South Africa, and you can see it, for example, with the extent to which people have stopped voting, how voter turnout has dropped significantly in elections. People just don’t get interested. They vote reluctantly, those who do. So that’s one aspect.

Tucker [01:05:29] Interesting.

Ernst Roets [01:05:31] Even so.

Tucker [01:05:31] Why do you think that? Because they feel hopeless.

Ernst Roets [01:05:33] Because they feel the political establishment is completely disconnected. They don’t. It doesn’t resonate with him. They don’t. People vote for parties even though they don’t really like them. But they think this is of all the parties. I don’t like any of them, but this one is the least bad, so I’ll vote for that one. So there’s a complete disconnect between the politicians or the political elite in South Africa, even the opposition parties and the people. And so there’s this political vacuum that has developed and this vacuum is filled. As my friend Aronson settle in South Africa says, either by the good guys or the bad guys. It’s filled by the bad guys in terms of organized crime. So we have these mafias and gangs coming to the fore with significant power, and to such an extent that the government is afraid of them. Or it can be found.

Tucker [01:06:17] That is the story globally, isn’t it?

Ernst Roets [01:06:19] Yeah. Well, yeah.

Tucker [01:06:21] The drug cartels are one of the most powerful governments in the world, or they’re not even in government.

Ernst Roets [01:06:24] It’s incredible. Yeah. So we have a construction mafia, for example. If you if you build a shopping center, the construction mafia turns up and they tell you you need to employ our people, or else we’re going to sabotage your building and, you know, stuff like that. And it’s it’s a regular.

Tucker [01:06:38] Thing and you can’t fight.

Ernst Roets [01:06:39] Them. No, you can’t, you can’t fight them. And but the vacuum can be filled by the good guys. And that’s well organized communities who take control of what is important to them. And so the future is very and that’s what analysts and scenario analysts and so forth have been saying that the future is one of deterioration, where you will have communities who will be much worse off than they are today because of the bad guys filling the void. And you might have flourishing communities because of good guys filling the void. And so that’s another reason. But I think the most important fundamental underlying reason why it’s not sustainable is it’s a political system that is detached from the reality in South Africa. The reality is the distance from Cape Town, the south to the north, or South Africa is the distance from Rome to London. So it’s a big country number one. But it’s not homogenous by any means. It’s very diverse. Yes, 11 official languages.

Tucker [01:07:36] It’s not just just to restate. It’s not just black and white at all.

Ernst Roets [01:07:39] No no no no no, it certainly not. Indian communities is what we call colored communities and Africa. And they are various different tribes. You could say all cultural communities within among black South Africans and among white South Africans. So it’s very diverse, different languages, different cultures. There’s a and and now we have this political system that just says you have individual rights. And, and in some ways the Constitution, even though it was very much celebrated when it was adopted, it was called the Constitution in the world, and the most liberal, most democratic, and so forth.

Tucker [01:08:11] The Constitution guarantees everything, but you get nothing.

Ernst Roets [01:08:13] Yeah, exactly. That’s exactly it. So we have what they call third generation rights first, second and third. It’s a very vast network of rights that you have in theory and but but then the question is, so there’s this idea that the highest authority is the Constitution, but it’s not possible for a written document to have the highest authority. The highest authority is with the person who gets to interpret it. So if, if say so.

Tucker [01:08:37] Boy, is that true. So then.

Ernst Roets [01:08:39] So for example, section 25 of the Constitution in South Africa, which the government is trying to change, it’s a private property rights clause. They want to change it, but currently it says the government can expropriate your property if it’s in the public interest. Now, if you ask me as a Westerner, when is it in public interest to expropriate property? It would be something like they have to build a big highway, Or maybe there’s a military emergency or something like that. If you ask one of if you ask a judge who is founded in this ideology we’ve just spoken of, they would say it’s in the public interest for white people not to own land. So so it’s a question of interpretation. You can have a wonderful document, but it boils down to how do you interpret it. And so and that’s why I’m saying it’s not compatible with with realities on ground level. And you know we can. And then there have been many lawfare in South Africa, many, many, many South Africans, a very good example of political court cases. And we’ve won many and we’ve lost many. But it’s it’s, it’s it’s a it’s a ship that is sinking. That’s the.

Tucker [01:09:37] One. It all seems fake. I mean, it seems like and I again, one of the reason I’m so fascinated by your country is I think it’s it’s on a trajectory that I recognize as an American. So you have these legacy institutions that sort of go through the kabuki of dispensing justice. But it’s not justice, actually. It’s totally disconnected from justice doesn’t mean anything.

Ernst Roets [01:09:57] Yes.

Tucker [01:09:58] And you have this Constitution which is beautiful, which is, you know, ignorant. The only power resides in the people who interpret it, as you said. And so then you reached kind of the endpoint or the most recent endpoint, which is the idea that whites can own land. Can you explain this?

Ernst Roets [01:10:15] Yes. So they have been trying to change the South African constitution, the property rights clause, to empower the government to expropriate private property without compensation. That’s the buzzword. It’s just just.

Tucker [01:10:25] Steal the land.

Ernst Roets [01:10:25] Yeah, it’s they call it it’s expropriation without compensation, but it’s confiscation of property. That’s what it is.

Tucker [01:10:31] Well, how is expropriation without compensation different from stealing?

Ernst Roets [01:10:34] No, exactly.

Tucker [01:10:35] But shoplifting.

Ernst Roets [01:10:37] It’s just it’s it’s flabbergasting to see the extent to which, again, academics and analysts and journalists are rushing to the defense of the South African government in South Africa. Yes. So, yes, one of the many bizarre things that they would say, they would say, this is all a lie. You guys are lying. It’s not expropriation without compensation. It’s expropriation without compensation. But compensation can be null. So it can be zero compensation.

