Featured Articles

Destination 1933: The Holodomor and White Sea-Baltic Canal

Context: It’s for The Greater Good

For the essential world history lessons spoon-fed to most Americans, it probably goes something like this: Out of thin air, the Germans began hating the Jews, mistreating them, and then they sparked World War II as a means to conquer the planet. For many sixth-grade students today, this simplified history concept begins by assigning them the dreadful fictional novel Milkweed, by Jerry Spinelli, as an English class assignment that jumps right into the Warsaw ghetto, “jackboots,” and deportation to the concentration camps with a childish second-grade reading level style. No doubt, this one book alone, especially its confusing ending, is probably responsible for dragging down reading and writing skills of our youth while simultaneously deflating any interest they may have developed for the literary arts. From there, the academics typically continues with Elie Wiesel’s Night, a few hours of the History Channel, a Steven Spielberg movie, and possibly a mobile Anne Frank Museum[1] will assemble in their school auditorium, completing the formal education that sticks like glue in the brains of our youth, just as the skeletal body photos of the concentration camp pierce their memory forever. In middle school alone, over two months of study are likely devoted to this curriculum (i.e. narrative/indoctrination).

This snapshot of 1933 is written for those students capable of opening their minds to critical thinking, whose understanding of our past has been shaped by cunning omission and the bias of the unseen victors. This piece also provides some nuggets and details from rare contemporary counter-narratives for the history enthusiasts already possessing the broader picture of context. As long as this lesson is, let the reader consider that it is little more than ten percent of the “Milkweed” word count. Read some of the 500+ one-star reviews and you’ll feel privileged in taking this journey instead![2]

1933 was a profoundly significant and pivotal year, a period that is hardly given the attention it deserves, especially for our young students. Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as president, New Deal policies began taking shape to counter the Great Depression, and American citizens had to forfeit their precious metal to the government as the gold standard was abrogated. Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and introduced regulations that limited opportunities and restricted the lives of German Jews. Albert Einstein and other influential Jews immigrated to the states in response. And by December the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified repealing the Prohibition of alcohol for Americans. So while there are plenty of historical topics worth exploring for 1933, perhaps the two most damaging to humanity took place under the leadership of Joseph Stalin as the first Five Year Plan was completed in the U.S.S.R.

The Holodomor: Famine in the Ukraine

Taking extreme risks by writing a damning critique about the Soviet Union’s forced collective farming, Gareth Richard Vaughan Jones has been honored as the first journalist to courageously signal to the Western world the details of the devastating man-made famine known today as The Holodomor, genociding between seven to ten million Ukrainians. The article “Famine Grips Russia, Millions Dying, Idle on Rise. Says Briton,” published on March 29, 1933, describes Jones’ effort (as former Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s Foreign Affairs Advisor) to deliver his report of the catastrophe to the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The article quotes him, “I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, ‘There is no bread. We are dying.’” There is considerably more worth reading on this young “unsung hero of Ukraine” who would meet an early end to his life, murdered in Mongolia just two years later.

Unlike today’s outpouring for the Ukrainian people and their interests, the American press did their best to suppress the tragedy of the 1932–1933 Holodomor. And just as this author had to resort to Canadian newspapers to help reveal the century-old conflicts of 1922 Palestine, let’s examine an article from the Edmonton Journal:  “Famine in the Ukraine,”[3] by P.J. Lazarowich, October 25, 1933, p.4:

While the press of Europe, and the American continent is, quite properly, devoting much space to Germany’s treatment of the Jews, it is surprising that so very little interest or sympathy is shown in the matter of the terrible famine now raging in the Ukraine, a country which forms a part of the U.S.S.R., and contains over 32,000,000 of Ukrainian population.

Since this journalist immediately implies that the Jewish plight of that time had taken priority over the news from Ukraine, let us take a peek at the 1933 repression against the Jewish population in Germany as listed in the Holocaust Encyclopedia for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. With an introduction describing the “Nazi”[4] party’s 25-point program’s intent was to segregate the Jewish population and abrogate their political, legal, and civil rights, it posts the following for 1933:

  • March 31 – Decree of the Berlin City Commissioner for Health suspends Jewish doctors from the city’s social welfare services.
  • April 7 – The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service removes Jews from government service.
  • April 7 – The Law on the Admission to the Legal Profession forbids the admission of Jews to the bar.
  • April 25 – The Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities limits the number of Jewish students in public schools.
  • July 14 – The Denaturalization Law revokes the citizenship of naturalized Jews and “undesirables.”
  • October 4 – The Law on Editors bans Jews from editorial posts.

Now that we have some measure of context for comparing tribulations of the two groups, the Jewish community versus the Ukrainian in 1933, Lazarowich continues as follows:

That a state of famine exists in the Ukraine since the beginning of the year 1932 has now been conclusively established in spite of the official denials of the Russian Soviet government. News of the appalling conditions in the Ukraine has reached the civilized world through foreign press correspondents, refugees, and countless letters written by the Ukrainians and others to their friends and relatives in Canada and other parts of the world.

The London Times of June 24, 1933, published a letter signed by Alexander F. Kerensky, the former prime minister of Russia, in which he endeavors to bring to the attention of the civilized world the fact that a terrible famine is raging in certain parts of Russia, particularly in the Ukraine and the northern Caucasus. In part he says:

The last letter that I received from the Ukraine tells me that the people are now eating carcasses of horses, cats and even human flesh. … In the northern Caucasus the population is reduced to eating the bark of trees. To give some conception of the former wealth of these provinces I will quote from Lenin himself: ‘In the Ukraine they feed pigs on wheat, while in the northern Caucasus the peasants in selling milk wash out their glasses in the milk itself. We have in the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Siberia amazing wealth.’ (Works of Lenin, Russ. ed. Vol. 25, p. 300).

Mr. Kerensky then concludes:

This amazing wealth after the realization of the five-year-plan with its forced collectivization has become a famine without parallel. Yet up to today, world opinion remains passive in front of a calamity without precedent in the world’s history – Yours, etc.

During the spring and summer of 1933 the famine had reached such enormous proportions involving the fate of millions of people that even the friends of the Soviets like Walter Duranty,[5] correspondent of the New York Times, are no longer able to conceal the terrible conditions prevailing in the Ukraine.

Regarding Duranty,[6] Wikipedia notes that he is criticized by many for having been a Holodomor Denier by misrepresenting the forced and widespread famine. A Ukrainian-American activist today, Oksana Piaseckyj, is quoted in an NPR website article[7] on Duranty: “He is the personification of evil in journalism. … We think he was like the originator of fake news.” NPR emphasizes that, “In the 1930s, as now, an autocrat’s decrees led to mass deaths of Ukrainian civilians and relied on misinformation to try to cover it up. Reporters, including Duranty, were censored and threatened.”

Next, the evidence of agricultural productivity is described by the Canadian journalist cited above:

Nevertheless, and in spite of the conditions the Russian Soviet government relentlessly continued to collect and export wheat and other grains out of Ukraine. According to the report of the W. Sanford Evans statistical service, Winnipeg, of March 29, 1933, during the period between August 4, 1932, and March 23, 1933, the Soviet government shipped 17,320,000 bushels of wheat out of Ukraine.

After consistent famine denials by the Soviet government and their refusal to allow direct investigation from outsiders, the Canadian Red Cross made a request to send material assistance directly to the Ukrainian people. The article shows the Soviets’ response:

“I have just received your letter of September 9, regarding the desire expressed by a group of Ukrainians to send part of their harvest to their compatriots.

“While expressing my most sincere thanks for the interest you have been good enough to take in this matter, I have the honor to inform you that in view of the satisfactory harvest this year, the executive committee of the Alliance of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies of the U.S.S.R. believes that the carrying out of the Canadian citizens’ proposal is not necessary in the absence of real need.”

But in spite of these official denials the facts of the most terrible famine in history can no longer be concealed. The whole world is aware of it. There are a number of people in every civilized country today, journalists, statesmen, tourists, students, peasants, who have returned or fled from the Ukraine recently and who confirm the reports of the famine in all its appalling details. There are several people in this city of Edmonton whose names and addresses are in the possession of the undersigned who have arrived from the Ukraine in the course of the last few months and who may be interviewed and the facts ascertained. There are also many people in this city of Edmonton who are in possession of private letters from parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends which disclose the true conditions in the Ukraine in all their horror.

The rest of the Edmonton Journal article reads like a ghoulish nightmare! So before we explore the details further, let us look at who was overseeing implementation of Ukrainian collective agriculture.

The first clue comes as early as February 19, 1933, where we discover The Pittsburgh Press (in an article by the United Press) gloating: “Collective Drive Seen As Success”:

Collectivization of agriculture, despite its difficulties and the mistakes that have been made, is capable of success, Lazar M. Kagonovich (sic) told a conference of Kolkhoz “shock brigaders” Thursday in a speech made public today.

Kagonovich, one of Stalin’s trusted lieutenants, is head of the special department recently formed by the Communist Party to conduct the struggle on the agrarian front.

Then, from May through July 1933 what appeared prominently in American newspapers across our nation were several short positive-leaning articles on Lazarus Kaganovich, strikingly like today’s political campaign ads, strongly suggesting that he would become Stalin’s successor. These articles show that the Soviet Pravda was alive and well in the U.S. Here is one (and most of them included his photo):  “Jewish Ex-Saddler Rises To Power in Soviet Russia,” in The Buffalo News, May 27. It reads: “Five-Year Planner and Farm Reorganizer, Second to Stalin, Is Regarded as Next Dictator of Nation.” Or how about this take from The Salem News in Ohio – “A New Figure”:

Seldom do politicians emerge as quickly as Lazarus Kaganovich, newly come to power in Russia, has appeared to Americans. Their introduction leaves them groping [for] his name. … Comrade Kaganovich is that rare creation — the probable successor to a dictator. He is Stalin’s right hand, placed there by Stalin himself. Success in his various duties has caused the people to welcome his presence there. In all probability, his name, now that it has been made known in the United States, will be one of the recurring ones in news from Russia. … Men of steel and iron are not common; they do not thrive in each other’s company. In Russia, apparently, two strong men are working hand in hand. Stalin, old in service, has found a capable understudy in Kaganovich, who is not yet 40 years old. Conjecture or fact, it interests the world to hear of Lazarus Kaganovich and his power.

Although it’s a rare American today who can recognize the name or the facts about his career, Kaganovich was clearly the Soviet leader accountable for the methods and evil behind the Ukrainian Holodomor, and this aspect of his biography was later amplified in 1991 after his death at the ripe age of 97 years:

“[A]fter Stalin himself, Kaganovich was the man most responsible for the forced collectivization of the countryside in the late 1920s and early 1930s, a devastating campaign that moved peasants to state-run farms and claimed millions of lives.”[8] “Kaganovich was born into a Jewish peasant family in the Ukraine. A confirmed atheist who seemed to avoid any contact with Jews throughout his life, he changed his name from Kogan to the more Russian Kaganovich. … [He] was Ukrainian party boss until 1927, when Stalin brought him to Moscow.”[9]

In 1933, the death count attributable to Kaganovich should have been noticed, but the Godless psychopath had considerable American journalistic support. And few Americans know his name today.

Daily Worker — Predecessor to People’s World (online today)

In researching American newspapers on the Ukrainian famine, an interesting discovery is the politically left-leaning/socialist/communist paper “Daily Worker[10] and its Moscow correspondent Nathaniel Buchwald, published both from Chicago and New York City. On April 13, just two weeks after Gareth Jones made his startling report to arouse the world, we find a full-page article praising the “[Soviet] achievements … that have already created the basis for a great increase of the agricultural output with a consequent further improvement of the material level of the population.” The article is titled, “From the Successful First Five-Year Plan, Soviet Workers Pass to the Second,” and while admitting difficulties where “basic foodstuffs are still rationed out” and “obtaining food is sometimes irksome, and takes up much of the leisure of the workers,” Buchwald gives center of attention to blaming the Kulaks for most of the problems through their exploitation of the situation and sabotage.  The CPUSA-approved article attributes rapid development of “agriculture on a socialist basis” to the “elimination of the exploiting kulak-class.”[11] And “elimination” was no accidental choice of words for the Soviet propagandist, as those Kulaks who weren’t outright murdered or forced into collectivized Kolhozes[12] were certainly sent to the Gulag for deadly slave labor.

Buchwald’s kulak blame continues: “A good many of the former kulaks succeeded in penetrating the administrative apparatus of the collective and state farms and even the Party ranks in order to carry on this counter-revolutionary disruptive work within the kolhozes” (emphasis in original). “The wholesale slaughter of cattle carried out by the kulaks in their fight against collectivization resulted in a shortage of meat and dairy products, which is still serious.”

Three months later on July 5, 1933, the same far-left newspaper continued providing a cover-up for the ongoing genocide atrocities to its 35,000 subscribers while glorifying farm collectivization.[13] “The Spring Sowing Campaign in the Soviet Union” by Buchwald gives a full page of details in the history of the “Griadushchy Mir” Crimean commune. Here we read the final utopian-leaning words of the article:

Here you could see before your very eyes the new type of men and women brought into being by the new order. The individualistic proprietary cravings, the sense of personal greed are disappearing. A new spiritual force, a sense of collectivism has come to animate and illumine the lives of these people on their way to “the world to come,” as the name of their commune, Griadushchy Mir, implies.

And on November 4, 1933, Vern Smith is published in the same Daily Worker praising Soviet success, highlighting a Kaganovich speech made at the opening of a new industrial plant, The Kaganovich ball bearing plant.[14] The communist leader is quoted: “In a few days we celebrate the sixteenth anniversary of the October Revolution. These sixteen years are a whole epoch of a new society, reared by a new kind of man.” The visionary, drunk on death, continues…

We declare to the whole world that we are peacefully working. We give the peasant tractors instead of his wooden plow. But, gentlemen of the Far East or West, don’t interfere with our peaceful labor, or you will find the whole millions of our people rally as one man, every worker to defend his factory, every collective farmer to defend his collective.

When the cruel forced slave labor of political opponents is deemed “peaceful labor,” is this not the ultimate example of Orwellian “newspeak” or inversion of fact? In as far as today’s mainstream media and academia pile on the guilt of White Americans of European ancestry with ever-increasing accusations, one must wonder if today’s leftists can feel any guilt for the blatant 1933 cover-up propaganda presented in The Daily Worker or the Walter Duranty articles in the The New York Times? Keep in mind, this occurred long after the American Civil War ostensibly ended the slavery of Blacks. So before moving on to other 1933 contexts, let us give respect to P.J. Lazarowich and delve into the remainder of his October 25 humanitarian plea:

Among the facts disclosed the following are the most striking:

  1. Livestock and poultry have practically disappeared from the Ukraine, having either died from lack of feed or was slaughtered by the starving population.
  2. Dogs and cats have also disappeared. Most of them were killed and eaten by the population. Even rats and mise (sic) are eagerly sought for as food.
  3. The people eat grass, weeds, bark of certain kinds of trees and insects.
  4. Recently cannibalism has become rampant. Even dead bodies are exhumed and devoured. The old, the infirm and the defenceless are secretly murdered and devoured. Mothers are afraid to send their children any distance away from home for fear that they may be murdered and devoured by the famished hordes which roam the country.
  5. The death rate has assumed hitherto unknown proportions. In many villages 20 to 30 persons die every day. Many of the villages have lost two-thirds of the population. The dead are often left un-buried until the bodies decompose. When the burials take place it is in large, common graves generally 20 to 30 bodies in each grave.

It is difficult to estimate the loss of human life, but the consensus of opinion is that it will exceed the figures reached during the famine in 1921–22, which was officially placed at about 5,000,000 people [In the aftermath of the Russian Civil War].

In spite of these facts the Russian Soviet government has not ceased from the forcible requisition of grain in the Ukraine. On the contrary, according to press reports (“Pravda” (Leningrad) No. 181) a large army of red officials has invaded the country under the personal direction of Postyshev and is draining the last drop of blood from the dying population of Ukraine.

In view of all the above facts it appears that the Russian Soviet government is deliberately determined to starve most of the population of Ukraine in order to beat it into complete submission to the principles of Communism which the Ukrainian peasant masses have hitherto vigorously resisted and repudiated.

According to recent reports from the Ukrainian bureau in London, England, all the Ukrainian organizations in western Europe have initiated a movement for the establishment of an international relief committee for Ukraine for the purpose of devising ways and means of and sending immediate relief to the famine stricken areas of Ukraine. Ukrainian representatives from Bukowina (Rumania) and eastern Galicia (Poland) have recently met representatives of the leading humanitarian institutions in London, England, and steps have been taken towards the establishment of a relief committee in London composed of both English and Ukrainian representatives. Similar efforts are being made at Geneva in co-operation with the appropriate organs of the League of Nations.

Canadians of Ukrainian descent have also formed such relief committees. Furthermore they are conducting a Canada-wide action of vigorous protest against the present inhuman policy of the Russian Soviet government in the Ukraine. They earnestly hope to arouse the civilized world from its apathy towards the impending disaster of the Ukrainian nation and to enlist its co-operation in the effort to send relief to the famished area. (my emphasis)

With the Germans being geographically closer to the Red Terror of the Soviet Union and sensing the existential threats to their homeland, on top of that which they already experienced recently in 1919 with the Bolshevik revolutionary takeovers in Bavaria[15] by the Jews Ernst Toller, then Eugen Levine, and finally Kurt Eisner — should they not have been careful regarding the ethnic/racial nature of the “atheist” leaders of this Soviet terror?

The White Sea – Baltic Canal

On November 29, 1933, the Salt Lake Telegram, page 4, reads: “Convict Labor Finishes Great Irrigation Job.” In The Cincinnati Post a week later, the same article appears as “Stalin Builds Great Russian Canal System.” The bulk of this article describes a

gigantic construction, carried out in large part by convict labor, completed after three years’ intensive work in far-off Tadjikistan. … Hundreds of thousands of men and women labored on this undertaking … under arduous physical conditions which took a cruel toll in lives … A huge irrigation system was finished in the valleys of the Vakhsh and Piandj rivers [with a] capacious canal 55 miles long. … A large proportion [of the labor] were exiled ‘kulaks,’ drawn from villages all over the Soviet Union. The tragedy of this labor never will be told – only the grandiose results are on view.” (this author’s emphasis)

Press Silent on Work

While the work was under way scarcely a word about it appeared in the press. It was only after its completion that the nation was told the facts. The region opened to intensive irrigation farming was named Kaganovich Land in honor of Stalin’s right-hand man…” (my emphasis)

The opening of [this] irrigation system came soon after the official opening of a convict-built canal at the other extreme of the vast Soviet land, namely the one connecting the White Sea and the Baltic Sea by way of Lake Oneiga. (my emphasis)

With these few American newspaper clippings giving a taste of the Soviet’s hand-dug canals, it’s time to turn to Volume Two of The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s (hence forward “A.S.”) chapter titled The Archipelago Metastasizes, where we find contemporary sources from 1933 and a large dose of A.S.’s biting criticism to poke at the inhumane communist leadership.[16]

A.S. estimates a quarter million laborers met their demise during a rushed twenty-month mega-project to highlight the end of the first Soviet Five Year Plan.[17] He brings out details from an official book penned by the successful Russian and Soviet writer Maxim Gorky commemorating the completion of the White Sea–Baltic canal (also called the Belomar Canal), including photos of excruciating labor done through two bitter cold winters around the icy grounds near the Arctic Circle using shovels, wheel barrows, antiquated wooden cranes and wooden machinery. With 100,000 prisoner labor force at any given time, A.S. states that 100,000 died in the first winter alone (just think of the labor replacement rate!), one contributing factor being that before enough barracks were built to house the workers, men and even women were forced to sleep in tents or out in the open on the snow! Today a quick internet search finds that the February high temperature in Belomorsk is 16 degrees Fahrenheit and the low just 6! As for a connection to the Ukrainian famine and The Gulag Archipelago, A.S. footnotes that an Anna Skripnikova reported “that refugees from the Ukraine came … to get work near [the canal project camp] and by this means to save themselves from starvation,” even though the cold gruel served to the “free voluntary employee” only consisted of “murky dishwater with fish heads and individual millet grains.”[18]

The Footage Farm has excellent video available online showing the Soviet movies documenting the brutal construction of this canal and its celebration at completion. A.S. finds a picture of this in the commemorative book: “There is a photograph that shows [Stalin, Voroshilov, and Kirov] sitting on the deck in wicker armchairs, ‘joking, laughing, smoking.’” Early in the film, engineers are shown at the drawing board. A.S. describes the tension in his book:

The engineers say: “We will make the structure of concrete.” The Chekists reply: “There is not enough time.” The engineers say: “We need large quantities of iron.” The Chekists reply: “Replace it with wood!” The engineers say: “We need tractors, cranes, construction machinery!” The Chekists: There will be none of that, not one kopeck of foreign exchange: do it all by hand.” (my emphasis)

And to get to this arduous hand work, the reader might wish to skip to time 3:56 of this Footage Farm video. A.S. quips in this chapter how at least the Egyptians, building the pyramids, were given the contemporary equipment of their time period. The shock brigades (as they called Soviet groups of workers), to their distress, “used the technology of forty centuries earlier!”

At the end of the workday there were corpses left on the work site. The snow powdered their faces. One of them was hunched over beneath an overturned wheelbarrow, he had hidden his hands in his sleeves and frozen to death in that position. Someone had frozen with his head bent down between his knees. Two were frozen back-to-back leaning against each other. They were peasant lads and the best workers one could possibly imagine.

And right off [the overseers] gave them norms of shingle and boulders that you’d be unable to fulfill even in summer. … They [the peasants] gave all their work and weakened very swiftly and then froze to death. … At night the sledges went out and collected them. The drivers threw the corpses onto the sledges with a dull clonk.

And in the summer bones remained from corpses which had not been removed in time, and together with the shingle they got into the concrete mixer. And in this way they got into the concrete of the last lock at the city of Belomorsk and will be preserved there forever.[19]

So it appears that the engineers got some concrete after all. Flush with details, further reading reveals work details extending to 62 hours straight, sometimes hacking “at the frozen earth,” and other times “up to their waists in water.” Even the horses used in construction received the torture treatment, “because horses were a kulak animal and also destined to die.”

A.S. makes sure to give credit to “the six principal lieutenants of Stalin and Yagoda, the chief overseers of Belomor, six hired murderers each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives: Firin – Berman – Frenkel –  Kogan –  Rappoport – Zhuk.”[20] While Sergie Zhuk, the hydraulic engineer who supervised the canal projects, does not have his photo presented in this chapter of The Gulag Archipelago, all the others mentioned here save “The man of steel” himself have their portraits shown on one page, with an additional picture of Aron Solts, a judicial and prosecuting official of the Soviet Party’s Central Control Commission. A.S. avoids attributing this entire group’s ethnicity to Jews, including the People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Genrikh Yagoda, but then devotes five pages to the biography of Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel, whom he describes as “a Turkish Jew” born in Constantinople: “A stubborn legend persists in the Archipelago [of Soviet slave camps] to the effect that ‘The camps were thought up by Frenkel.’” Readers are given details of how Frenkel was the brain behind the Gulag camp classifications, the food rationing system and more. He was, indeed, the “’works chief’ — the chief overseer of the labor battle” at the White Sea-Baltic Canal Construction Project.

One of the listed henchmen, Matvei Berman, would receive the “Order of Lenin” award for successful completion of the canal, and proceed to head the entire Gulag slave labor system (formerly led by Kogan). Others, like Firin, continued working as leaders in the NKVD, the secret police, where political repression and extrajudicial executions reigned.  A.S. describes the vile hatred for humanity by “camp chiefs” like Firin: “[He] was upset that there were too many frail workers who were not meeting production goals. He ordered the camp leaders to cut their food rations as a punishment.”[21] Does this hateful cruelty bare any resemblance to today’s intentional starvation of Gazan civilians by “the Jewish State”?

The Nobel Laureate Soltzhenitsyn refrained from calling out the Bolshevik Revolution as a Jewish Revolution or the Gulag system as Jewish Tyranny, but he still got his point across for readers who like to research names and biographies.[22] And today, 51 years after its original publishing, The Gulag Archipelago will come with a carefully framed Foreword by historian Anne Applebaum (probably no close relationship to the Hirsh Apfelbaum of the Bolshevik years, Grigor Zinoviev’s alias). But alas, in 1933 one American paper on August 20 specifically tagged the racial identities of the Bolsheviks in the press. The Kansas City Star printed a piece titled, “Stalin, Soviet Leader, Is Merely Party Boss, In No Sense A Dictator.” It states “The supreme power in Russia is the Politburo of the Communist party. Its original membership consisted, in the revolutionary days, of Lenin…Sverdlov, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. The last three mentioned were Jewish intellectuals of the first water, although today they are in the bad graces of the Stalin regime.”[23] What the article fails to mention is that Yakov Sverdlov was also born to Jewish parents, his father Mikhail, a document forger who “stored arms for the revolutionary underground…[and] was sympathetic to his children’s socialist tendencies [as indicated by] 5 out of his 6 children [becoming] involved in revolutionary politics at some point.”[24]

The Ukraine Connection

Indeed, both the Ukrainian Famine known as The Holodomor and the mass-murdering slave camps described in The Gulag Archipelago are hardly known or understood by mainstream Americans. It’s no surprise that there have been no blockbuster Hollywood films produced to enlighten our public on this pre-World War II history, but be certain that if there ever is, historians like Anne Applebaum will oversee how the facts are presented. And someone accidentally learning this history today might question why there is overwhelming support now for Ukrainians and their war against the Russians compared to 1933, when a code of silence shrouded the news? Well, it’s certainly complicated. But perhaps it all comes down to racial/ethnic/religious vengeance and family retributions by our ruling elites and the people appointed to serve our government? If our government was flush with Soviet spies already back in the 1930s — and it was, what sort of vetting system today is keeping our nation secure when leading presidential campaign financiers are flying convicts convicted of espionage on their private jets to Israel?[25] It’s dumfounding, for sure, and it probably involves some inbred paranoia that deserves no place in American leadership. Just look at former Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland of the Nudelman family, immigrants from Bessarabia, a Ukrainian region. This one American has been a key figure in initiating and overseeing the conflict between the Ukrainians and Russians, and we can never know what personal grievances fueled her rage! (see here).

But we do know that of the seven original Bolshevik Politburo members of the USSR, three were Ukrainian Jews: Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), Grigory Zinoviev and Grigori Sokolnikov [born Girsh Yankelevich]. Lazar Kaganovich, described as the most “vicious” Bolshevik, was also born in the Ukraine, as were the famous assassins of Odesa Samuel “Sholem” Schwartzbard and Yakov Blumkin. In fact, Blumkin helped reestablish the Soviet regime in Ukraine only after assassinating the German Ambassador to Russia in 1918, Wilhelm von Mirbach. There must be over a thousand years of Jewish history in the Ukraine, but Ukraine was the mother lode of Bolshevik revolutionaries involved in murdering millions of Ukrainians! Furthermore, several Russian Czars had been assassinated by Jews, as well as Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, a much-admired statesman who accomplished great reforms for his homeland – murdered in Kiev by a Jewish lawyer from Kiev. So with so much warmongering between Ukraine and Russia today, one must wonder if this conflict is truly supported by American interests or by Americans promoting Jewish interests and acting out their historical hatred?

While countless more Ukrainians and Russians lose their lives to this needless war “for democracy,” should the details presented here make Americans question if this costly conflict (for our taxpayers) stems from one enormous feud, much like between the Hatfields and McCoys carried out over centuries? Add the current Gaza genocide with the Ukraine War, another Jewish affair, and one should now wonder if we Americans are getting taken for yet another ride! In fact, The Guardian recently exposed a disturbing hypocrisy in Gulag historian Anne Applebaum that perhaps sheds light on a deep moral disconnect between us regular folk and prominent media figures. Why do America’s liberal hawks attack Russia while giving Israel a free pass? The article accuses Michael McFaul, Max Boot and Anne Applebaum, huge defenders of democracy, as being quick to denounce Russian aggression while ignoring Israeli crimes. “Liberal hawks often profess their commitment to human rights. Yet they haven’t called for ending a war that is killing more people per day than any conflict this century.”

The Conflict Metastasizing Into Our Democracy

However you  want to describe our growing pestilence, whether we think religiously of “Evil” from the Abrahamic religions (“Satan,” “the Devil,” “Belial” or “Shaitan”), whether we think scientifically as in the group evolutionary strategy theory of Dr. Kevin MacDonald regarding an alien out-group described in his trilogy on Judaism and subsequent writing, [26] or Dr. Andrew Fraser’s radical but scholarly critique of our very own in-group, the Anglo-Saxons, in The WASP Question, whether we blame it on ignoring the warnings of our founding President George Washington in his Farewell Address,[27] or attribute our woes to philosophical/spiritual terms like cultural pathology, cultural parasitism, cultural distortion and retardation as defined in Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium,[28] one can no longer deny the simple wisdom professed by former political scientist professor Dr. Patrick Slattery of Republic Broadcasting Network’s National Bugle Radio podcast: “Studying politics without considering Jewish influence or power is like studying physics while ignoring gravity.” If our struggle to save ourselves is to have any chance as Slattery says, it will only occur when the ultimate taboo which has turned freedom of speech and truth about Jews and Judaism into hate crimes is finally obliterated, transforming our conversations into a truer open dialogue, which will melt the evils away like water melted away the Wicked Witch of the West in L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz.

Conclusion

While this short clipping from The American Israelite predates our year-of-concentration, the December 10, 1931 reporting of Dr. Wise’s sermon at the Free Synagogue at Carnegie Hall sets the stage for our conclusion and its historical context. Furthermore, this clipping is no longer easily available online. Was it memory-holed ala George Orwell’s 1984 to shelter any critique? Nevertheless, in our very own recent times we run across countless Jewish advocates from any of the over 10,000 Jewish NGOs and synagogues moralizing to their audiences how it’s their duty to perform “tikkun olam,” to “repair the world.” There’s a good chance you’ve come across this self-declared goodwill based on their Jewish identity. But only months before the tragic Holodomor was killing Ukrainians, this is what Americans might have read if it leaked out of the Jewish newspaper…

Is Western civilization, with its grimmest, grimiest social injustice and wrong worth saving?” Dr. Wise asked. “Or is it not the function of the Jew to bring about the supercession of that decrepit, degenerate, and inevitably perishing civilization, so-called.?”

The two aims set for Judaism by Professor Orion were not much to be regarded as distinct or antithetical, Dr. Wise pointed out. “The object of Zion is to salvage civilization,” he declared, “to reconcile the civilizations of West and East alike, to fuse each to save each. Our ambition is to build a weaponless world, to build for truth and justice and freedom and brotherliness without force of arms.

There are probably few Americans today who realize such sentiment exists from such a prominent person in the minority group in our midst. Fuse us with other civilizations? No thank you! Leave our West alone! This sermon written for Jews could easily have been inspired from award-winning Jewish author Maurice Samuel who in 1924 published the book You Gentiles, where he confidently writes:

A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish radicals are beginning to understand it dimly.

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs or demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the Game and God. But those of us who fail to understand that truth will always be found in alliance with your rebellious factions, until disillusionment comes. The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust this unwelcome role upon us.[29]

Such shocking and disturbing insight, written with such candid honesty following the 1924 National Origins Act on Immigration, may help explain the early warmongering tone of “F.D. Roosevelt’s friend” on May 18, 1933, where the Buffalo News posted on page 3 this headline:

“DR. WISE SAYS HITLER WILL WAR ON JEWS.”

Dr. Stephen S. Wise, honorary president of the American Jewish congress, said in a speech Wednesday night that Chancellor Adolf Hitler “talks with peace on his lips and war on his hands and in his black soul — war on the Jews.” … Continuing, Dr. Wise said: “President Roosevelt may be for peace. I am for war. (my emphasishis author’s emphasis)

With the honorary religious leader for American Judaism hell bent towards war so early in this game, reinforced in March with the Daily Express bold headline “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY,”[30] let us recall that this strong and visceral hatred in 1933 was not a reaction to violence, but rather to the legislative changes from the new German government. Compared with today, could a member of the founding American majority prove that today’s system of civil rights is ten times more devious and deceptive than what the Germans explicitly enacted in full plain view? It’s almost straight out of Machiavelli’s Chapter V of The Prince, regarding how cities should be administered after conquering them: “first, by devastating them; next, by going and living there in person; thirdly, by letting them keep their own laws, exacting tribute, and setting up an oligarchy which will keep the state friendly to you.”