Tucker [01:11:03] So it’s not happening, but it’s a good thing than it is. Yeah. That’s it. That’s it as always. Right.

Ernst Roets [01:11:07] And so the president has just signed the expropriation bill in South Africa, which is now which they now. Oh he signed it. Yeah yeah yeah yeah. So so and so there’s still an attempt to change the Constitution and there’s now a new bill in, in, in process. It was just announced, I think a week ago that they want to pass through Parliament that says that 80% of that’s what it boils down to. That 80% of land or property in South Africa must be owned by black people. So because it’s it it must be racially representative. And so I want to tell you a quick story about this, because it sort of highlights the ideology. I was at a land summit in South Africa, and a spokesperson for the Department of Land Reform spoke, and it was very clear from his speech that the problem is white people owning land. It was a racial thing. It was very clear. But it’s, it’s it’s colored with words like restitution and and correcting historic injustices and so forth. And so I asked him at this summit, I said to give here’s an example. And what would the government’s position be on this? The example is a white guy owns a farm. The government takes it from him to correct historic injustices, and they give it to a black guy, and it’s a black farmer. And maybe a year or two down the line, this black farmer decides he doesn’t want to be a farmer anymore. He wants to sell this land. And the buyer is white. And now there’s a white farmer again. What’s the government’s position on this? And the spokesperson for the department says in that case, the correction of the injustice has been reversed. So it’s it’s it’s completely bizarre.

Tucker [01:12:41] And then what’s interesting is we’ve seen this exact movie frame by frame, right next door in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, which was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, one of the big tobacco producers in Africa.

Ernst Roets [01:12:54] It’s a it’s very sad what happened to that.

Tucker [01:12:57] Well, it’s shocking, but it’s again, it’s, you know, like organized government sponsored racism doesn’t work. And I don’t care how often The New York Times defends it. It’s always the same. And what that is like right next door to you. And you have a refugee crisis in your country because of it.

Ernst Roets [01:13:15] And our government are willing. So what do.

Tucker [01:13:17] They say to.

Ernst Roets [01:13:18] That? No, they say that Robert Mugabe is a hero and that Zanu pf the party’s party.

Tucker [01:13:23] Yeah, yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:13:24] Is is a good party and it’s a liberation force and we respect them. Okay.

Tucker [01:13:28] So again no one wants to use the term. But this is this is genocide. I mean that’s what that is. It’s like targeting a group of people for extinction elimination on the basis of immutable characteristics. Like I don’t know what is there another genocide, a genocide definition I’m not aware of.

Ernst Roets [01:13:45] Well, you I think I think you can say they are threats, threats of that happening. I there’s not a genocide happening.

Tucker [01:13:50] And I’m not saying there is I’m saying that’s what’s going like. What’s the other end point here?

Ernst Roets [01:13:55] Well, well.

Tucker [01:13:56] You’re not human. You can’t own land. You should be killed. What am I?

Ernst Roets [01:14:00] And yeah, if you own land, by definition, that’s illegitimate. Regardless of whether you bought the land, it doesn’t matter how you got the land.

Tucker [01:14:06] Because of your race.

Ernst Roets [01:14:07] Because of your race? Yes.

Tucker [01:14:08] Okay, if we can’t say that’s wrong, then you know anyone who can’t say that’s wrong and you want to make excuses for that as a dangerous person? I don’t know what else to say. Put another group in there. I don’t care what group it is.

Ernst Roets [01:14:21] So? So the ANC in South Africa wanted to. They have this process of name changes. And by the way, this targeting of statues came from South Africa. It’s happening in America. It started in South Africa, you know, burning down statues and so forth. So and they’ve had this long process of name changes. And one thing they wanted to do change the street in which the US embassy is in South Africa to Fidel Castro Avenue. And that’s one story. The other one is they wanted to change one of the main streets in Pretoria to name it of the multitude. And then some of the opposition parties said, are you crazy? Do you know what Mao Tse tung did? And the response was, remember, Mao was never convicted of any crime.

Tucker [01:14:58] So it’s so I say it does seem not only like one of the worst governments in the world, but one of the dumbest also.

Ernst Roets [01:15:08] Well, so I think I think there’s but there’s some explanation as to why the South African government has gone so off the rails, and it’s that they’ve gotten a free pass for decades.

Tucker [01:15:18] Yeah, that’s right.

Ernst Roets [01:15:18] Because of this narrative, they could do and say whatever they want. They got no criticism or very little criticism, no very careful criticism. And that’s why I think they they they’ve gone ballistic after the recent comments by Trump and people like Elon Musk and so have that.

Tucker [01:15:33] I’m sorry, I don’t I don’t follow it that closely. Have they. Those comments were noticed and.

Ernst Roets [01:15:37] Said, oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It’s a it’s the biggest story in South Africa at the moment really.

Tucker [01:15:42] And what are they saying?

Ernst Roets [01:15:43] Well, they’re saying that we’ve the organizations that I was involved with at the time, they’ve committed treason that we’ve been charged for treason.

Tucker [01:15:50] You’ve been charged with treason? Yeah. For what?

Ernst Roets [01:15:53] For speaking well, among others. For me. Speaking with you about what’s happened to treason. Yeah, because it’s bad mouthing your country. That’s.

Tucker [01:16:00] That’s the argument I am.

Ernst Roets [01:16:02] So I don’t know if it was this one of the opposition parties.