Our White population is implicitly and underhandedly being transformed into a despised minority, massively discriminated against in nearly all competitive college admissions where a tiny Jewish-American demographic receives about 25% of Ivy League admissions—the ticket to power. Just compare the arrogant tone of senior New York Times columnist David Brooks[31] in The Chosen’: Getting In  against the scholarly scrutiny of Ron Unz’s “The Myth of American Meritocracy” where reasonable strategies estimate Jewish over-representation in the elite schools by as much as 500% with respect to ability or up to 1400% by population group. The discrimination may not be written in law as in 1933 Germany, but the results are an inversion of the past, Jewish students displacing qualified or better-qualified non-Jewish (straight) Whites.

When looking at media and the press in America, a careful examination might suggest that there is indeed a Law on Editors banning a certain demographic, but it doesn’t appear like the Jewish community is the group suffering. The Ochs-Sulzberger family are, in fact, long-time owners of The New York Times the most powerful newspaper in the world! Just check out their managing editors. Whites, and especially White males, are also discriminated in the best job markets and professions under the pretext of DEI. And where the Jews complained about the German Denaturalization Law, today’s majority sees their democratic representation mortally diluted as their nation has its borders overrun under Jewish Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, after the decades-long activism that resulted in Emanuel Celler’s 1965 Immigration Act. In 1933 Germany, Jews were barred from government service. In Biden’s administration today, the most important cabinet seats are held by Jews, including Chief of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Homeland Security, and Treasury. If there ever was a systemic bias in the United States, one only needs to look at the top positions where straight males of European heritage have been severely thinned out. But today is not 1933, and no religious or political leader dare use words as strong as Dr. Wise was permitted, because there is no impunity against simply feeling, let alone saying “It’s okay to be White!” That’s because the Jewish community leadership insists that this is Hate On Display.[32]

If only the American majority could have the transparency of the 1933 German laws, they wouldn’t be stuck in Plato’s cave deciphering flickering shadows on the walls![33] And so with our current world in turmoil, many “experts” forecasting World War III or simply “chaos,” isn’t it befitting to end our 1933 review with words from a historian and philosopher of that period, Oswald Spengler. (Feel free to meditate on this.): “[W]e see life as the form in which the actualizing of the possible is accomplished. With respect to the property of Direction, the possible is called the Future and the actualized the Past.”[34]

With 1933 now in our past, the direction of Western Man must come from his soul and a new “Spirit of the Age!” America turned a blind eye to the horrifying mass murder by the Bolshevik/Communist political tyranny and oppression that would kill tens of millions of innocents. If ever there was genocidal madness worthy of the charge “Crimes Against Humanity,” ala the Nuremburg Trials, this was it. And how did FDR’s government treat it? The United States formerly recognized the Soviet Union on November 16, 1933 and began normal diplomatic relations, a few months after the White Sea-Baltic Canal completion. According to historian Sean McMeekin of the book Stalin’s War, A New History of World War II, America continued to pour its wealth, its intellectual property, its manufacturing secrets, its industrial material, and its armaments into Stalin’s hands — to make the world safe for communism!

Yes, this was the epic story hidden from ears and eyes of the American public at a harrowing period of the Great Depression, in favor of reporting the repression of Jewish-German civil rights.

The Hour of Decision. Listening to a popular left-leaning news network to hear their narrative, the host finished his interview, “Next year in Jerusalem,” a spiritual saying that confirmed for this author that we secretly live in a Judeo-centric culture that few Americans realize. Was it slowly crafted with the help of Hollywood, as author Neal Gabler asserts in his book An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. The smoke and mirrors are everywhere and getting increasingly more complex with the rise of AI. And with this ending, we return to the premise enunciated at the beginning, a quote from the final paragraphs of Elie Wiesel’s Night: “OUR FIRST ACT AS FREE MEN was to throw ourselves onto the provisions…The next day, a few of the young men ran into Weimar to bring back some potatoes and clothes — and to sleep with girls. But still no trace of revenge.”

One must wonder if our eighth graders get to debate in class how, with so much suffering on account of the Germans, these emaciated prisoners could even think of heading into town seeking out sex before even the third day of liberation? Perhaps this seems unfathomable because it is not our lived experience! One thing for sure, today’s escalating state of hostilities suggest that “the revenge” has resurfaced!

Oscar Spengler writes in July, 1933 from Munich, in the beginning of The Hour of Decision[35]:

Is there today a man among the White races who has eyes to see what is going on around him on the face of the globe? To see the immensity of the danger which looms over this mass of peoples? I do not speak of the educated or uneducated city crowds, the newspaper-readers, the herds who vote at elections — and, for that matter, there is no longer any quality-difference between voters and those for whom they vote — but of the ruling classes of the White nations, in so far as they have not been destroyed, of the statesman in so far as there are any left; of the true leaders of policy, of economic life, of armies, and of thought. Does anyone, I ask, see over and beyond his time, his own continent, his county, or even the narrow circle of his own activities?

We live in momentous times. … At this point advancing history towers high over economic distress and internal political ideals. The elemental forces of life are themselves entering the fight, which is for all or nothing. … The dice are there ready for this stupendous game. Who dares to throw them?

Let us hope that these lessons of 1933 reach many who are unaware of the historical facts that make up context — but more importantly let them reach the eyes and mind of our future young Hero, for the sake of humanity.  Thence, we might even have our own short saying, our new American dream for a Homeland returned!

Honoring catchwords no more, we showed them the door,
Our Hero will arrive, our people will thrive,
With deception, usury and Big Lies long afar,
Never doubt We Will Become Who We Are! — Sigurd Kristensen


[1] While this author has personally witnessed a mobile Anne Frank Museum on the marquee of a local school within the last decade, it is no longer discoverable online. One can assume that it may have been incorporated into the new Mobile Museum of Tolerance. See https://mmot.com/about-us/mmot-reservation-request-form/ for an image of their bus. Will any patriotic NGO dare create the Mobile USS Liberty Museum with holograms of current survivors teaching students how they were ordered into silence? There could be a mockup of a Navy Commander receiving his Medal of Honor in an old Navy hangar instead of the White House! It might be called “Erasing the Liberty”:  https://www.erasingtheliberty.com/

[2] For example, “I didn’t like it at all. Nothing made sense and the plot was confusing … this book does not deserve a long review.” Or how about this one, mimicking Milkweed’s style: “Ok. This book. Is BAD. Like, I can’t even! OK so basically first off this is Jewish propaganda!” – https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69392.Milkweed#CommunityReviews

This author wholeheartedly agrees!

[3] This, and all successive newspaper articles referred to herein can be found at newspapers.com except for the Stephen Wise sermon “Should it Be Saved?” (probably memory-holed)

[4] The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, its website quoted here, and most current mainstream media and academia use the disparaging slur term “Nazi” in favor of the party they are describing, the National Socialists. In this author’s cursory research, the earliest use of this slang in America (from available sources, New York Times excluded) is from the article “Germany Put Under Money Dictatorship,” page 1, The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY, July 19, 1930. In the fourth to last paragraph, it puts this term in quotes: “This party, popularly called the ‘Nazis,’ now ranks ninth in the Reichstag.” As American history progresses in the twentieth century, we find more and more conflation of this smear term from its initial labeling of ‘National Socialists’ to: (1) any Germans from the World War II period, (2) any politically incorrect ideas, (3) all right-of-center political activists who touch taboo subjects, and (4) even President Donald Trump or Arabs from Gaza are labeled as “Nazis.” If this pace of liberal wordsmithery continues, surely the American descendants of the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, saving the Jews from further demise, will also be labeled “Nazis” soon enough (if they haven’t already) when they dare to profess self-respect for their own White race, since that is the only race not given a celebrated “History Month” or dignity, or respect. Also related, following World War II, tens of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives fighting communists, but no historian, academic or mainstream media  spokesperson dares to use the derogatory slur “Commie.” Lastly, although American territory was attacked by the Japanese, when was the last time you heard the ethnic slur “Nips” or “Japs” in the mainstream? Surely there’s an answer to the focus on “Nazis”!

[5] From Kevin MacDonald reviewing Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s chapter on the 1930 in 200 Years Together: For Jewish apologists, the victimization of a few thousand Jews (not even targeted because they were Jews) merits deep concern while millions of non-Jews were being murdered. Jewish involvement with Bolshevism is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens were not an issue for Jewish leftists not only in the USSR but also in the US. In America during the 1930s, the CPUSA was promoting specific Jewish interests including opposing anti-Semitism, supporting Zionism, and advocating the importance of maintaining Jewish cultural traditions (see here, p. 36 ff). American radicals glorified the development of Jewish life in the Soviet Union as “good for Jews.” American radical Jews —a substantial percentage of the entire Jewish community at that time — saw the world through Jewish lenses.

An important aspect of the suppression of this information in the West was the “utter silence” of the media. As discussed here (p. 38), the New York Times was owned by a Jewish family and was much on the mind of American patriots like Charles Lindbergh concerned about Jewish media influence. During the 1930s, while it was highlighting German persecution of Jews and pushing for intervention into World War II against Germany, the Times whitewashed the horrors of Soviet rule, including the Ukrainian famine, even though the story was covered extensively by the Hearst newspapers and even though the leadership of the Times had been informed on numerous occasions that its correspondent was painting a false picture of Stalin’s actions. The Times has never renounced the Pulitzer Prize given to it reporter, Walter Duranty, for his coverage of Stalin’s Five-Year Plan.

 

[6] According to NPR’s article, Duranty was the NYT’s “charismatic chief correspondent in the Soviet Union” who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his “dispassionate interpretive reporting.” Duranty supposedly made “glowing reports of [Stalin’s] harsh plans for Ukraine. The award-winning journalism begins, “Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms.”

[7] “The New York Times can’t shake the cloud over a 90-Year-Old Pulitzer Prize,’ May 8, 2022

[8] “Lazar Kaganovich, No. 2 man to Stalin,” by David Remnick, The Sacramento Bee, July 27, 1991, p.35

[9] Ibid.

[10] From The Culture of Critique, Ch. 2: “Gene Weltfish, another student of Boas, epitomized this sense of alienation when she said she felt that her generation had only three choices—go live in Paris, sell The Daily Worker (the U.S. Communist Party newspaper—[an indication that communist affiliation was a mainstream view in the Jewish community of the period]) on street corners, or study anthropology at Columbia” ((Sarich & Miele, The Reality of Race Differences (Routledge, 2004),90–91.

[11] Kulak: “a prosperous or wealthy peasant farmer in 19th century Russia” or “a farmer characterized by Communists as having excessive wealth.” (Merriam-Webster definition); Are they simply the best successful professional farmers of their time?

[12] For the spelling found in current dictionaries, see “kolkhoz”: “a collective farm of the former Soviet Union.” (Merriam-Webster). Nathaniel Buchwald also spells the same word “colhoz” in a later article. For a detailed auto-biography written in English on the life of a mother separated from her husband and children and exiled to a kolkhoz in Siberia as a political prisoner, please read “Sentence: Siberia, A Story of Survival” by Ann Lehtmets (of the Baltics) and Douglas Hoile. On the back cover: “Ann Lehtmets was one of the few women to have lived through Stalin’s Holocaust and reached the Western World…[She] owed her life to spirit, intelligence, guile and humour. These qualities shine through on every page of her extraordinary recollections.”

[13] This circulation number of 35,000 subscribers “at its peak” is found on the Wikipedia article for The Daily Worker newspaper. If it can be assumed that its peak circulation was in the early 1930s when socialism and labor movements were in vogue, then this number is a tiny percentage of the American population at the time of about 125,000,000.  Compare that with an estimated circulation of the American Free Press (“described as populist and nationalist, FOR Life and Liberty and AGAINST the New World Order,” see AmericanFreePress.net) that has an approximate circulation peaking at 15,000 today in a population of 342,000,000, quite likely making the left-wing-communist cause more than six times more influential than its political opposite (even considering that there is less readership of newspapers in 2024!)

[14] “USSR Independent but Not Isolated Says Kaganovich,” Daily Worker (November 4, 1933). 8.

[15] See the Bavarian Soviet Republic in Wikipedia for details

[16] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics,  2007)

[17] The Soviet policy that included rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture resulting in mass murder of millions of political prisoners through slave labor. These prisoners were eventually nicknamed Zeks, but their official term was “Lishonnye Svobody” meaning “Deprived of Freedom.”

[18] Footnote no. 27, p. 98, The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[19] A.S. quoting D.P. Vitkovsky (a Solovetsky Islands veteran who worked on the White Sea Canal) from his book Plzhizni (half a Lifetime)

[20] Semyon Firin (born Seymon Pupko), Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel, Lazar Kogan, Yakov Rappoport, Sergie Yakovlevich Zhuk

[21] Golfo Alexopoulos, Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin’s Gulag (Yale University Press. 2018), 76–78. ISBN 9781786733566.; Also, Firin’s original surname was Pupko according to  Stephen Kotkin, Stalin, vol.2: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (Penguin, 2017). 413. ISBN 9780735224483.

[22] And Soltzhenitsyn would revisit The Jewish Question with his book, Two Hundred Years Together, only available in English with bootleg translations online.

[23] Full names of the revolutionaries listed in this article: Yakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), Lev Kamenev ( born Lev Rozenfeld, and Grigory Zinoviev (born Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky, aka Hirsh Apfelbaum); “…of the first water” meaning “of the highest grade or quality,” a term taken from the diamond-grading business relating to luster.

[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov

[25] For example, just take a look at the fast-tracking of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith after leaving Harvard, as interviewed in Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, “A Little Learning,” in a 2005 issue of The New Yorker: He received an internship with a Senator and was top aide for neocon Richard Perle: “…my family got wiped out by Hitler”, “A black-and-white portrait of Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, hangs over a green leather couch [in his private library].”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/05/09/a-little-learning-2

[26] Dr. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Praeger Pulblishers, Westport, CT 1994, Separation and Its Discontent, Praeger Publishers 1998, The Culture of Critique, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 1998

[27] “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.”

[28] Francis P. Yockey, Imperium (The Philosphy of History and Politics), Invictus Books, Wentzville, MO, originally published 1948 by Westropa Press)

[29] Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, Antelope Hill Publishing 2022, Originally published by Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1924

[30] See archives.org for details on “Boycott of German Goods” where “Jews Of All The World Unite In Action”, Daily Express, March 24, 1933

[31] In this article by Brooks, he receives this comment from a Jewish woman who just heard him give a book presentation, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America? Brooks replies, [And we, both being Jewish,] could acknowledge that there’s a lot truth in that statement.” And then there’s this: “[Jews] went [to Ivy League schools] because they were ambitious and often brilliant, and they brought with them a value system at odds with the WASP chivalric code. The Jews were more likely to prize work, scholarship, verbal dexterity, ambition and academic accomplishment.” Such hubris should be given its own word!

[32] https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/its-okay-be-white; Also, In the UK one could be charged today with a crime for stickering pro-white slogans

[33] Read the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic for some fascinating ancient philosophy

[34] Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West, Volume One originally published 1918, Volume Two in 1922.

[35] Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision, original publishing Alfred A. Knopf, 1934.

The Charlottesville Tiki-Vigil: Ultra-Privileged Antifas and University Admins Pose as Victims; Entrap and Attack Normal Citizens

 

Arrests around the country. Dozens of secret indictments. Blatant cooperation between Antifa and public officials. A pack of well-connected professors and careerist law students foaming at the mouth to prosecute their political enemies. Yeah, that’s Charlottesville alright.

The August 11, 2017 tiki-torch vigil is back in the news in a big way. But to understand what is happening now, we need to establish what really happened.

In the telling of the Jewish press, a crazed mob staged a savage attack against helpless and well-meaning students at the University of Virginia (UVA).

But the truth is quite the opposite, and the real injustice far more shocking: The young men who took part in the tiki-vigil were lured into a trap set up by the Charlottesville’s political elite and powerful UVA administrators.

The trap misfired. UVA’s front-line Antifa thugs failed to break up the procession. So UVA fell back on methods more suited to their talents: lying in the press and abusing the power of the courts.

To understand how, you must understand four key things: 1) Antifa shows a consistent pattern of aggression. 2) The favorite tactic of elite-antifa is to play the victim. 3) Antifa draws its members directly from the bourgeois-academic-corporate elite. 4) Whenever Antifa lose, they work hand-in-hand with system-elites to get payback.

A Year of Antifa Violence

The Charlottesville tiki-torch vigil came after a year of intense Antifa stalking and aggression.