Tucker [01:16:06] I wanted to go to Cape Town for Christmas. Just on vacation. I didn’t have time in the end.

Ernst Roets [01:16:10] But you left?

Tucker [01:16:11] Probably. I probably shouldn’t go without your saying.

Ernst Roets [01:16:14] No, no. You should come to South Africa now. You should definitely come, buddy. I don’t know if there’s going to as much as will come from the treason charges, but that’s certainly. Yeah, but you’ve.

Tucker [01:16:23] Been charged with treason. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:16:24] They were. They were official complaints filed at the police. Yes, yes.

Tucker [01:16:29] What’s the penalty for treason in South Africa?

Ernst Roets [01:16:31] It would be imprisonment. We don’t have the date. We don’t have the death penalty.

Tucker [01:16:34] No, they just as Nicholas. You. It’s informal.

Ernst Roets [01:16:38] Well, I’m. I’m honestly. Seriously, I’m more concerned if the questions about safety, about mob justice in South Africa than than the actual government coming off the horse.

Tucker [01:16:49] So what does that look like?

Ernst Roets [01:16:51] Well, we we have we I think you reported on this in 20 2021. I think when there was this massive riots in South Africa, when they just in.

Tucker [01:17:01] Durban.

Ernst Roets [01:17:02] In Durban. And then I remember that, yeah, it sort of spilled out to routing to Johannesburg to a lesser extent. And it’s just people it’s almost like, you know, smelling blood and becoming extremely violent. Oh yeah. And then people join in by the thousands.

Tucker [01:17:15] I’ve, I’ve seen that with my own eyes a couple of times. Yeah. It’s really scary.

Ernst Roets [01:17:20] So someone, a friend from Europe once asked me, are you not afraid that the government is going to come to your house and take your stuff? And my honest answer is not that much. I’m more concerned about a mob showing up.

Tucker [01:17:32] And so then what do you do?

Ernst Roets [01:17:34] Well, if if you are alone, you can’t do anything. If you’re a well functioning, well organized community, then the community, you can call people on the radio. You can you can get the community to take a stance. And I think I think that’s one too.

Tucker [01:17:46] So you don’t get lynched.

Ernst Roets [01:17:47] Yes.

Tucker [01:17:48] You got a lot of lynchings. And so I mean, that’s again added to the irony file. I mean, South Africa is like the world capital of lynching.

Ernst Roets [01:17:55] Yes.

Tucker [01:17:56] Oh I noticed.

Ernst Roets [01:17:56] Yeah. It’s not so much white people who are.

Tucker [01:17:59] Targeted, I’m aware know it of blacks.

Ernst Roets [01:18:01] Yeah yeah, yeah. Yeah. That that certainly it has happened in the previous dispensation. It’s still happening to an extent. Not as much as in the past, but people don’t know that it’s still happening.

Tucker [01:18:10] And to people accused of crimes and. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:18:12] And it’s partly due to the fact that the police is absent. Right. So especially in townships, someone is a rapist and the police doesn’t show up, doesn’t do anything, and then the local community just deals with him. That type of thing happens.

Tucker [01:18:25] In a very brutal way. Yes, yes.

Ernst Roets [01:18:29] Yeah, it does happen in a brutal way.

Tucker [01:18:31] Yeah. Yeah. I I’ve noticed like pretty shocking. Like almost like I wouldn’t want to describe it.

Ernst Roets [01:18:37] Yeah. Yeah I mentioned the Nicholas murders before. So we, we have that and it’s the same with the xenophobic violence. It’s It’s very unfortunate. And if we had a well-functioning police service, maybe that would have helped. But we don’t. So. So in South Africa, the we can check the numbers. I’m pretty sure the private security sphere in South Africa is almost as big as private security in America. But America’s much larger private security in South Africa is more than double the police and the army combined. If you add the police and the army up together and you multiplied by two private security, the amount of private security officers in South Africa, security guards is, do you.

Tucker [01:19:16] Have the right of self-defense, the right to defend yourself and your family?

Ernst Roets [01:19:21] We do have the right to self-defense. We can own firearms, although it’s not as easy as in America. Yes, but you can you can do that. And you can get arms, especially through a private security company. You can there’s some room to make sure that you can protect yourself.

Tucker [01:19:34] And does it work?

Ernst Roets [01:19:35] Yes, yes. In terms of the farm murders, we’ve seen that statistically that that in communities where areas or communities where people are well organized with our videos, where they drive patrols, where they are trained, there’s a decrease in four murders. You can clearly see that actually, in the last few years, the phone murder numbers have come down a bit. And it’s not because because the the incitement has gotten better. It’s not because the police is more efficient. It’s because local communities have become much more involved with their own safety. And so that’s certainly one of the most important building blocks of the.

Tucker [01:20:12] So what now that the president I’m using air quotes again around president, I mean, the whole system is fake. Obviously it doesn’t affect justice. It doesn’t improve the lives of its citizens. It’s a no sense of legitimate government. And by the way, it’s not the only illegitimate government in the world. But but anyway, what happens when they try? The government tries to put this law into effect to try and act on it. You know, the government shows up your house as you can’t. You know, you’ve lived in the same plot for 100 years. You can’t have a because you’re white. We’re taking it like what? How do people comply?

Ernst Roets [01:20:47] No, no, people won’t comply. No, I mean, that’s partly why I told this story at the beginning is the Afrikaner people and the farmers are very stubborn. This in Afrikaans we say R2 hard hit it. So this I will.

Tucker [01:21:00] Farmers. You have to be stubborn to be a farmer in the first place.

Ernst Roets [01:21:03] Yes, and especially a farmer in private equity.

Tucker [01:21:05] I mean, it’s easier.

Ernst Roets [01:21:06] Yes, exactly. So it’s, it’s it’s a common trope among farmers to say that I would rather die on my farm than to hand it over to the government. And so I think if they really tried to act on it, which they haven’t tried, they are land invasions in South Africa, but it’s not so much the government, it’s mobs and gangs and so forth invading people’s land. But if they really tried to act on these attempts at expropriation, there’s going to be a massive backlash. And that’s there’s no doubt. So what they would say is this is actually what the government is up that that we need to do what happened in Zimbabwe, but without violence. But that’s how they would argue it.

Tucker [01:21:46] And that’s just how we need to. What happened in Zimbabwe?

Ernst Roets [01:21:48] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But this time with it’s one of the.

Tucker [01:21:50] Worst crimes of my lifetime.

Ernst Roets [01:21:52] Yeah. Well, they say publicly. Yeah, you can find it online. And so the argument is but but we are we’re going to do it a bit better. We’re going to do it without violence. But what that means is we’re going to do what happened in Zimbabwe. And you are not going to resist. That’s what it means. But obviously people will resist when they try to do that. There’s no doubt about it. But I do think the government is very incompetent. You know, they have these very radical ideas. I don’t know if there is a competency competency to actually go through.

Tucker [01:22:20] That’s that’s the absolute. I lived in Washington, DC almost my whole life. And that was absolutely true there. You know, the government make all these local government make all these threatening noises, do this, do that, do the other thing. It’s against the law to do this. Whatever. And you just kind of ignore people. Just ignore it.

Ernst Roets [01:22:35] And so there are some business organizations in South Africa who now use the term maximum appropriate noncompliance. That’s what they encourage private companies to do. So it’s a form of civil disobedience. It’s with all these big that’s these black empowerment lawyers just say we’re just not going to comply.

Tucker [01:22:54] I know someone who had a thriving business. He built himself in South Africa. And the government shut up and said, you’re handing half your business to your new partner who didn’t do anything. Just show up and collect the money. And it’s just he stole half his business. Because it’s all theft. I mean, it doesn’t. I know that black South Africans haven’t gotten richer in the last third. No.

Ernst Roets [01:23:12] No. And the government owns the land. Most of the land that they expropriate, they don’t give it to people. It goes to the government.

Tucker [01:23:17] So what the government did say, like, how about no, look, you’ve no legitimacy and you haven’t been here any longer than I’ve been here. And you have, I mean, and I have guns too. So, like, I’m not participating. How’s that? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:23:30] Well, civil disobedience can be a wonderful thing. And we’ve had some examples of successful civil disobedience campaigns in South Africa, where the government had this. They call it the e-toll system. It’s like a big tax system on the highways that just it’s an electronic text toll system that. But people just by the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands just refuse to to comply to get the tags and so forth. And eventually they had to stop it because even though it was law, people just didn’t do it. And the same with Covid. Covid was a good example that a lot of. We’ve had a bizarre Covid. I mean, everyone has had a bizarre Covid, so we had these strange laws like you can’t buy flip flops during Covid.

Tucker [01:24:07] Yeah, those are deadly.

Ernst Roets [01:24:08] Yeah, yeah. And you cannot buy shorts, all that and stuff. You cannot buy cooked chicken. We had these really, really bizarre Covid laws. It’s a crime to buy cooked chicken or to sell cooked chicken during Covid. And so people just people just said, well, we don’t care. We just going to do what we want. And so there was a massive civil disobedience phenomenon in South Africa during the Covid lockdown. And so I think people have learned and the government couldn’t do anything about it. I think people have learned that and that that you can actually do a lot if you just don’t comply with these completely ridiculous, irrational laws.

Tucker [01:24:47] That sounds I mean, I I’m the one in South Africa. But again, I have lived in Washington, D.C., so that sounds totally right to me. I wonder, though, about what you said us, that when we first started with this, about the the mob justice. That does sound scary to me.

Ernst Roets [01:25:03] I think that’s that’s a bigger threat.

Tucker [01:25:05] What do you do about that? How do you live in a country where, you know, like your neighbors could rise up against you?

Ernst Roets [01:25:12] Yeah. So? So, so we’ve had some examples of this. It started with the Rhodes Must Fall movement. The it was a oh the roads. Oh this will John roads. So this one guy defecated on Cecil John roads. A statue at was a duke. What university was it in in in Cape Town. And then they started this movement dedicated on. Yeah, yeah.

Tucker [01:25:34] That’s attractive. Well, that’s kind of that’s kind of like the level actually that you’re dealing with.

Ernst Roets [01:25:40] Yeah. And so they.

Tucker [01:25:41] Jumped on it.

Ernst Roets [01:25:41] They started this movement of tearing down statues, which eventually boiled over to America. And that’s how it got to America. It started in and it boiled down over to Europe and so forth. But it started with that, the targeting of statues. I think it was 2012 or something. It was. Yeah, maybe before that even. And it became a mob. It and and they, they, they wore T-shirts with slogans like kill the whites, like on the t shirts. And, and it became very violent and very overtly racist. And it was students running around just, you know, setting things on fire, burning down buildings and stuff like that so that that is a real threat. And then later we had the Feesmustfall movement that was university students demanding that education must be free. You shouldn’t pay to go to university. And it was the same thing. And now we’ve had these more recently we’ve had political parties sort of taken up that thing, this kill the Bush and so forth. And so I honestly think in South Africa, the threat of mob violence is a bigger threat than the golf.