Throughout 2016 and ‘17, all over the country, Antifa had staged a campaign of vicious attacks against public events and popular demonstrations. At the presidential inauguration in Washington, DC, hundreds of Antifa rioted, burning cars, smashing windows, attacking civilians. Around 200 were arrested, only one spent a meaningless 4 months in jail.

At protests in Pikeville (KY), Huntington Beach, UCLA, Berkeley, and Sacramento (all in CA), popular demonstrations were repeatedly attacked by Antifa. Contrarywise, an Alt-Right march in Charlottesville in May 2017, planned in secret, went off without any problems.

There was a clear pattern. Violence only happened when Antifa was present. When the Alt-Right managed to stage a protest without Antifa finding out, nothing happened except normal political speech. The Alt-Right never rioted. This pattern has only been confirmed in the succeeding years, especially the smash-and-burn summer of 2020.

Violent Antifa Play the Victim

The night of August 11, 2017 fit the pattern. About three hundred White men walked through the University of Virginia carrying tiki-torches in anticipation of the Unite the Right Rally, scheduled for the following day. The procession had been planned for months under the utmost secrecy in order to avoid Antifa. The plan was to walk to the Jefferson Statue on campus, give some speeches, and go to bed.

But Antifa got tipped off. They were already positioned to strike. Militants had come from around the country to block, harass and assault people at the August 12th rally. August 11, mere hours before the planned vigil, Antifa website It’s Going Down posted an article revealing the details of the Alt-Right’s event and inciting Antifa to attack.

It’s beyond obvious that this is not about free speech but terrorism. Charlottesville’s Black and brown [sic] folks must be protected at all costs, but the police don’t seem to care.

Will UVA and its community take action to stand against white supremacist terrorism on campus? Will Charlottesville allow a torchlit rally to go down in city limits again?

Knowing that the Alt-Right intended to speak at the Jefferson Statue, Antifa deployed there. If their intent were only to “counter-protest” they might have rallied anywhere else. But that would be contrary to their doctrine. They resolve always to “confront” (read: block, mob, and assault) anyone whose speech they don’t approve of.

Another sign that these were not “helpless, innocent students” was their keenness to hide their identities. Unlike the rest of us, who have to fear doxing, firing, or worse just for stating basic political facts, Antifa have no such concerns. They can build prosperous careers on their insane and pseudo-intellectual opinions.

When an Antifa puts on a mask or hides his face, it is because he knows his actions are illegal. During the tiki-procession, one of the militants can be heard telling the others (27:23 in this video) “Stand where you are! This is important to all of us!” Another shouts out a reminder to hide identities: “Heads down ya’ll, heads down!”.

Their pretentions of peaceful protest are further belied by the high proportion of criminals in their ranks. With only around 30 present—not all of whom are known even now—at least four were hardened militants:

Two of them, Thomas Massey and Thomas Keenan, instigated the fighting. Both have long histories of violence. After rioting at the Presidential Inauguration in January of 2017, Massey expressed his intent to attack people in the street in the future. In 2019, he and Keenan would go on to beat and rob two Marine reservists. They served no time for the assault.

From Louisville “Anti-Racist Action” were Sean Liter and Holly McGlawn-Zoller. Zoller was armed. Liter would go on to assault marchers with sticks at the rally the next day. McGlawn-Zoller would earn infamy in the Summer of 2020 passing out weapons from the back of a U-Haul truck to rioters.

Ring-Leader Gorcensky

The VIP of Antifa incitement was Edward Gorcensky. Four days before the tiki-vigil, Gorcenski stated publicly that violence was justified against anyone who believes in biological facts because they were “fascists.”

On the day of the vigil, Gorcenski, laughing about the Alt-Right’s plans to protect themselves, stated accurately that “This whole security theater is because they’re afraid of antifa.”

A week later, Gorcenski openly bragged that “One story that hasn’t been told about #Charlottesville is how our intel networks dramatically outclassed both the alt-right’s and the cops’”, and that “Civilian-gathered intel is often not taken seriously by authorities, but we used it widely to plan, disrupt, monitor, and respond.”

He also claimed that “Our diversity of tactics stymied them”, which, translated into normal English means “We always maintain escalation-dominance, in the streets, the media or the courts. The law be damned.”.

Antifa Supported by UVA Officials

Antifa and the elite blend into each other. Many “Trust-fund Commies” are the children of high-ranking politicians, CEOs and “academics.” But the connection was even more clear at the Jefferson Statue, where two UVA faculty fell in with their comrades-in-arms: Professor Walter Heinecke and Dean of Students Allen Groves.

According to Louisville Antifa Sean Liter, Groves is himself an Antifa. “The dean of students was there. He stayed. Someone who’s been in our movement for a long time.” Upon hearing about the tiki-procession, Groves rushed to campus and posted up on the Rotunda, overlooking the Jefferson Statue. He mentions being in direct contact with UVA President Teresa Sullivan by phone, sending her regular reports.

Groves and Heinecke would later play the victim, but they were no mere passive observers. Groves admitted to having grabbed a young man of the Alt-Right. In an email written later that night, Heinecke claimed that Groves had been hit by a thrown tiki-torch while attempting to lead the other Antifa.

Ironically, it is quite possible that this was a case of “friendly fire.” There is video (at 0:04) of Antifa throwing flaming objects (torch-heads?). However, Heinecke’s whole story might be fabricated. In a batch of documents released under FOIA, there are two versions of this email, one of which does not include the claim about getting hit by a torch.

Professor Heinecke was even more hands-on. He started off the night at an Antifa meeting across the street for “scheduled training.”[1] When the tiki-march arrived at the Jefferson Statue, he walked over to rally with Groves.

Heinecke is interesting because he held permits for two—yes two—Antifa demonstrations for August 12, at parks just blocks away from where the Unite the Right Protest would be. Of course, Antifa did not need those parks for their “counter-protest.” Their real objective was to block the approaches to the Alt-Right’s permitted rally at Lee Park. Which is what they did.

Heinecke’s permits were only needed to secure the other two parks as staging and re-fitting zones. This is standard Antifa procedure. As Gorcensky put it “We deployed our only militia to protect our rally point/medic station. The fact that we even had a militia shocked and deterred [our political enemies].”

One of Heinecke’s permits was for Jackson Park, whose perimeter would be guarded by UNC-Chappel Hill Professor Dwayne Dixon’s armed Antifa militia “Redneck Revolt.”[2] Dixon would later brag about pointing his rifle at passing cars. Of course he faced no consequences.

It should go without saying that “Redneck Revolt” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with country-folk or with standing up to the powerful. It’s a grotesque mockery whose only purpose is to enforce America’s true political order—Jewish Supremacy.

Cville Elite Meet at Church across the Street

Meanwhile, across the street from the Jefferson Statue, much of Charlottesville’s political elite was conducting a meeting at St. Paul’s Memorial Church. The meeting was organized by Antifa coordinator and sometime-priest Seth Wispelwey.

Among the attendees were Mayor Mike Signer (Jewish), Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas, Harvard University Professor and race-huckster Cornell West, and media celebrity Katie Couric. Numerous other UVA faculty and students were also in attendance.

Present also at the church were Judge Claude Worrell and then-UVA employee Lawton Tufts. Tufts now works in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and, in the past year, has worked on criminal cases pertaining to the tiki-vigil. So has Worrell. This despite the fact that both might be material witnesses. Worrell only recused himself after his presence at the church that night was brought up in court. Tufts is, incredibly, still on at least one case.

The meeting was officially an “Interfaith Service,” but, as usual with these people, such high-minded language is used to hide their sinister agenda. Throughout the day, Seth Wispelwey’s “Congregate Cville” gang had been conducting training sessions. A final session was scheduled for 2130. This training was an explicit conspiracy to thwart free speech and free assembly and to obstruct police operations, albeit expressed in Antifa’s usual modish and deceptive language of “disrupting hate speech.”[3]

The meeting was protected by Antifa militants from Dixon’s “Redneck Revolt” who patrolled outside the building. In another blatant instance of Antifa-academic blending, UVA’s Chair of Religious Studies, Professor Willis Jenkins, volunteered to join the “security detail.”[4]

During the night, there were two phone-call threats about an active shooter coming to the church. No suspect has ever been found. Given how meticulous Cville authorities are about tracking down Alt-Right protestors, it seems possible—likely even—that these calls were made by Antifa. Maybe a subpoena will turn something up. Regardless, the calls caused Mayor Signer and Chief Thomas to direct more police to the church and away from campus.

A Military Operation

Now that we have examined the inter-woven relationship between Antifa, UVA and city officials, we can begin to see the outlines of what really happened on the campus that night. Stripping away the Orwellian euphemisms, we can discern the highly organized and military nature of UVA/Antifa’s operation.

Eddie “Emilio” Gorcensky was the Officer-in-Charge at the statue. He can be seen in his video making repeated attempts to instigate violence. His subordinate units included Louisville and Philly Antifa crews, as well as an assortment of UVA students, particularly from the Law School.

Seth Wispelwey was the Officer-in-Charge at St. Paul’s. His subordinate units included Congregate Cville and the (armed?) “Redneck Revolt” militia. Mayor Signer was inside his perimeter and maneuvered police units in accordance with Wispelwey’s needs.

The militia protection of St. Paul’s marks it as Antifa’s Objective Rally Point. Remember what Gorcensky said about the employment of “Redneck Revolt” the next day: “We deployed our only militia to protect our rally point/medic station.”

Dean of Students Groves was UVA President Sullivan’s eyes-on the event.

Walter Heinecke was the logistics (S4) officer for the August 12 operation to block and assault the rally at Lee Park.

Other students and faculty functioned as recon elements, including Tyler Magill and Elizabeth Sines, both of whom would go on to serve as plaintiffs in Jewess Roberta Kaplan’s specious multi-million-dollar lawsuit against people who attended Unite the Right.

At least 5 UVA students and faculty were present as representatives of the National Lawyers Guild, an Antifa lawfare operation. These people included UVA and UVA Law students Adele Stickel, Tyler Magill and Amanda Lineberry, along with faculty Barbera Armacost and Kim Rolla.

All of this was supported by a sophisticated intelligence (S2) section, as Gorcensky bragged, probably analogous to the August 12th operation in the library of First United Methodist Church.

Playing the Long Game

Antifa’s operation failed to obtain its primary objective of preventing free assembly. Just like at the Unite the Right Rally the next day, they lost. So they played the victim and appealed to state-power. Antifa-UVA would spend the next six years agitating and maneuvering to get payback.

Don’t be tricked by how they frame things. “Diversity of tactics” means “We can and will escalate force”. “Confronting Nazis” means “Beating, stalking, shouting, screaming, spitting, harassing, and throwing bleach at our political enemies.”

To those involved in the ongoing bullshit “criminal” prosecutions, I hope this article helps you with the big picture. You should write your subpoenas accordingly.

This was not innocent students vs violent thugs. It was—and still is—rich, connected Jews and their bourgeois White attack-dogs hiding behind a Black or two to attack anyone who stands up to their power.


[1] Heaphy Report pg 118.

[2] Heaphy Report, pg 123

[3] Heaphy Report, pg 114

[4] Ibid. Heaphy suggests that that detail was armed, but it isn’t clear. Nor is it conclusive from the photos I’ve seen. Might be a good thing to subpoena.

Caliphate for the UK?

In December of last year, Gaza’s oldest mosque was largely destroyed by Israeli air-strikes. The Omari mosque dating back to the seventh century and named for Umar ibn al-Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, and so is much mourned. It is worth noting in passing that Islam does not separate religion and state as the West does, and so such a strike is against a target as much political as religious.

One act in the tragedy of war is the destruction of venerated architecture. Göring’s Luftwaffe tried desperately to bomb St. Paul’s Cathedral in London during World War II, the bombs falling all around the famous dome but never finding the target. The destruction of St. Paul’s would have adversely affected British morale, but both miraculously survived.

Now, another ancient and respected British institution is under attack; Parliament. Three events in England in the last month may have seemed singular viewed individually, but taken together they could permanently shift the tectonic plates of British government. First, intimidation by pro-Palestinian mobs, along with death threats made to Members of Parliament (MPs), may have altered the outcome of a Parliamentary vote on a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. A few days later, a local by-election was won by a veteran Islamist White politician who dedicated his win with the opening line of his victory speech; “This is for Gaza!”. Finally, the next week, a leading figure in the Conservative Party said in an unguarded interview moment that he believed that the London Mayor, Muslim Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists in the nation’s capital. Within days, there was one word predominantly on the media’s lips; Islamophobia.

The term “Islamophobia”, which came into being around a century ago and has been, to use a modern term, weaponized by the Islamic lobby, is as potent as the word “racism”, and ultimately just as devoid of meaning. Words, however, do not have to have meaning nowadays, and some are increasingly purely performative, used not as descriptive but as accusatory. Muslims and their cheerleaders use the term to damn perceived opponents and critics, while those who challenge it point out that a “phobia” is an irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. As noted, meaning is not a priority in modern political linguistic usage.

The chain of political events that led to the word once again being prominent began at Westminster, when the Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, broke with Parliamentary precedent during a vote over a ceasefire in Gaza. As with any such proceedings, the details are intricate, but essentially the vote was allowed to take place in such an amended way that it would assist the opposition Labour Party and its leader, Sir Keir Starmer, to head off a major rebellion by their front-bench MPs. Equally important were the reasons Hoyle gave for his controversial decision, or rather one of them. He was, said the Speaker, concerned for the safety of MPs leaving the building after the vote. What could have been the threat outside the Mother of all Parliaments? Knife crime? Global warming?

The reason was a mob of pro-Palestinian supporters massed outside the House, who seemed to be looking to re-create the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, when men of Kent and Essex burnt many of London’s landmarks to the ground.

What happened that evening cannot be under-stated. If the outcome of a British Parliamentary vote can be swayed by the activism of a mob, then all bets are off. The pro-Palestine mobs that have infested London streets every Saturday since October 7 last year have been increasingly brazen as they realize they are not really being policed, and if thus emboldened they are unlikely to slacken, and will go from vocal to violent. In addition, the Gaza vote was extraordinary in that it will have registered little interest in Gaza itself, while it has become the focal point for a seismic shift in British politics taking place over 2,000 miles from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Just over a week after Sir Lindsay kicked a hornets’ nest with his irregular constitutional decision, attention shifted to a local by-election in a regional seat made empty by the death of the incumbent Labour MP, and which has a good claim to be the dirtiest such ballot ever fought in Britain. Again, the relevance of the outcome to UK politics cannot be over-emphasized.

Rochdale is a northern English town famed during the industrial revolution for its cotton production. More recently, its fortunes have fallen, and it was one of the towns exposed as being home to largely Muslim “grooming gangs” who drugged and raped young White girls with impunity for many years. They were unhampered by the police and only briefly reported by the mainstream media, very late and even then, minimally and reluctantly. Peter McLoughlin’s book Easy Meat charts this industrial-scale rape, often of minors, perpetrated almost exclusively by men of Pakistani origin. He is clear on the political gain of a cover-up: “Thousands and thousands of schoolgirls were sacrificed so that the elite in Britain could make obeisance to their religion of multiculturalism”.

The rape epidemic — which is still going on — was blamed on culture rather than religion, the apologists seemingly failing to notice that, in the case of Islam, the two are inextricably linked.

The Rochdale by-election was dirty and chaotic. Two weeks before the ballot, Labour withdrew support for its candidate, Azhar Ali, over alleged anti-Semitic comments made on social media. For the opposition party not to field a candidate at a by-election in the UK is vanishingly rare. The ruling Conservative Party expected to be trounced anyway in a dress-rehearsal for their likely wipe-out in the General Election later this year, and the up-and coming Reform UK fielded a candidate who had only recently been accepted back into political life after a scandal involving texts sent to a teenage girl. Even an unknown independent candidate, campaigning on issues concerning Rochdale (as you would normally expect from any candidate), finished second above what are usually recognized as the three main parties in Britain. But the clear winner, with more votes than those three parties combined, was veteran maverick George Galloway.

Galloway is a chancer and a rogue, seeking election wherever he believes he can be backed by a Muslim voting bloc, and has now represented four different constituencies in Parliament, a record equaled only by Sir Winston Churchill. The fiery Scot converted to Islam over two decades ago, and has had four wives, each one a Muslima. He is staunchly pro-Islamic and thus pro-Palestinian, which was the centerpiece of his campaign.