Tucker [01:26:43] Course it is. Of course it is. And, you know, that’s where you get killed in situations like that, I think. So what do you I mean, you have to be pretty well organized. Pretty well armed.

Ernst Roets [01:26:56] Well, the the thing is, there’s no silver bullet. There’s no one thing that we can do to make sure that we’re equipped to withstand that. But if there is a silver bullet, it would be or the closest to it it would be. What I mentioned earlier is well organized communities, communities that have a sense of community that that recognize that you have a sense of responsibility not just towards yourself and your own family, but towards your community, and that you have some form of a communal identity that is under threat, that is being targeted. And you have to protect yourself. You have to fulfill a bunch of functions that the government is not fulfilling, even though you’re paying them to do it. They’re not doing it. So you have to look after your own safety. You need to have a gun. You need to have a bulletproof vest. You need to have. Or if you don’t, in at least a significant amount of people in your in your community must, especially those who are more interested in this type of thing. You need to be well organized. You need to be prepared if something bad happens in your community, if the mob comes, if they set the shopping mall on fire, or if they come for people’s houses, that in a very short time frame, you can get a whole bunch of people mobilized to protect their community. And with these riots in 2021, that was a good case study because some communities were completely unprepared and they were virtually destroyed, and some communities were very well prepared. And when the mobs arrived, there was a bunch of people with guns waiting for them. And I saw.

Tucker [01:28:20] That video of the South Asian communities in type in the big South Asian, big Indians, his community there, and I don’t know if this is representative, but the videos I saw, man, they were not putting up with it at all.

Ernst Roets [01:28:31] Yeah, they were very well armed. Yes.

Tucker [01:28:34] Yeah. It’s like some heroic Indians out there. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:28:37] There was one, I think some guy with something that looked like a minigun on the back of a pickup truck. I don’t know where they got that, but I don’t know. But that’s, that’s an example. It was another.

Tucker [01:28:47] That I, you know, these videos are all out of context. I’m not. Yeah. I don’t know that I read this, but I just assume we have got some brave Indians and yes.

Ernst Roets [01:28:53] Yes I do. We have some brave Indians. We do. But and they were they were other examples. One was a the mob was approaching a town and the people were waiting for them on a bridge. And then they got there. They just couldn’t enter because the people had just cordoned off their own town and their own village or community, and they weren’t able to enter. So we’ve had some case studies of this. It’s South Africa’s a fascinating case study for a lot of things.

Tucker [01:29:17] It certainly is. It certainly is. There’s just a dumb question, a childish question. Why, if I’m the government of South Africa, it’s like, why are you going after productive people? For one thing, the most productive. And that would include the Indians, the Afrikaners, by the way, some of the black African immigrants here, Zimbabweans like these are like are some of the most productive people in America. Why not just live in harmony, actually. So what would it be better for everybody?

Ernst Roets [01:29:49] Of course. Of course it would be better. I think it’s because they have. When they took power in 1994, they explicitly said, we are not a political party. We are not a government in terms of what people think a government should be. We are a liberation movement committed to the promotion of socialism and committed to the promotion of black nationalism. And that’s that’s the idea.

Tucker [01:30:10] I said that 94.

Ernst Roets [01:30:11] Yeah, they even said that before 94. They published.

Tucker [01:30:14] So it’s just I know I’m going back to the same themes. I’m getting older. Sorry, but like, no, but I mean, I actually did know that because as I said, I’ve always been interested and I knew people there. But nobody in the American press mentioned that. Not one.

Ernst Roets [01:30:29] Yeah. There’s a well-known book that was an international bestseller, My Traitor’s Heart, by a guy called Ryan Mullen. It’s sort of his autobiography. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so there’s one section in that book. I know, Ryan, I know the author is a great guy, but in the book he writes.

Tucker [01:30:45] About these in English. I don’t know if he wrote it off originally, but it’s a beautifully written book.

Ernst Roets [01:30:50] It’s very well written, very nice. He speaks like he writes. Oh he does. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, so there’s one part in the book where he talks about picking up the New York Times, and I’m sort of saying this from memory, from reading the book. But broadly speaking, what he says is he picks up the New York Times in, I don’t know, 1992 or something in, in New York or wherever. And there’s two stories next on the same page. The one is about the ANC and Nelson Mandela coming to save South Africa. And then the other story is a somewhat smaller story About a guy being Nicholas in a local community, a guy being viciously attacked and killed. And so he writing that book that what what concerned him was that The New York Times was not able to connect these two stories to each other. Yeah. They didn’t recognize that. It’s part of the same story. It’s presented as two completely different.

Tucker [01:31:40] I think they knew exactly. I think it was very obvious. So I was 25 and 1994 and it was very obvious to me. And I, you know, I don’t think I have any special powers of insight. I think you would have to be lying to yourself or lying to your audience not to acknowledge it. And by the way, it’s 1994. That’s less than 20 years after the cameras took power in Nam Pen in Cambodia.

Ernst Roets [01:32:04] That was while the Rwandan genocide was happening.

Tucker [01:32:07] It was the same years the World War two was later that year. So the same.

Ernst Roets [01:32:10] Month, even the the election at least was.

Tucker [01:32:14] In July.

Ernst Roets [01:32:15] April, may, may, may. Okay. Right.

Tucker [01:32:18] Right. Yeah. Yeah, I remember them both very well and I knew people in both places at the time. But I remember thinking, you know, obviously what happened in Kigali, we were in Rwanda is way worse than anything is happening in South Africa, thank God. But bottom line, when bad people with bad motives stated publicly take power, it’s not good. So like, I don’t know, that’s not hard.