Galloway is a superb rhetorician in the Aristotelean sense. “Rhetoric” has now come to mean words alone, but there is far more to it than that, Aristotle defining it as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is a lot more than words, a fact Galloway knows very well indeed. He is a hero to many British Muslims, and infamously met with Saddam Hussein, telling the Butcher of Baghdad that he saluted his “indefatigability”. Galloway regularly laces his speeches with heavily accented Arabic words and phrases.

Galloway is also a consummate campaigner. His team delivered two versions of the party’s campaign leaflets with basically the same text, but featuring a slight amendment depending on the recipient. Muslim households received a leaflet saying that Galloway would fight specifically for Muslims, while kuffar residences received a missive stating that he would fight for the people of Rochdale. Again, the situation in Gaza is shaping and molding politics in the UK, even at grassroots level.

At a hustings in Rochdale (“hustings” are British campaign-trail events, like stump speeches in the US), every question from journalists concerned the conflict in Gaza. At another, Galloway asked Muslim voters what they would say to their maker on Judgment Day when he asked them what they did for Gaza. This is a powerful image for some Muslims, and shows Galloway’s astute understanding of the Islamic faith. At a press conference, he said intriguingly that “the next election will be all about Muslims”. The next election in Britain is the General Election.

Lee Anderson is one of those British politicians known as “enforcers”. This is unofficial, and nothing like the enforcement of the Chief Whip, who ensures voting solidarity among his party’s MPs. But Anderson is a bullish man who does not suffer fools gladly. He was, until recently, the Chairman of the Tory Party and, until even more recently, still in the party. Not anymore. His comments on Sadiq Khan started a media squabble which soon become political, and led to Anderson’s suspension from the Conservative Party on charges of racism and Islamophobia. There is no point in pointing out yet again that Islam is not a race, and so Anderson’s comment could not be racist but, as noted, words don’t mean what they used to mean.

Anderson stated during a TV interview that Khan was controlled by Islamists. This started a furious media squabble about language, an increasingly strong focal point this century with respect to political, or politicized, words and their usage. Every TV hack is suddenly a linguistics expert after a row over the latest contentious Tweet or post, and it often seems as though the media are hosting a semantics seminar rather than confining themselves to mere reportage. Free speech was arguably freer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth —the First, that is — than that of the ailing son of Queen Elizabeth the Second, and politicians in particular are under forensic scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that MPs do not flock enthusiastically to the cause of free speech when their own is the most policed in the country.

Anderson was accused by Khan of both Islamophobia and racism, a double tap for a man often suspected of being a Muslim fifth-columnist and likely to be re-elected to the London Mayorship later this year. Khan has been a great proponent of immigrants coming to London, and this is the clearest example of the deliberate importation of a ready-made voting bloc, as Khan knows perfectly well that the vast majority of immigrants are Muslims, sectarian differences notwithstanding.

For immigration to the UK is not simply a steady procession of arrivals on dinghies on the Kent coast who have to be housed and fed and provided with debit cards and telephones. It is also a part of the political system, and the arrival of ever more Muslims will be as pleasing to Muslim leaders as it is to business owners. Immigrants were (in)famously described as part of an “invasion” by then Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman, connoting an invading army. That may be hyperbole, but the invaders of which she spoke could also be reservists in an army which is still at the stage of assembly.

A strong element in Britain’s self-deception about Islam since 9/11 is the tired homily telling us that “not all Muslims are terrorists” and “Islamists are just a handful of extremists and don’t represent Islam”. The first statement is literally true but not all Muslims need to be terrorists, and there will be plenty of smiling Muslim families — perhaps running your local shop, if you’re British — who will be quite happy that ISIS are doing the heavy lifting. There will be many DVDs of the Twin Towers in the collections of some Muslim households, right next to the video of Mohammed and Shamima’s wedding. Anything for the ummah, everything for Islam. And perhaps Islam is seeking to unite the British chapter of that ummah, and is eyeing a key caliphate in the new reconquista. This begins with alliance, forced or otherwise.

France is having the same problem as Britain with Muslim influence, and Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist who has been on the wrong side of Islam in the past, has one of his characters in the novel Submission suggest what could be about to happen in the UK (Houellebecq also predicted the current European farmers’ revolt in his novel Serotonin): “It’s true that Christianity and Islam have been at war for a very long time … but I think the time has come for accommodation, for an alliance”.

Islam is used to such alliances, provided the jizya is forthcoming — i.e., the tax occupying Muslims historically levy on their new subjects. The British wouldn’t even notice a new tax, currently being rinsed by the Internal Revenue at the highest rate since the end of World War II. As for Islamic shariah law, a lot of Brits would make a day of it if young offenders who have previously terrorized their neighborhoods were flogged in the town square, or more likely the car-park in today’s Britain. It would not surprise me if Galloway intends to turn Rochdale into a testing-ground for shariah courts, which already exist de facto in Britain.

The day after Galloway’s election, the British Prime Minister — fabulously rich Hindu Rishi Suna — made a speech outside Number 10 Downing Street in which he rehearsed themes that are becoming familiar to watchers of political semiotics. He conflated Islamism with the “far-Right”, an entity which does not exist in any meaningful sense, as I wrote about here at The Occidental Observer.  Sunak called Galloway’s election “beyond horrifying”, and he had a strange take on Anderson’s comments, saying that “the words were wrong”. There is something incantatory about this, as though Anderson were a sorcerer’s apprentice who had uttered the wrong summoning spell. Henry Bolton, the leader of Nigel Farage’s old outfit, the UK Independence Party, described Sunak’s speech as follows: “His words were good, but it wasn’t going anywhere”.

This extraordinary statement shows, as noted, that there is a deep crisis in contemporary English-language usage and it needs bringing to light. We used to have philosophers to do that sort of thing for us.

But it is not all political machination. Islam, metaphysically equipped to play the long game but not averse to hurrying things along a little, knows that violence, or at least rumors of violence, are powerful rhetorical tools too. Richard Tice is the leader of the Reform Party, who are being spoken of as the heirs to conservatism should the Tories expected General Election defeat be even worse than expected. Tice has yet to prove that he differs from the political class, but he has not shied away from severe criticism of the campaigning by representatives of both Islamist parties in Rochdale. He claims severe staff intimidation and threats, polling station harassment, and a sudden spike in postal voting. Simon Danczuk, Reform’s candidate at the Rochdale by-election, is more specific in his allegations here.

Islam has been establishing beachheads in the British political process for years, and they have received an accelerant. As in the European lowlands of Belgium and Holland, local Muslim political power grows in the UK, and towns and cities gradually become micro-caliphates which may one day join hands. The Omari mosque was destroyed by military means. The destruction of British democracy may take time, but not a shot need be fired (although the possibility cannot be discounted).

The dissident Right are often conflicted over the question of Islam. Muslims, it goes without saying, are animated by a hatred of Jewry, and so get a pass from many on the far Right. My enemy’s enemy and all that. But the leading two British parties are heading into a General Election which has just come astonishingly to life, as if envious of the gunfight at the OK Corral which the American Presidential Election looks likely to be. If the UK’s election follows the same lines, Islam is drawing its revolvers first. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his opposite number, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, are trying desperately to placate two bitterly opposed factions over Gaza. Muslim leaders and imams in Britain know this, perceive weakness in the leadership, and know how to mobilize in synchronicity. Islam is increasingly setting the political agenda because Islam is the political agenda.

Finally, the question every politician asks secretly in that little part of themselves where they think what they really mean. Is it good for the Jews? Anti-Semitic violence is increasing in Britain (although every identitarian group claims the same thing), and the first Jew to die at pro-Palestinian hands in the UK — should that happen — may strike a match to a situation every bit as potentially explosive as the stash of dynamite with which Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605. For decades, Jewish influence on British politics had been monopolistic and required no enforcement. With sufficient influence in business and the media, British Jewry felt no need to bring in the Stern Gang. This surety no longer exists, and British-Jewish interests are about to discover that there are different types of power and different ways to exert political influence than just money.

Review of “Storm of Steel” by Ernst Jünger

When once it is no longer possible to understand how a man gives his life for his country—and the time will come—then all is over with that faith also, and the idea of the Fatherland is dead; and then, perhaps, we shall be envied, as we envy the saints their inward and irresistible strength.
Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger

The end of the greatness of Western Civilization in one man’s death.

*        *        *

On February 17, 1998, a frail centenarian passed away in Wilflingen, Germany. Born in 1895, Ernst Jünger’s life was far more noteworthy than simply its prodigious length — it was a life that epitomized the gallantry, curiosity, patriotism, intelligence, and culture that made Western Civilization what it became — and from what is has descended. Fused in one man were all the qualities — qualities that are not merely in short supply today but positively lacking. It is not hyperbole to say that an era of sorts and an entire civilization was buried with his remains at Wilflingen Cemetery. We simply do not produce men like him — and have not for a very long time.

To say that Jünger’s life was incredible is selling it short — by a longshot. His life almost perfectly corresponded with the entirety of the twentieth century. The changes he witnessed boggle the mind — from the world he inherited to the world that he left. Born less than twenty-five years after Germany’s unification in 1871, he came into the world during the heady optimism of the German Empire. Successively he would be a participant and witness to: World War I and Germany’s partial dismemberment following its defeat at the hand of the allies; the chaos and political upheavals of the Weimar Republic; the rise of the Third Reich and World War II; the complete destruction and dismemberment of Germany following the war; the eras of West and East Germany; and finally, the reunification of Germany in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union. During every phase, from a young man to a very old man, Jünger participated and contributed to Germany. Indeed, he is virtually without parallel in what he means to soul of Germany.

He was a man that lived his entire life wrestling with ideas with a creative mind that seemingly never lost its vigor. An active writer from a young age, his books span multiple generations. He consumed life in an almost inexhaustible way — cogitating over things in a way that was almost superhuman. In that sense, he is close to being the personification of Western Civilization in microcosm. Really, it is that unbelievable.

I could recapitulate his life, but perhaps citing to a then-contemporary obituary to give a flavor for the man is more appropriate. While there were many, I found that The Independent gave as good a voice to the extraordinariness of his life as any other — and I cite it in full because it is worth reading in full:

ERNST JUNGER first beheld Halley’s Comet during its 1910 passage, when he was a boy of 15. In 1987, he made a special journey to Malaysia for a second glimpse. He was one of the very few writers to have seen the comet twice in his lifetime.

All this is described in Zwei Mal Halley (“Halley Twice”, 1988), a book filled with Junger’s characteristic meditations on time and place, on dreams, nature, crystals, stars, mountains, the sea, wild animals and insects, especially butterflies, a passion he shared with Nabokov. Throughout his very considerable body of work, there is an obsession with time, with dates, with temporal coincidences, with the fatidic power of numbers over our birth and death. In a volume of his journals covering the years 1965–70, Siebzig verweht (“Past Seventy”, 1980), he makes this revealing entry at Wilfingen, his home between the Danube and the Black Forest, in sight of the castle of Stauffenberg, on 30 March 1965: “I have now reached the biblical age of three score and ten — a rather strange feeling for a man who, in his youth, had never hoped to see his 30th year. Even after my 23rd birthday in 1918, I would gladly have signed a Faustian pact with the Devil: “Give me just 30 years of life, guaranteed, then let it all be ended.”

A similar expression of his fascinated awe of time and numbers appears in an earlier work, An der Zeitmauer (“At the Wall of Time”, 1959). But one of the most extraordinary examples of this obsession can be found in a journal entry for “‘Monday, 8.8.1988’ — a date with four units. 8 is special (four 8’s, and a fifth one by subtracting the 1 from the 9). Odin rides an 8-legged horse. . . . Dates have often brought me surprises.”

One of his many hobbies was the collection of antique sandglasses, on which he was an authority. He also collected sundial inscriptions. Ernst Junger’s birth at Heidelberg is recorded precisely. It fell on 29 March 1895 on the stroke of noon, under Aries, with Cancer in the ascendant. He was the eldest of seven children, one of whom, his beloved brother Friedrich Georg (who died in 1977), was also a writer, a poet and philosopher.

Junger spent the greater part of his childhood and adolescence in Hanover, where his prosperous parents settled shortly after his birth. They possessed a beautiful villa by a lake, where Ernst made his first entomological investigations. He soon developed a dislike for bourgeois life, and spent a couple of unhappy years in boarding schools, whose reports complain of his dreaminess and lack of interest in the boring curriculum. He was later to write: “I had invented for myself a sort of distancing indifference that allowed me to remain connected to reality only by an invisible thread like a spider’s.”

He spent hours reading unauthorised books, and with his brother lived in an exalted universe of their own. They would go wandering round the countryside, and Ernst struck up happy friendships with tramps and gypsies. He was already the Waldganger (wild man of the woods), the anarchist hero of his 1977 novel Eumeswil. It was the beginning of an unending passion for travel and exotic lands. He took the first big step in 1913 by running away from home to join the Foreign Legion, in which he saw service in Oran and Sidi-Bel-Abbes. After five weeks, his father bought him out. Ernst was to write about this escapade in Kinderspielen (“Children’s Games”, 1936). His father promised that if he passed his Abitur (school-leaving examination) he would be allowed to join an expedition to Mount Kilimanjaro. So Junger swotted away at the Gildermeister Institut, whose grim atmosphere is evoked in Die Steinschleuder (“The Catapult“, 1973), a novel in the great tradition of German school stories.

Junger passed his exam in August 1914 and at once volunteered for the army, in which he fought on the French front with exceptional courage all through the First World War. Wounded four times, he received the highest German military honour, the Order of Merit created by Friedrich II: he outlived all those who also received it. Out of his wartime experiences was born Stahlgewittern (“Storm of Steel”, 1920), which he had to publish at his own expense. This story of the horrors of modern warfare was drawn from his wartime notebooks, often written in the heat of battle on the Western Front. It remains one of the greatest works about the First World War, along with those by Erich Maria Remarque, Henri Barbusse, e.e. cummings, David Jones and Lucien Descaves.

Junger stayed in the army until 1923, when he left and began studying zoology at the University of Leipzig and at Naples. He married Gretha von Jeinsen and his son Ernst was born in 1926. In 1927 they moved to Berlin, where he became a member of the national revolutionary group led by Niekisch (arrested by Hitler in 1937 and kept in a concentration camp until the end of the Second World War). He also got to know Ernst von Salomon, Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Toller and Alfred Kubin, as well as the publisher Rowohlt. He began travelling widely, to Sicily, Rhodes, the Dalmatian coast, Norway, Brazil and the Canaries, and made the acquaintance of Andre Gide in Paris. These travels had a great influence on all his writings, most noticeable in his superb novel Heliopolis (1949) – the most elegantly learned, eloquently written and hauntingly convincing science- fiction story ever written.

Goebbels tried in vain to draw him into the ranks of the Nazi hierarchy in 1931, and he refused to be elected to the German Academy of Letters because it was dominated by national socialist timeservers. In 1932 Junger produced a very significant book, Der Arbeiter (“The Worker”), which is nevertheless one of his least-known works. It was long out of print until Martin Heidegger, himself besmirched with Nazi collaboration, persuaded him to risk letting it be reissued in 1963. It presents the mythical figure of standardised modern man as “The Worker” whose pragmatism and nihilism destroy the old traditional categories of peasant, soldier and priest, foretelling an unprecedented reversal of temporal power in our collapsing cultures where an intellectual and artistic elite has no place.

Related to this theme is a later work, Das Aladdinproblem (1983), in which he asks who will rub the magic lamp of destructive science and dehumanising technology: “With the heavens empty, we live in the Age of Uranium: how can we believe our modern Aladdin’s lamp will not produce some unimaginable monster?” Der Arbeiter is also an important theoretical study of the political history of the Thirties in Germany, and has been considered by critics like Georg Lukacs and Walter Benjamin to have been the ideological matrix of national-socialist ideas. But Junger’s links with national socialism were infinitely complex. He was a serving officer, partisan of the revolutionary right, a sort of conservative anarchist, hostile to the Weimar Republic, yet he refused all honours and promotions.

Unable to bear the rising tide of Hitlerism, he left Berlin for the quiet of the countryside at Kirchhorst, where in February 1939 he began the painful drafting of Auf den Marmorklippen. Its anti-Nazi tone is obvious, but the book was published in September, the month war was declared. On the Marble Cliffs was part of my wartime reading, and I well remember the excitement it caused when the translation was published by John Lehmann just after the war.