Ernst Roets [01:32:41] Well, there’s a story from Rwanda and what is it I keep mentioning in the same, the same time? I think Linda Melvin wrote a book called Conspiracy to Murder, which is about, I think she lived in Rwanda and she’s a journalist, and she wrote about the what happened and she writes about a meeting. Must have been a party in Washington between American diplomats and government officials from Rwanda in the run up to, I think, to the genocide. And and it was just a big celebration. And everyone was happy because Rwanda was in the process of becoming a democracy. And then afterwards, someone asked one of the Americans, But did you not know what was happening in Rwanda? That they were on the verge of committing genocide? And he said the American diplomats said, yes, we knew. But we were so excited about democracy and Rwanda becoming a democracy. We didn’t want to spoil the mood by confronting them.

Tucker [01:33:34] That sounds like an American diplomat. Yeah. Wow.

Ernst Roets [01:33:37] That’s awesome. So, so that’s very, very alarming. This idea of being so excited about a potential idea that you are not willing to confront the realities that that’s happening or that could potentially unfold.

Tucker [01:33:51] We’re being unwilling to clearly define your terms, like what is democracy, actually?

Ernst Roets [01:33:56] Yeah. Well, that’s I think that’s an underlying.

Tucker [01:33:58] It’s an underlying problem. Yeah. Right. It’s an it’s a problem that’s only surfaced in this country.

Ernst Roets [01:34:03] And I give you an example, I hope you from the South African perspective. So I mentioned the name changes. It’s a big thing in South Africa.

Tucker [01:34:10] I’m sure that’ll fix your problems. Will that bring the electricity and water back north.

Ernst Roets [01:34:13] Obviously. So there’s a town called among them Toti which is on the east coast of South Africa. The main street was named Kingsway. They changed it to Andrews on Duke Street. Now, Andrews Zonda is really only known for one thing. He was a member of the ANC Youth League and I believe it was 1985. He planted a bomb in a shopping center and he killed, I think, five people and injured 40. All of the people who were killed were women and children. That’s the only thing he did. And he was a member of the ANC Youth League. The ANC regards that event as a something that they claim as a an act of heroism. So they named the main street after him and said, there are people in that town who drive to work in a street named after the person who killed their children, and now they would say that they need to do these name changes to make sure that they get rid of offensive names, offensive names, or Afrikaans names or names linked to South Africa’s past. And so I was at a again I summit with this was discussed and I mentioned this, I said, so you say that in Pretoria, Church Street is an offensive name and has to be changed in a man’s name. Toti. You changed Kingsway to Andrew Zondi and I tell the story and I said, so who decides if it’s if it’s offensive or not? And the guy said, oh, well that’s easy. The majority decides. And so but it’s not even the majority, it’s just the government. The government decides because they believe they are the majority. So we have these extremely offensive things happening under the banner of, well, they’re murderous.

Tucker [01:35:43] I mean, I see again, I just yeah, I think it’s the picture is really, really clear. You know, it’s it couldn’t be clearer. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:35:53] Yeah. Absolutely.

Tucker [01:35:54] How do you is you’re staying.

Ernst Roets [01:35:56] Yeah. No definitely. Yeah. We’ll stay.

Tucker [01:35:59] You guys must love your country.

Ernst Roets [01:36:00] Yeah, we really do. I mean, in South Africa, everyone who’s been to South Africa would say it’s an incredibly beautiful country and it truly is. And it’s a country that, unfortunately, has suffered so much under this current government and has suffered so much in the past. One of our Afrikaans philosophers, a man named in a fun way, Clough wrote. I think in the 1930s or something that you love AI people. Not so much for the accomplishments as for the hardships that they’ve had to endure.

Tucker [01:36:28] That’s right.

Ernst Roets [01:36:29] And and I think that’s true for South Africa. South Africa has endured many hardships and also for our people. The Afrikaner people, as with many other people all over the world, have endured many hardships. And it’s through these hardships and remaining, maintaining our sense of identity that we really love our history and our tradition.

Tucker [01:36:47] And, well, you came in the first place because you were an oppressed minority, correct? Yep. I know the French did. Yes.

Ernst Roets [01:36:52] The French, you know, it’s. Yes. Yes, it was the fleeing, the religious wars.

Tucker [01:36:56] Of course they were getting killed.

Ernst Roets [01:36:57] Yes. In big numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s that’s how that’s, that’s part of our origin story.

Tucker [01:37:02] How we what’s also actually true. Yeah. Part of history. I mean, it’s not a myth. It’s real.

Ernst Roets [01:37:07] Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

Tucker [01:37:08] Yeah. So do you think? I don’t know what the resolution will be? And I’m certainly rooting for all South Africans of every color, but fervently. But I gotta think that being able to say certain obvious truths out loud helps. Yes. Do you think.

Ernst Roets [01:37:29] It. Well, the problem is, if you do that, you really you get bashed quite aggressively and.

Tucker [01:37:35] Yeah. But like compared to what?

Ernst Roets [01:37:37] Yeah. No, they just said.

Tucker [01:37:38] We’re taking your land because your skin color.

Ernst Roets [01:37:39] The alternative is worse. It’s just living the lie. It’s, it’s it’s much worse than getting bashed for for telling the truth. Can I, can I tell you a quick story, a quick reference about courage?

Tucker [01:37:50] Of course.