With the outbreak of war, Junger was given the rank of captain and took part in the invasion of France, during which he did his utmost to spare civilians and protect public monuments. Posted to Paris, he became a well-known figure in the literary salons of the time like the Thursday reunions of artists and writers at Florence Gould’s. He made good friends of authors like the acid-tongued critic Leautaud and above all Marcel Jouhandeau, whose scholarly ease and wit in writing seemed to Junger exceptional at a time of growing artistic barbarity. Even after their condemnation for collaboration with the Nazis, Junger praised the characters and writings of Chardonne, Celine (whom he did not like), Brasillach and Drieu de la Rochelle, while his admiration for Cocteau, Sasha Guitry and actresses like Arletty was as sincere as that for artists like Braque and Picasso, whose studios he frequented.

His journals of this period are studded with all these famous names. However, he was indirectly implicated in Stauffenberg’s attempt to assassinate Hitler in July 1944, and requested to leave the army and return home to Kirchhorst, where he spent the rest of the war, composing a text on Die Friede (“Peace”). His son Ernst, in prison for opposition to Hitler, was despatched to the Italian front and killed on 29 November in the marble quarries at Carrara by Allied snipers.

After German defeat and capitulation, despite his firm denials of having supported Nazism, Junger encountered the shrill hostility of Marxist and so-called liberal critics who accused him of being its predecessor. They even criticised his scholarly, noble, refined style, calling it frigid, elitist and academic. He writes of his experiments with drugs in Annaherungen (“Approaches”, 1970), influenced by Aldous Huxley’s works on the same subject. He finally settled at Wilfingen in the house of the Master Forester attached to the ancestral home of his executed friend Graf Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, where in 1959 he founded the literary review Antaios with Mircea Eliade. By 1977, his father, mother, brother and wife had all died. He remarried, taking as his wife Liselotte Lohrer, a professional archivist and literary scholar.

All through the Seventies and Eighties Junger travelled widely. In 1979, he visited Verdun and was awarded the town’s Peace Medal. In 1982 he received a final literary consecration with the award of the City of Frankfurt’s Goethe Prize, which aroused violent protest among his detractors. In 1984, he again made a pilgrimage to Verdun, with Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand to pay homage to the victims of two world wars. In 1992, there was extraordinary confirmation of Junger’s anti-Nazi stance with the discovery of a top-secret document proving that his fate was in the balance just before the Third Reich’s capitulation and during the final days Hitler spent in the Wolfs-Schanze, the very headquarters where he was wounded by the Stauffenberg bomb.

The document is dated December 1944. It is addressed by Dr Freisler, president of the Volksgericht (People’s Court) to Martin Bormann, Hitler’s right-hand man. Freisler informs Bormann that the proceedings to be taken against Captain Junger are to be cancelled. Junger had been indicted on account of his novel On the Marble Cliffs and the “defeatist” opinions he had expressed at his old colleague Commandant Stulpnagel’s HQ in Paris, not long before the latter’s suicide. Freisler reveals that on 20 November 1944 the Fuhrer himself had given the order by telephone from the Wolfs- Schanze that the matter was not to be pursued any further. Freisler ends his letter with “Heil Hitler!”, then adds a postscript: “I am sending you three dossiers on the affair. The Fuhrer wishes to have his orders executed immediately.”

In his Journals, Junger notes that the Gestapo had described him at that period in Paris as “an impenetrable, highly suspect individual”. He comments in a 1992 interview: “It was no surprise to me. After all, it conformed to the pattern of my horoscope. Ever since my schooldays I’ve been accustomed to that kind of unpleasantness.” Ernst Junger’s work is all of a piece — highly literary, beautifully sonorous, excitingly visual, intellectually profound and stimulating. It is the life work of an aristocrat of letters, and one of the best tributes to it has been made by another literary patriarch, Julien Gracq: “The hard, smooth enamelling that seems to armour his prose against the touch of too great a familiarity would seem to us perhaps a little frigid if we did not know, and if we never lost consciousness of the fact while reading, that it has been tempered in an ordeal of fire.”

That is a fitting eulogy for one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.

Ernst Junger, writer: born Heidelberg, Germany 29 March 1895; married 1925 Gretha von Jeinsen (died 1960; two sons deceased), 1962 Liselotte Lohrer; died Wilflingen, Germany 17 February 1998.

Noticeably absent from this obituary is any mention of religion, which is unfortunate. I find great solace that this man, who retained his wits sharply until his death, converted to Roman Catholicism at the ripe age of 101 and died in the bosom and sacraments of the Catholic Church. While there are similar conversion stories of remarkable men who converted after a long lifetime of exhaustive study and moral exploration, his conversion is particularly meaningful to me. While I am no Ernst Jünger, by both blood and conviction, I am northwestern European and a Teutonophile: that the very best modern German man saw fit to do exactly what I did — that is, make an adult conversion to Rome — gladdens me exceedingly. A man such as him — a Western man in the best sense of the term who had lived life to its maximal fullness in every way — decided after seeing virtually everything a man can see and thinking about over in a lifetime came to the conclusion that the ancient faith of Rome was true is inspiring beyond measure. Truly this was a man who drunk deeply of virtually every idea and experienced virtually every political and social movement — all in the great vacillations of the greatest privations intermixed with periods of abundance. From a human perspective, he was someone that saw hope and despair, in both a people and in his heart, wax and wane repeatedly. Such a man knew the scope of life as few ever have — and after surveying all of it, he cast his lot with the Nazarene and the Catholic Church. It is true that we live in an appalling age of nihilism and apostasy in our time, but I am gratified that Rome continues to attract the very best of men even if loses millions more of mediocre and self-centered. It is a testament to the powerful and enduring attraction that is Christ as mediated through the Church He founded — a Church that uniquely fits the soul of the most virtuous men of the West.

Now, the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments; that said, hostile and indifferent non-Catholics who nonetheless care about the survival of Western Civilization and bemoan the depths of depravity into which we have sunk ought to take something from his conversion. Even if it does not result in a similar conversion, it ought to communicate to every non-Catholic Westerner who cares about the West that Catholicism is not merely a part of our history but a living force that continues to attract men of the highest quality. That means it ought to never be tarnished or mocked even by those men who stand aloof from her.

*        *        *

Jünger, as it clear from above, wrote a great deal — this review only addresses one of his earliest published works: Storm of Steel, which is a first-person account of his experience as a soldier and officer during the First World War. It is a beautiful — if tragic — account of that senseless killing field. It represents the genre of a “soldier’s story” as well as any that I have read, and while it details the horror of the mechanized monster that is modern war, it is neither the glorification of war nor its condemnation. Somewhere in between, Storm of Steel is an account of a man of honor doing his duty without apologizing for it — indeed, if anything, it is the pronouncement of his good fortune to be among the generation that was able to do it. To the modern reader — no doubt a collection of beta men (or, in Nietzsche’s pithier words, “last men”) — such a sentiment after reading the horrors and carnage that Jünger saw and experienced is virtually inexplicable. But then again men of today use words like duty, honor, and fatherland as punchlines — something to be mocked by men who get pedicures. Such is the distance between us and him and the whole of his generation that passed.

The First World War is a confounding — and depressing — topic for me. I have studied it from different angles and perspectives. I have thought about it for seemingly hundreds of hours. I have lamented it and in particular its senselessness. In its essence, WWI was a collective civilizational suicide pact — the destruction of Europe’s finest and the impoverishment of Europe’s future. On the eve of August 1914, European civilization (late-stage Western Civilization) was ascendent around the globe. The war ended that ascent definitively and decisively. What is more, it is virtually impossible to understand why the leaders of Europe decided — in unison — to kill all their best young men and destroy and impoverish their countries simultaneously. The lack of reason or cause, I suppose, bothers me most. Western Civilization was mortally wounded by November 1918 and its self-inflicted wound was utterly meaningless.

But this is not a story of the war’s meaninglessness — it is a story of one of those best men who happened, unbelievably, to survive and tell the tale. Throughout, Jünger speaks for the millions who died — he gives voice to those we lost and what we lost even if we did not lose Jünger. This is a book that communicates the patriotic enthusiasm that swept over Germany, and, by extension, the whole of Europe at the outset of the war. He writes:

We had come from lecture halls, school desks and factory workbenches, and over the brief weeks of training, we had bonded together into one large and enthusiastic group. Grown up in an age of security, we shared a yearning for danger, for the experience of the extraordinary. We were enraptured by war.

The enthusiasm, which he shared with many of his generation, is seemingly out-of-place considering that carnage and hellfire that they would face. Likewise, the enthusiasm did not reflect a belief in the ideological righteousness of the cause beyond the ardent patriotism in the breasts of the men who fought. Consider his view of the enemy, which is infused with a latent sense of chivalry from a bygone era:

Throughout the war, it was always my endeavour to view my opponent without animus, and to form an opinion of him as a man on the basis of the courage he showed. I would always try and seek him out in combat and kill him, and I expected nothing else from him. But never did I entertain mean thoughts of him. When prisoners fell into my hands, later on, I felt responsible for their safety, and would always do everything in my power for them.

We learn early in this book what kind of man this is — and he displays a remarkable consistency throughout in terms of his character.

Jünger’s account is not about military strategy per se although as an officer and leader of men in various battles, the tactics and strategy are always there for consideration. No, this is an account of the primal nature of war — especially the vicious and unforgiving nature of mechanized trench warfare. While this book is not like Guy Sajer’s Forgotten Soldier in that the literary motif of the fog of war is used in the writing itself, there is a distinct chaos that seems never far from the surface in Storm of Steel. But there is something alive — and dare I say beautiful — in the horror of what he describes. It is the continuous paradox of life — man never feels more alive than when he faces death in a real and meaningful way. And death was everywhere in Jünger’s account.

One could almost say that his literary talents created a battlefield aesthetic in which the war was a visual tableau and spectacle — even in its destruction and mangled reality. He paints an intense picture of the trenches, nighttime patrols, and terrifying infantry and storm trooper attacks. Artillery is everywhere and these men lived under constant bombardment. We get a sense of the drip-drip maddening effect of the barrages coupled with the occasional direct hits, which leave multiple men mangled beyond recognition. But we also get a sense of the indomitable esprit de corps of these men; he writes:

Even if ten out of twelve men had fallen, the two survivors would surely meet over a glass on their first evening off, and drink a silent toast to their comrades, and jestingly talk over their shared experiences. There was in these men a quality that both emphasized the savagery of war and transfigured it at the same time: an objective relish for danger, the chevaleresque urge to prevail in battle.

And there is the constant vagaries and senselessness of who dies and how — death is something always lurking and stealing people away in a completely haphazard way. If there is a hidden metaphor in the book as it relates to the meaningless of the war — at least in a geopolitical sense — it is the caprice of who dies and who does not. That said, Jünger does not strike me as intentionally embedding such devices, but it was nonetheless something that struck me repeatedly.

He does not glorify battle per se but there is an unapologetic quality of the writing that conveys the veiled Germanic warrior of an age lost in the mist of time. The suffering and privations — the cold, damp, and hungry conditions — only add laurels of the might and mane of the men who endured and fought. His mode of writing, which builds on a contemporaneous journal that Jünger kept throughout the war, keeps the action moving in an almost herky-jerky fashion that gives us a sense the vicissitudes of soldiers moving hither and thither without always understanding why. Consider this example of his style:

These moments of nocturnal prowling leave an indelible impression. Eyes and ears are tensed to the maximum, the rustling approach of strange feet in the tall grass in an unutterably menacing thing. Your breath comes in shallow bursts; you have to force yourself to stifle any panting or wheezing. There is a little mechanical click as the safety-catch of your pistol is taken off; the sound cuts straight through your nerves. Your teeth are grinding on the fuse-pin of the hand-grenade. The encounter will be short and murderous. You tremble with two contradictory impulses: the heightened awareness of the huntsmen, and the terror of the quarry. You are a world to yourself, saturated with the appalling aura of the savage landscape.

For those who might have seen it, the recent film 1917 uses the cinematic technique of equating the runtime of the film with the sequence of action presented by the film — i.e., the film is a two-hour film that depicts two hours in 1917; it has some similarities to Storm of Steel, not so much in the passage of time or the length of the book, but the work is action-oriented with little dedicated space for philosophical musings other than what is relevant to the action.

Like other war stories, it is a coming-of-age story — innocence and enthusiasm giving way to death and gravitas. The book details Jünger’s progression of increasing responsibilities and dangers. He is eventually trained as a storm trooper who leads offensive raids towards the end of the war. The experience he and his fellows gain always comes at a cost; he writes, “[i]n war you learn your lessons, and they stay learned, but the tuition fees are high.” The book reaches its crescendo during these accounts of the offensive storm trooper raids including the one in which his final injuries were sustained that effectively put him out of the war for good. Both the glorification and vivification that come from war — especially that war — are recounted by him in an evocative way; for example, he writes of his time as a storm trooper:

Trench fighting is the bloodiest, wildest, most brutal of all. … Of all the war’s exciting moments none is so powerful as the meeting of two storm troop leaders between narrow trench walls. There’s no mercy there, no going back, the blood speaks from a shrill cry of recognition that tears itself from one’s breast like a nightmare.

During his service, Jünger was wounded a dozen or so times, each leading to a brief return home or time in the military hospital for recovery. He writes in detail: “[l]eaving out trifles such as ricochets and grazes, I was hit at least fourteen times, these being five bullets, two shell splinters, one shrapnel ball, four hand-grenade splinters and two bullet splinters, which, with entry and exit wounds, left me an even twenty scars.” Despite the comforts, he yearns for the frontlines — he literally cannot wait to return to the hell of the war. Even in his last — and most serious injury — he is anxiously preparing for the winter offensive of 1919 that never came.

Notably, unlike other stories from the losing side, Jünger’s experiences do not lend themselves to cynicism. While Jünger provides a firsthand account of the brutality of trench warfare and the psychological effects it had on the soldiers, there is no sense of complaining in the slightest even when he gives voice to the various temptations that he had to shirk on occasion. The book may be a gripping and unflinching portrayal of the horrors of war, but it is not a demonization of it or his country on account of it. He simply sees himself as a man who did his duty for fatherland and he never exhibits anything remotely like cynicism of the enterprise even if he complains, from time to time, of the mistakes made by generals far off from the tactical reality that he confronted. In that sense, it is a very different book from All Quiet on the Western Front, notwithstanding the many similarities, which exudes a manifested cynicism.

Jünger begins the war and his memoir with the love of his country:

At the sight of the Neckar [River] slopes wreathed with flowering cherry trees, I had a strong sense of having come home. What a beautiful country it was, and eminently worth our blood and our lives. Never before had I felt its charm so clearly. I had good and serious thoughts, and for the first time I sensed that this war was more than just a great adventure.

After all the destruction and carnage, he ends the book with the same love of his country not only intact but somehow strengthened — even as it is tinged with foreboding of what was to come:

Now these [battles]too are over, and already we see once more in the dim light of the future the tumult of the fresh ones. We—by this I mean those youth of this land who are capable of enthusiasm for an ideal—will not shrink from them. We stand in the memory of the dead who are holy to us, and we believe ourselves entrusted with the true and spiritual welfare of our people. We stand for what will be and for what has been. Though force without and barbarity within conglomerate in sombre clouds, yet so long as the blade of a sword will strike a spark in the night may it be said: Germany lives and Germany shall never go under!

We live today among men, at least in the West, who treat their countries with disdain and ignore that they even belong to a people. Where are the men today who might say that Germany — or England — or France — or Spain — or dare I say America — lives? Where are the men who love their fatherlands and love their kin?

*        *        *

Jünger recounts many men he killed during the war. What stands out to me, however, is the one he did not kill:

A bloody scene with no witnesses was about to happen. It was a relief to me, finally, to have the foe in front of me and within reach. I set the mouth of the pistol at the man’s temple — he was too frightened to move — while my other fist grabbed hold of his tunic, feeling medals and badges of rank. An officer; he must have held some command post in these trenches. With a plaintive sound, he reached into his pocket, not to pull out a weapon, but a photograph which he held up to me. I saw him on it, surrounded by numerous family, all standing on a terrace. It was a plea from another world. Later, I thought it was blind chance that I let him go and plunged onward. That one man of all often appeared in my dreams. I hope that meant he got to see his homeland again.

This was a haunting scene. What a waste that war was — what a waste of men such as these. Hidden in this moment in an otherwise unforgiving war is the recognition of the Western sensibility of humanity. True enough it was his duty to kill, but the hope he articulated for the survival of his enemy is rich in meaning and pregnant with the fraternity that exists — or at least once existed — among European men.