Ernst Roets [01:37:51] So it’s somewhat philosophical, but I’ll make it practical. So Odysseus is on his way back from the Trojan War and and he has all these hardships, and he’s trying to get home, and he gets told that the only way for him to get home is to face Skyler and Charybdis. Skyler is this six headed sea monster, and Charybdis is a monstrous whirlpool that swallows ships whole, and the only way for him to get home is he has to navigate through these two monsters, which he eventually does. He decides it’s better for him to move to sail his ship closer to the monster sea monster than the whirlpool, and a whole lot of his people die, but he reaches his destination. And so Aristotle writes about this in the Nicomachean Ethics, and he talks about when he talks about the golden mean. And he says any virtue is about finding the balance between having excess of it and having a deficiency of it. And and so this goes to courage. And courage is a good example. If you have excess courage, you become reckless. Yes. And if you have a deficiency, then you are a coward. And so the point of having courage is finding the balance between cowardice and recklessness. And what’s great about the story of Odysseus is Odysseus discovers that he cannot simply go exactly in the middle between the two He has to be closer to the one threat than to the other, because if he goes too close to the whirlpool, these all ship gets swallowed up. And so the pointy end. Aristotle sees this as well. It’s not to find the exact middle point, it’s to find the appropriate balance between the two extremes. And so the one extreme is recklessness, and the other extreme is his cowardice. And I honestly think in the situation we are in, it’s better to on the side of being too bold than to on the side of having not enough courage or trying to find some form of solution through appeasement. And and so we make mistakes in the process. And, and you know, sometimes you say something wrong or you do something wrong, but, but I’m very much convinced that if we if, if we, if we’re on this course and we try to pursue what we are trying to pursue, rather on the side of having too much boldness and too much courage and facing the consequences, then having to face the consequences of having a lack of of courage.

Tucker [01:40:03] I love that, I got to say, in a lifetime of travel. The two. If I could just generalize the two most impressive groups I meet everywhere my whole life around the world, both groups living in exile in large numbers are the South Africans and the Lebanese are.

Ernst Roets [01:40:20] Really?

Tucker [01:40:21] Yes, yes. I’ve never met one of either group I didn’t like and didn’t admire. I don’t think I’ve met one in either group, and the thing that they have in common is they live in beautiful, volatile countries that they really love, but they’re very hard to live in. Yes. And so they’re they’re caught between that tension, you know, cowardice and recklessness. And they’re making that calculation every single day. And they’re they’re living so thoughtfully and so purposefully and in such a, I don’t know, just a admirable, noble way. I’ve noticed that.

Ernst Roets [01:40:49] Oh, I appreciate the comment of it.

Tucker [01:40:52] Let’s try. Right. Just an observation, but I’ve thought about it many times. Last question what where can and people who have made it this far into the interview and are interested in what’s happening in your country and happening to to your group. How can they follow it? How can they be helpful? How can they learn more and be supportive?

Ernst Roets [01:41:13] Well, I think there are many ways. The one way is just to follow what’s happening in South Africa and speak about it. Yes, because we’ve had this incredible barrage of of communications coming, just telling us again how wrong we are. You know, this narrative is this side. Geist in a certain sense, it’s it’s really like a monster that you have to fight this, you know, that you’re not allowed to say, speak certain truths, even though the truths are self-evident. So I think one thing is, if people just can help spread the message, help take some interest in South Africa, because what’s happening in South Africa is also of interest to the rest of the world.

Tucker [01:41:47] I think it.

Ernst Roets [01:41:47] Is in many ways, South Africa is the future of the Western.

Tucker [01:41:49] World.

Ernst Roets [01:41:50] I know in terms of the problem and the solution, I think. So so that’s one. And then the other is there really are some institutions in South Africa who are really focused on on building community based solutions. And I think if people can can identify these institutions and support these institutions, it really would help. And I think in terms of the US government, if the US government is willing to do something as it seems that they are, I think the most important thing that they could do is a combination of pressuring the South African government from away from these destructive policies, but also supporting communities, local communities or minority communities or nations, you should say, who are committed to finding some form of self-determination.

Tucker [01:42:34] Amen. Well, Godspeed. I hope to see you again. I hope you’ll come back.

Ernst Roets [01:42:39] I thank you, I will, I hope so, too. And and I have to thank you for not just for this interview, but also for the the focus you’ve been putting on South Africa in the past.

Tucker [01:42:46] It was just so it’s just so interesting and it reveals so much about us. I’m American and it reveals a lot about our leadership class. And I think it’s important to say it.

Ernst Roets [01:42:55] Yeah. Well, thank you very much.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-05-14 10:00:212025-05-14 11:15:23Tucker’s Interview with Ernst Roets on South Africa: The good, the bad, and the ugly

From Farmers to Firepower: India’s War Drills, Israel’s Quiet Hand, and the BRICS Fault Line Nobody Is Watching

May 14, 2025/0 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Rose Pinochet
India is now airing war-preparation instructions on public television. Not in whispers, not buried in late-night newscasts, but in the middle of the day—on every channel. The message is explicit: here’s what to do if you’re attacked, how to find shelter, what to listen for. It’s no longer theory. It’s a warning dressed as instruction.
The subcontinent is not a stranger to tension, but this isn’t the usual border posturing. The official tone, the level of public dissemination, and the chilling normalcy with which these PSAs are presented suggest something far more serious. The Indian government is not merely preparing the military—it is preparing the population.
In recent days, the Line of Control in Kashmir lit up again with shelling and drone activity. According to Reuters, Pakistan reported that three of its air bases were targeted by Indian missiles. Yet, after this flare-up, calm returned. The Indian Army confirmed that border areas experienced a relatively quiet night following Operation Sindoor, which reportedly struck militant camps across the LoC (). While a ceasefire has been declared, this calm feels less like resolution and more like a pause between acts.
But to focus only on Kashmir is to misread the broader theater. The confrontation isn’t local—it’s global. This is the visible tip of an iceberg reshaping the post-Cold War order.
India’s growing alignment with the expanded BRICS bloc—now including Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil—is upending the unipolar model dominated by the West. What began as an economic forum has hardened into a multipolar counterweight, developing energy trade routes, alternative currency systems, and parallel intelligence-sharing networks. India, meanwhile, walks a precarious line—balancing deeper economic ties with Russia and China while relying on defense and surveillance support from Washington and Tel Aviv.
That’s where Israel enters the battlefield—as per usual. Though not a BRICS member, Israel has deeply integrated itself into India’s defense infrastructure. Since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the two countries have forged a potent alliance around counterterrorism and digital warfare. Israeli Heron and Searcher drones patrol India’s northern borders. Spike anti-tank missiles are deployed across Indian forward posts . Real-time airborne radar systems, co-developed with Israel and Russia, surveil contested terrain.
Behind the scenes, Israeli advisors have trained Indian intelligence and urban combat units, and Israeli cybersecurity firms—some allegedly tied to NSO Group–grade spyware—have helped India track dissent, espionage threats, and insurgent networks. Israel, officially outside both NATO and BRICS, has become a central nervous system in the world’s most volatile flashpoints—from the Golan Heights to Gujarat.
Meanwhile, the China factor looms large. Pakistan has increasingly turned to Chinese military technology across domains—drones, missile systems, radar arrays. India, conversely, leans on Western and Israeli platforms. As U.S. Senator and former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy recently stated: “Pakistan appears to have won all its partnerships so far with Chinese technology, as opposed to Western technology, which India uses mostly. This is not to our advantage. China is no longer a ‘near-peer competitor,’ but a ‘peer-to-peer competitor’ with the United States.”
Indeed, Hua Bin notes on Unz:

The world just witnesses a shockingly one-sided air war between Pakistan and India last week. Pakistan air force, equipped with Chinese weapon systems, took down a large number of India air combat assets while suffering zero loss.

The air battle featured Chinese-made J-10C fighters, PL-15 air to air missiles, HQ-9 air defense system, and ZDK-03 AWACS. Reported India losses included 3 French-made Rafale fighters, 1 Russia-made Su-30, 1 MiG-29, and 1 Israel-made Heron UAV.

What makes the outcome so shocking is that the Rafale fighter, sold to India at $240 million each, is often lauded as the most advanced European fighter jet, didn’t manage to put up any fight in the confrontation with J-10C. The Mica and Meteor air-to-air missiles carried by Rafale were discovered intact/unfired in the wreckage.

J-10C, by no means a backward fighter, is considered as well past its prime in the Chinese air force whose more advanced fighters include J-20, J-35 (both 5th generation stealth fighters), J-16, J-15 (4.5th generation multirole fighters), let alone the 6th generation fighters (J-36 and J-50) that are being tested.

J-10C is mainly for exports these days. Pakistan has acquired them at $40 million per unit. A few Middle Eastern nations are also considering the jet, including Egypt. Typically Chinese military export is one or one and a half generation behind what the PLA equips itself.

In all fairness, Rafale would be a strong match against J-10C in a head-to-head dog fight. At $240 million, it is even for more expensive than F-35.

Then, how did the Indian air force suffer such a humiliating one-sided loss against a much smaller Pakistan air force?

The answer lies in the strength of the integrated Chinese weapon system used by Pakistan. 

Rather than using a hodgepodge of weapons sourced from France, Russia, Israel, and the US, as is the case with India, Pakistan utilized a full suite of highly integrated and synchronised air combat systems from China …

This geopolitical tech divergence isn’t just academic—it’s battlefield reality. In a world increasingly shaped by real-time cyberwarfare, energy flows, and AI-driven surveillance, the supplier matters as much as the strategy. And BRICS, flush with Chinese capital and Russian oil, is rapidly building the scaffolding of a new order.
But perhaps the earliest tremor of this multipolar conflict came not from the battlefield, but from a tweet.
In 2021, when Rihanna expressed support for Indian farmers protesting agricultural reforms, the Modi government reacted as if hit by an airstrike. Greta Thunberg followed. Delhi accused these figures of participating in an international conspiracy. A domestic labor protest had transformed into a global political fault line.
This hypersensitivity wasn’t just political theater—it was strategic paranoia. It revealed how India saw itself: a rising power under siege, not only by neighbors, but by ideas, images, and narratives. Rihanna’s tweet wasn’t merely seen as a PR headache—it was treated like a front in a war of perception.
And four years later, it seems prophetic.
India isn’t merely preparing for conventional war—it’s readying itself for a multi-domain crisis that spans physical borders, cyberspace, energy pipelines, satellite networks, and information flows. Kashmir is one front. Taiwan is another. The Red Sea, Gaza, the South China Sea—all fragments of an entangled system of friction.
This isn’t a world war in the 1940s sense. It’s a networked war—one where militaries, media, malware, and monetary systems clash across time zones and platforms.
And as BRICS fortifies itself against Western economic weapons, and Western proxies consolidate along Asia’s rim, the question isn’t if there will be a flashpoint.
It’s whether we’ll even recognize the war when it’s already well underway.
Wars no longer need declarations.
They just need normalization.
And when a government begins airing public instructions on how to survive an attack, that normalization has already begun.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Rose Pinochet https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Rose Pinochet2025-05-14 08:16:522025-05-14 08:16:52From Farmers to Firepower: India’s War Drills, Israel’s Quiet Hand, and the BRICS Fault Line Nobody Is Watching
Page 1 of 450123›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only