When I took the whole of this book in, what struck me more than anything is that a man of twenty-five could write it. Consider too that four of his twenty-five years were not in graduate school but in muddy and bombed-out trenches. Throughout the book are references to themes of Western Civilization, theology, mythology, and philosophy. By no means is this a book that plumbs any of them deeply but the facility of a twenty-five-year-old with all of them demonstrated a greatness in the German psyche that is simply unrecognizable in virtually any men today regardless of age. True enough, Jünger proved to be a gifted writer after the war, but his talents notwithstanding, the civilization that reared him and existed before World War I was astounding.

Why oh why did we allow them all to be killed?

 *        *        *

Saint Martin of Tours, Pray for us.

 

Judge Carney Defends the First Amendment

Editor’s note: This FEF article on selective prosecution is very important. It is a huge problem for our side and happens repeatedly. The prosecution of the right — even though the same behavior or worse on the left is tolerated — is paradigmatic, but there are many other examples, including the lawfare against Vdare, the deluge of lawsuits against Trump (e.g., inflating property values is common in the real estate industry, and banks can certainly do their own due diligence), and the J6 and Charlottesville defendants. All of these suits have been brought by leftist prosecutors who depend on the courts to uphold their arguments. And people on our side don’t file civil suits related to free speech either because it’s unlikely we could succeed in the courts, no matter how much the facts are on our side (e.g., James Edwards’ lawsuit for defamation against The Detroit Free Press—no libel protection for White advocates). It’s hard to find judges who will apply the rule of law in these situations, but Judge Carmac Carney is doing that. But of course the evil forces of repression are doing their best to overcome that.

Support the cause: donate today at https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/donate/.

Written by: FEF Staff

There is an old adage that a judge is a combination of a lawyer and a politician. Hard experience by attorneys representing the Dissident Right in First Amendment cases has shown that this adage often – too often – carries much truth. But there are exceptions. There are judges who wear their robes with honor and interpret and enforce the law impartially and in accordance with basic First Amendment principles. Judge Carmac Carney, federal judge for the Central District of California, is one such judge.

FEF’s supporters may have taken note of Judge Carney’s recent bombshell ruling ordering the release from custody of former Rise Above Movement (RAM) members Robert Rundo and Robert Boman, who were in police custody after being charged under the federal Anti-Riot Act with engaging in violence with hard-left groups at a pro-Trump rally in 2017. Rundo, who had been living abroad since the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and was extradited from Romania to face charges last year, has become a fixture in dissident right circles across North America, principally for founding a network of health and fitness societies, called Active Clubs.

Thus far, this highly rare ruling has been covered with unsurprising outrage in the New York Times and CNN, among others, but more interestingly by mainstream conservative sources as well, including the Daily Wire, Hot Air, and the Daily Caller.

From the Daily Wire:

Judge Carney objected to the fact that federal prosecutors charged only right-wing participants, even though left-wing agitators performed identical conduct or worse at the same event—which prosecutors’ own evidence acknowledged.

“Antifa and related far-left groups decided they needed to ‘shut this down.’ … They came prepared for violence, bringing weapons including pepper spray, fireworks, knives, and homemade bombs,” Judge Cormac J. Carney of the US District Court for the Central District of California wrote on February 21. “And they used those weapons, as well as their bodies, against Trump supporters and law enforcement.”

As part of Rundo’s and Boman’s defense, Judge Carney was presented with photographs from the pro-Trump event showing that Antifa engaged in violence more egregious than the alleged violence the RAM members were charged with. But no Antifa were ever charged. FEF’s Glen Allen witnessed similar photographs of Antifa violence from the Charlottesville UTR rally presented by prosecutors during the sentencing of an RAM member. The prosecution used these photographs to send the RAM members to prison for two years or more but here again Antifa’s violence was ignored.

More about Judge Carney from the Daily Wire:

“Defendants have established selective prosecution. There is no doubt that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals. Antifa and related far-left groups attended the same Trump rallies as Defendants with the expressly stated intent of shutting down, through violence if necessary, protected political speech. At the same Trump rallies that form the basis for Defendants’ prosecution, members of Antifa and related far-left groups engaged in organized violence to stifle protected speech,” he continued.

FEF’s supporters may value a background on the defense of “selective prosecution” and the Anti-Riot Act, the latter a law FEF has particular expertise in, as FEF has filed numerous amicus briefs in Rundo and other cases challenging the Act’s constitutionality.

Traditionally, our criminal justice system has been the purview of state and local governments. This changed in the 1960s as the federalization of crime began to take root. As critics of this growing trend contend, it is rare when federal charges are not duplicative and the criminal activity in question cannot be adequately handled by state authorities operating under state laws. More fundamentally, the Founders, particularly Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 17, sought state jurisdiction over public safety specifically to hinder the prospect of central government oppression. As the Founders correctly foresaw, such oppression might come from laws passed or enforced for reasons of politics, inflamed public opinion, and grandstanding Congressmen—and, one might add today, overly ambitious judges and prosecutors.

Thankfully, there are procedural defenses against this increased federalization of criminal prosecutions. Derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, selective prosecution, or disparate enforcement of the law, is essentially an allegation of discrimination by prosecutorial authorities. Unlike federal and most state anti-discrimination laws, the defense of selective prosecution allows for claims on the ground of political-opinion discrimination (in addition to discrimination based on the more traditional grounds of race, religion, etc.). Due to the wide discretion prosecutorial authorities enjoy, however, the defense is rarely successful.

The Anti-Riot Act is a prime example of such needless federalization as well as dramatic overreach and over-criminalization in American society. This rarely applied law, enacted in the violent late 1960s, makes it a federal offense to plan or engage in what later becomes a riot, e.g., by travelling across state lines. Enacted, argue some, as a way to deal with then-burgeoning black nationalist and hard-left violence, the long dormant Act has recently been revived by prosecutors, perhaps ironically so, in the Trump-era and used against dissident right-wing individuals and groups. For instance, other members of RAM have previously been charged under this law for communicating about the Charlottesville rally by smart phone messaging apps and travelling in interstate commerce with the “intent to riot” in violation of the Act. In an early iteration of the Rundo indictment, parts of that law, thanks to FEF’s help, were struck down on First Amendment grounds as protected advocacy.

Despite the broad deference accorded prosecutorial discretion, defendants can successfully show selective prosecution by presenting clear evidence that the government’s prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. This is just what Judge Carney, a Bush II appointee, found in the Rundo case.

Unfortunately for Rundo and Boman, the Department of Justice and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appear to be doing their best to blunt Judge Carney’s ruling:

But after prosecutors filed an emergency motion to appeal, the Ninth Circuit had one of the right-wingers arrested the next day, February 22. Robert Rundo “is to remain in custody pending resolution of appellant’s motion to stay release pending appeal. No lower court may order his release absent further order of this Court,” the appeals court wrote.

On February 21, Carney again dismissed the charges based on their second argument, of selective prosecution.

Rundo was released from jail, but prosecutors immediately filed an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit, asking for Rundo to be arrested and held without bail, and saying they thought he might flee through the southern border if he was not.

On Feb. 23, appeals judges wrote that “Defendant-Appellee Robert Rundo has been arrested” and that lower courts were prohibited from releasing him as the government’s appeal proceeds.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s rulings, Judge Carney’s decision is a welcome precedent from a law-abiding judge at a time when such rulings seem unfortunately rare. Watch this space to keep apprised of this case as well as FEF’s involvement in it and other similar cases.

The Sweet Smell of Head-Chopping… And the Stench of Silence from Libertarians

Enlightenment enthusiast Kenan Malik is at it again. So are Kenan’s Komrades, the fanatical Furedite freedom-fighters at the libertarian journal Spiked Online. Or rather, Kenan & Komrades aren’t at it again. The problem is not what they’ve done, but what they’ve yet again failed to do. A fascinatingly horrible story about censorship has been in the news. It cries out for condemnation by defenders of free speech, for expert analysis and interpretation by enthusiasts for the Enlightenment. So how have Kenan and his comrades responded to the story? By ignoring it.

The sweet smell of cephalotomy

It’s very easy to understand their silence. Like the murder of Asad Shah, the story explodes all their bullshit and obfuscation about why free speech is dying in the West. Even though the story itself takes place in the East. In Pakistan, to be precise. It’s a good example of how Lewis Carroll (1832–98), the author of Alice in Wonderland, and the Marquis de Sade (1740–1814), the author of 120 Days of Sodom, seem to be collaborating from the afterlife on the script for Pakistani culture. Carroll supplies the absurdity and the Marquis de Sade supplies the atrocity. In this case, fortunately enough, Carroll had the upper hand and the Marquis held himself in check.

An innocent woman in terror of a mainstream Muslim mob: the Arabic script says halwa, meaning “sweet”

So how does the story go? It goes like this: on 25th February, 2024, a young Muslim woman went shopping in Lahore in a pretty new dress. The dress came from a Kuwaiti fashion-house and had Arabic calligraphy on it. Even if you don’t read Arabic, it isn’t hard to see that a single word is repeated there in various colors. The word is حلوۃ, halwa, meaning “sweet” and having no religious significance. Pakistan uses an adapted (and less attractive) form of Arabic script for its own national language of Urdu, so this dress shouldn’t have got the woman in any trouble.

But remember, Lewis Carroll and the Marquis de Sade are writing the script for Pakistan. So here come the actual absurdity and the attempted atrocity. As the woman did her shopping, some men falsely accused her of blasphemy for wearing verses from the Qur’an on her body. The woman fled into a food-shop and huddled there in terror as a mob of hundreds gathered outside. Some of the mob chanted for her death using well-known advice for lovers of the Prophet Muhammad in Pakistan:

!⁧گستاخ رسول کی ایک ہی سزا سر تن سے جدا

Gustakh-e-Rasūl kī ek hī sazā, sar tan se judā!

“For insult to the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body!” (See “sar tan se juda” at Wiktionary)

Fortunately for the woman, her alleged blasphemy didn’t result in actual cephalotomy (Greek kephalos, “head,” + tomos, “cutting”). The police arrived and a brave policewoman called Syeda Shehrbano Naqvi faced down the mob. Naqvi then escorted the woman to safety with her head covered and the dress concealed. Three bearded mullahs later interviewed her at a police-station, examined the dress, and certified that she was entirely innocent of blasphemy. The woman herself issued a terrified apology: “I didn’t have any such intention [of provoking trouble], it happened by mistake. Still I apologise for all that happened, and I’ll make sure it never happens again.”

Patriarchs pronounce: the terrified female fashion-fan is cleared of blasphemy by bearded mullahs

The woman was entirely innocent, remember. But she still felt obliged to apologize to the misogynistic fanatics who threatened to chop her head off. Misogyny was definitely part of what happened. So was patriarchy. Misogynists don’t like seeing women happily shopping in pretty new dresses. Patriarchs do like dictating female behavior. It’s not just libertarians in the West who should have been writing about this story, even though it took place in the East. Western feminists should have been all over it too. This is because the West is importing the East, so misogynistic and intolerant Pakistani culture is now firmly established on Western soil. Misogynistic and intolerant Afghan culture is firmly established too, as we saw when the Afghan “asylum seeker” Abdul Ezedi threw a flesh-eating alkali over a woman and her two young daughters in London in February.

The stench of silence

That was a horrific act of misogyny by a convinced patriarch, but feminists ignored it and wrote no outraged commentaries about its significance for Western women. After all, no White man was involved, so there was no advantage to be gained for leftism in condemning the attack. Similarly, there’s no advantage for leftism or libertarianism in the story about the fashion-phobic mob in Pakistan. Given the enthusiasm of the mob for decapitation and what was written on the woman’s dress, you could say that it was a story about the sweet smell of head-chopping. By ignoring it, Kenan & Komrades have also made it into a story about the stench of silence. After all, the fashion-phobic mob revealed the lunacy of importing Pakistanis and other Muslims into the West. The mob also exploded the lies in articles like this, posted at Spiked by one of Frank Furedi’s fanatical freedom-fighters:

British schools are being turned into political battlegrounds. A militant Muslim identity politics is mounting an ever-stronger challenge to their educational authority. Over the past few weeks alone, the Michaela Community School in north-west London has appeared at the High Court, having been sued for discrimination by a Muslim pupil over its decision to ban prayer rituals. And a few miles away in east London, Barclay Primary School has been under attack from Islamists and a few parents after it told children not to wear clothing or badges displaying some form of ‘political allegiance’ in school — a move interpreted as a clampdown on pro-Palestine symbols.

In both cases, activists’ response to the school’s decisions has been marked by menace. Following Michaela’s decision to ban prayer rituals last spring, bomb threats were made to teachers, the school was vandalised and a brick was thrown through a classroom window. And in response to Barclay Primary’s change to its uniform code, arson and bomb threats were sent both to the school and individual staff. Masked men climbed the school’s fence at night to hang Palestinian flags around its perimeter.

There is a tendency to frame cases like this as part of an age-old conflict between religion and modernity. Between the demands of faith and the demands of public life in secular societies. But it’s a misleading characterisation. The aggressive imposition of Muslim cultural practices on to education has very little to do with Islam and everything to do with decades of multicultural policymaking. That is what we’re seeing right now in the cases of Michaela and Barclay. Not quiet displays of faith, but loud, all-too-visible assertions of Muslim identitarianism. (“How Muslim identity politics colonised education,” Spiked, 28th January 2024)

If you’re like me, your jaw may still be aching from the speed at which it dropped when you read this line: “The aggressive imposition of Muslim cultural practices on to education has very little to do with Islam and everything to do with decades of multicultural policymaking.” What planet is the author on? Planet Trotsky, that’s what. That article was a “Long Read” but it might as well have been called a “Long List of Lies.” It was written by someone called Tim Black, but plugs the same line as Kenan Malik’s many articles on the ever-increasing pathologies created by Muslims in kaffir countries

Black and Malik were once members of a Trotskyist cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). They’re still devoted disciples of the RCP’s leader, a Jewish sociologist called Frank Furedi (born 1947) who isn’t remarkable for insight or intellect but is remarkable for his ability to create cognitive clones of himself. Just as Furedi taught them, Kenan and his comrades carry on claiming that Islam and Muslim migration have never been a genuine problem. No, it’s the mistaken policies of the non-Muslim elite towards Muslims that causes all the trouble. If it weren’t for the foul and foolish policy of “multiculturalism,” Muslims would long ago have begun erecting statues of Voltaire and forming reading-clubs to probe the collected works of John Stuart Mill. Their Islamic faith would have remained “a private affair, a matter of conscience and ritual.”

Murderers for Muhammad

That’s the theory, anyway. Alas for libertarians, it falls apart when it’s set against reality. “Multiculturalism” didn’t embolden that Muslim mob chanting for the decapitation of a terrified woman in Lahore in 2024. Nor did it embolden the Muslims who burnt a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World in London in 1938. Wells had disrespected the Prophet Muhammad, you see, so Muslims burnt his book for lack of ability to chop his head off. And “multiculturalism” definitely didn’t embolden the Muslim hero-martyr Ilm ud-Deen, who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929, then calmly accepted arrest, imprisonment, and execution. The Hindu had satirized the Prophet in a book called Rangila Rasul or Colorful Prophet, so Ilm Ud-Deen did the decent thing and dispatched him to Hell (“colorful” also implies “promiscuous” or “wanton” in Urdu and Hindi).

Islamic Hero #1: Ilm ud-Deen, who murdered for Muhammad in India (image from the movie Hero Ilmuddin the Martyr)

Islamic Hero #2: Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered for Muhammad in Pakistan (the poster is for a celebration of Qadri in a mainstream Muslim mosque in Maryland, USA)

Islamic Hero #3: Tanveer Ahmed, who murdered for Muhammad in Britain (Ahmed is described as ghazi, “hero,” and his victim Asad Shah as kazzab, “liar”)

Ilm Ud-Deen’s heroic defence of the Prophet’s honor explains why there are shrines devoted to his memory in modern Pakistan. A movie was released there in 2002 celebrating his love of the Prophet and noble self-sacrifice (you can watch it for free at Youtube). It’s called Ghazi Ilmuddin Shahid, which means Hero Ilmuddin the Martyr. To millions of Pakistanis that’s exactly what he is. He’s a hero for killing the Hindu blasphemer and a martyr for welcoming the execution that followed.

Given the continuing veneration of Ilm ud-Deen in Pakistan, it’s no surprise that in 2011 another devout Muslim followed his golden example and became a ghazi-shahid too. Mumtaz Qadri was a bodyguard for the Pakistani minister Salmaan Taseer. But Taseer tried to help the Christian woman Asia Bibi, who was rotting on death-row after a righteous conviction for blasphemy. Taseer “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws,” so Qadri did the decent thing and machine-gunned him to death, then calmly accepted arrest, imprisonment, and execution. His golden example inspired another yet devout Muslim, this time one living in Britain. After his arrival here from Pakistan, Tanveer Ahmed was horrified to learn that an Ahmadi heretic called Asad Shah was disseminating blasphemous videos from his shop in Glasgow. So Tanveer got in his taxi and drove up from Bradford in 2016 to do the decent thing. He stabbed and stamped Asad Shah to death, then calmly accepted arrest and imprisonment for murder.

Murderous Mumtaz was a “true Muslim”

If Britain still had the death-penalty, he would have accepted execution just as calmly. He didn’t get to be a shahid, a “martyr,” but he’s still a ghazi, a “hero,” to many mainstream Muslims in Britain. For example, Glasgow Central Mosque and the Muslim Council of Scotland refused to take part in an “anti-extremism event” held in memory of Asad Shah. They too thought that Asad Shah was a heretic and deserved all he got. Indeed, only a month before Shah was dispatched to Hell-fire, an imam at Glasgow Central Mosque had expressed his “pain” at the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, the Martyr with a Machine-Gun, called him a “true Muslim,” and pronounced a blessing on him. Kenan Malik’s own newspaper, the Guardian, reported that “One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as ‘a martyr’, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury’.” Qadri-fans from Pakistan have toured mosques in Britain and praised his heroic defence of the Prophet.

How have Kenan and his comrades responded to this perfectly mainstream Muslim love of violent censorship and hatred of peaceful free speech? Well, to the best of my knowledge, Kenan Malik has never written a word about the murder of Asad Shah or the deep-rooted Pakistani tradition of murder-for-Muhammad that inspired it. The same silence has long been maintained at Spiked, where no senior writer mentioned Asad Shah until 2023, when Spiked’s editor Tom Slater (who isn’t one of Kenan’s original comrades) wrote a detailed article about the murder. But detail didn’t preclude dishonesty. As I described in “Blasphemy and Bullshit,” Slater blamed “liberal cowardice” and “state multiculturalism” for “fuel[ing] Islamic intolerance” and encouraging Muslims “to see themselves as separate and distinct.” Contra Slater’s dishonesty, Tanveer Ahmed came to Britain as an adult with his “Islamic intolerance” fully formed by his upbringing in Pakistan.

“Love Muslim migration, hate free speech”

And Slater doesn’t understand — or pretends not to understand — that “multiculturalism” harmonizes perfectly with mass immigration. Opposing “multiculturalism” and supporting open borders, as Slater and his comrades have always done, is like opposing maggot infestation and supporting open wounds. When the elite of a civilized nation is on the side of the ordinary people in that nation, it does not allow mass immigration from the Third World. That’s why Frank Furedi’s homeland of Hungary is not troubled by rape-gangs, suicide-bombing, murder-for-Muhammad, and other aspects of Islamic enrichment. However, when the elite of a nation is hostile to the ordinary people of that nation, it imposes Third-World immigration on the ordinary people no matter how much they protest. At the same time, the hostile elite privileges the Third-World invaders over the White natives and allows them to pursue their own advantage at all turns.

You can see this elite betrayal in Britain, which has had an official policy of multiculturalism, just as much as in France, which has had an official policy of monoculturalism. In other words, the imposition of Third-World immigration by a hostile elite harmonizes perfectly with the incubation of Third-World pathologies. Kenan Malik and Spiked never point out that the greatest enemies of free speech, like Labour in Britain and the Democrats in America, are simultaneously the greatest supporters of Third-World immigration. Nor do they point out the rarity and fragility of free speech. Across almost all the world throughout almost all of history, tyrants and religious believers have maintained their power by silencing their critics with violence and imprisonment. Given their own political history, Malik and Spiked should need no reminding that it was the freedom-hating Josef Stalin who triumphed over the freedom-loving Leon Trotsky.

Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses

Not that Trotsky was a genuine lover of freedom. He might well have become a worse tyrant than Stalin if he’d won the battle for supremacy. Malik and Spiked aren’t genuine lovers of freedom either. If they were, they wouldn’t have ignored the horrific murder of Asad Shah for so long. When Tom Slater finally broke that shameful silence at Spiked, he complained that Shah’s “name doesn’t mean much to people in Britain today. But it really should.” I fully agree. That’s why I’ve been writing about the murder of Asad Shah ever since it happened: see here, here, here, here, here, here and here. But alas, I’m a crazed far-right extremist and I don’t have the mainstream audience enjoyed by Spiked and by Kenan Malik at the Observer, the Sunday version of the Guardian. If Kenan & Komrades had written regularly and often about Asad Shah, he would now be much better known. But if they’d done that, they would have contradicted their own bullshit about “multiculturalism” rather than migration being to blame for “Muslim identity politics” in the West.

As I’ve said, that theory falls apart when it’s set against reality. That’s why Kenan Malik, for example, has protested loudly about Uyghur Muslims being persecuted by kaffir communists in China even as he’s ignored the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the fashion-phobic mob in Lahore. If Lewis Carroll and the Marquis de Sade are writing the script for Pakistan, then it’s Douglas Adams (1952–2001), author of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, who’s writing the script for Kenan & Komrades:

Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you. (From Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (1980), chapter 5)

Metaphorically speaking, Kenan & Komrades have been wearing Joo Janta Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses for decades. But the real problem isn’t that they’re blind to the truth about Islam and Third-World migration, it’s that they see the truth and then refuse to be honest about it. That’s why they’ve ignored so many inconvenient stories about Muslim love of Muhammad and hatred of free speech. As I said above, Lewis Carroll had the upper hand on the dress-script, rather than the Marquis de Sade. But the Marquis had the upper hand on this script for lovers of Muhammad:

A mob in Pakistan tortured, killed and then set on fire a Sri Lankan man who was accused of blasphemy over some posters he had allegedly taken down. Priyantha Diyawadana, a Sri Lankan national who worked as general manager of a factory of the industrial engineering company Rajco Industries in Sialkot, Punjab, was set upon by a violent crowd on Friday.

In horrific videos shared across social media, Diyawadana can be seen being thrown on to the floor, where hundreds began tearing his clothes, violently beating him. He was tortured to death and then his body was burned. Dozens in the crowd can also be seen taking selfies with his dead body. The incident began when rumours emerged that Diyawadana, who had been manager of the factory for seven years, had taken down a poster bearing words from the Qur’an. By the morning, a crowd began to gather at the factory gates and by early afternoon they had charged into the factory and seized Diyawadana. (Man tortured and killed in Pakistan over alleged blasphemy, The Guardian, 3rd December 2021)

If Kenan Malik and Spiked were genuinely concerned with defending free speech, they would write about stories like that. There’s no shortage of them from Pakistan and other Muslim countries. But alas, if Kenan & Komrades wrote about horrific stories like that, they would find it much harder to plug bullshit like this:

Discussions about ideas or social practices or public policy should be as unfettered as possible. But when disdain for ideas or policies or practices become transposed into prejudices about people, a red line is crossed. It’s crossed when castigation of Islamism leads to calls for an end to Muslim immigration. (“Blurring the line between criticism and bigotry fuels hatred of Muslims and Jews,” The Observer, 3rd March 2023)

That’s Kenan Malik in the Sunday version of the Guardian. He wants both discussion about ideas and Muslim immigration to “be as unfettered as possible.” But the murder of Asad Shah proves that “Muslim immigration” is very bad for “discussion of ideas.” That’s why Kenan has ignored the murder of Asad Shah. He’s also ignored the fact that ideas do not have to be accompanied by immigration. Here is an image of a Muslim expressing an idea in India:

A Muslim offers some wholesome head-chopping advice in Hindi script (image from OpIndia)

The Hindi script on the placard reads Gustākh-e-nabi ki ek hi sazā, sar tan se judā, sar tan se judā, which means “For insulting the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body, cut the head from the body!” It’s the same wholesome head-chopping advice that I discussed at the beginning of this article (or nearly the same: it uses nabi for “prophet” rather than rasūl).

That’s the magic of writing, you see: it allows ideas to fly across vast stretches of space and time without any accompanying body or brain. The Muslim is in India, I’m in Britain. I’ve seen his “idea” and I reject it. But alas: Muslims who accept the same idea have colonized Britain in ever-growing numbers. Tanveer Ahmed accepts that idea. That’s why he triumphed in his “discussion” with the heretical Asad Shah in Glasgow. Asad wanted to shake hands with his opponent; Tanveer wanted to murder his opponent. It was Tanveer who won the discussion and who strengthened his violent form of Islam at the expense of Asad’s peaceful form of Islam.

Phony friend of free speech

As Kenan Malik never told you, Asad Shah had been granted asylum in Britain precisely because he was at threat of violence in Pakistan. But Pakistan followed him to Britain thanks to Britain’s insane and evil immigration policies. When you import Third-World people, you inevitably import Third-World pathologies with them. But it isn’t just the murderous intolerance of mainstream Pakistani culture that Britain has imported. It’s also the rape-culture of Pakistan. And the horrible genetic diseases caused by the Pakistani tradition of marrying close relatives. How does Kenan Malik respond to all these pathologies? To the best of his ability, he ignores them completely. But he claims that “a red line is crossed” when those who oppose “Islamism” call for “an end to Muslim immigration.” So there you have Malik’s “red line.” Not the murder of Asad Shah, which he ignored, but any call for an end to Muslim immigration.

In other words, Malik isn’t a genuine friend of free speech and isn’t a genuine opponent of identity politics. That’s why he ignores horrific stories about Muslim intolerance and why he uses weasel-words like “Islamism.” I don’t think murderers like Mumtaz Qadri and Tanveer Ahmed are “Islamists.” I think they’re perfectly mainstream Muslims. I think the same of the Muslims at Glasgow Central Mosque who refused to attend the “anti-extremism event” for Asad Shah and who pronounced a blessing on Mumtaz Qadri, the Martyr with a Machine-Gun.

“Love Muhammad, hate free speech”

But I’m a crazed right-wing extremist, so I’m sure that Kenan Malik won’t take my word for it. That’s fine. He can take the word of his own newspaper instead. In 2011 Saeed Shah, the Guardian’s correspondent in Islamabad, reported that “mainstream religious organisations applauded the murder of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, earlier this week and his killer was showered with rose petals as he appeared in court.” In 2014, the Guardian was back with an update: “A mosque named in honour of the killer of a politician who called for the reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws is proving so popular it is raising funds to double its capacity.”

Is Kenan Malik wearing his Joo Janta Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses when stories like that make their regular appearance in his own newspaper? Do the sunglasses “turn totally black and thus prevent him from seeing anything that might alarm him”? No, that’s not what happens. The problem with Kenan & Komrades isn’t their eye-wear but their dishonesty and refusal to admit the truth. Murder for Muhammad is mainstream in Islamic countries. Thanks to Muslim immigration, murder for Muhammad is becoming mainstream in Britain too. And in France, where cartoonists have been massacred and a schoolteacher beheaded by yet more imported lovers of Muhammad and haters of free speech. Lying leftists are responsible for those murders. But so are lip-sealed libertarians.

Why Are the Left Pro-Crime?  

I didn’t really understand what the Left’s lax attitude towards crime meant until I was in Berkeley in California last summer. In a branch of Target, anything which cost more than about 20 dollars could not simply be taken off the rack. It was locked onto it in order to prevent theft. You had to ask the shop assistant to remove it for you. This is because petty theft is effectively legal in California. The police are unlikely to investigate any theft of less than about 950 dollars.

I’d never been to California before, and once I realised this, it became clear why prices, such as in restaurants, were sky high compared to other parts of the US: the prices were an insurance policy against theft. Berkeley is a wealthy town, yet the moment I stepped outside my hotel, the stench of human urine and excrement was obvious. Vagrants lined the streets and played loud music in the public library, with nobody attempting to stop them. A fair few lived in tents on the campus of the University of California. Obviously high or drunk and almost certainly schizophrenic, they shouted at or otherwise intimidated passing students. In the Finnish town where I live, theft is practically unheard of and will be prosecuted, vagrancy in non-existent and people who are high in public will be arrested.

Why do the Woke permit criminality to flourish? Do they, somehow, enjoy intimidation on campus, the stench of human excreta and ludicrous prices in restaurants?

As I have discussed before, as pack animals, we have five Moral Foundations.  Conservatives are more group-oriented than liberals. They are more concerned with the moral foundations of in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity, in contrast to disgust. The latter causes people to react with disgust to that which impacts the group or themselves in a negative manner, including an invasion of outsiders, but also to disease.

People who are left-wing are concerned with the individually-oriented moral foundations of harm avoidance and equality. These allow you, as an individual, to ascend the hierarchy of the group, which was once necessary in order to pass on your genes. By being concerned about harm, you can avoid harm to yourself. By being concerned about equality, you ensure that you get proportionately more of the resources in a species that is highly cooperative.

It is useful to be particularly concerned about these issues if you are at the bottom of the hierarchy and, also, if you are physically weak. They are a means of covertly playing for status. Signalling your concern with them allows you to seem kind and morally good and is, thus, a means, in a pro-social species, of covertly ascending the hierarchy. Overall, conservatives are also concerned with these individually-oriented foundations but liberals are not concerned with the group-oriented foundations. Unsurprisingly, virtue-signalling and signalling your victimhood are associated with being a selfish individualist, with being high in Narcissism and Machiavellianism, for example.

Once you are in a context where individualist foundations are the key Moral Foundations, then power-hungry types—leftists—will competitively signal their interest in these foundations. Runaway concern with harm avoidance means that we have to be concerned about the feelings of the criminal. His criminality is not his fault; it is surely the fault of harm done to him by an unfair and uncaring society (or the fault of his genes), so why should he be punished? In the case of property crime, this is, surely, at least partly the fault of “systemic inequality” against which the looter’s “crime” is a noble form of protest.

According to transwoman American author Vicky, formerly Willie, Osterweil “rioting and looting are our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy.” He argues in his book In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action that the actions of looters are morally right, presumably until they threaten Osterweil’s property or safety, as it is mostly those of low socioeconomic status who are the victims of such crimes. Thus, for the power hungry leftist, the problems I discussed earlier are a small price to pay for the high social status which such competitive Woke signalling may achieve.

And, for most of them, it is only a small price. Being pro-crime is what Rob Henderson has called a “luxury belief.” It is a belief via which you can signal your Woke credentials while not having to deal with the consequences of your belief. It is also a means of signalling your confidence and wealth: you will experience no difficulties as there is no crime in your area. As Henderson wrote in the New York Post: “In other words, upper-class whites gain status by talking about their high status. When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won’t be the privileged whites who are harmed. Poor whites will bear the brunt.”

Even littering and vandalising public property, such as with graffiti—made respectable in among elites by Leftist writer Norman Mailer in the 1970s—are means via which a criminal has been able to express his legitimate grievances. Accordingly, society should not be protected from “traditional criminals” and they should receive only the lightest of sentences, if they must be prosecuted at all. By contrast, people stating that “you cannot become a woman” are challenging “equality” and harming people’s feelings. These people are attacking the dogmas that hold society together and, thus, they must be severely punished.

It is possible that there is a vicarious dimension to why leftists support such criminality. The pleasure of breaking the law is, for some people, a matter of feeling “empowered,” of experiencing a “power rush.” However, the bourgeoisie leftists aren’t really interested in a new television or in daubing graffiti. They are, however, interested in power rushes and fantasies of revolution, specifically “anti-hierarchical aggression,” as research on them has demonstrated. They will identify with criminals and enjoy their criminality vicariously, despite not being criminal in nature themselves, because they want power, they want to overthrow the current power. However, being high in anxiety, as Leftists tend to be, few of them can bring themselves to actually personally break the law.

As I have explored in depth in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, anxiety is part of a broader personality trait known as Neuroticism. Being high on this trait means you have strong negative feelings. This means they are resentful, jealous and power-hungry, because they wish to control a world which induces anxiety in them. They hate that which has power; the current “unequal” hierarchy. They deal with their negative feelings via Narcissism; by telling themselves that they are morally superior due to their leftism. But being high in anxiety, they fear a fair fight, so they play for status covertly — in the way that females do — by virtue-signalling about equality and harm avoidance.

The eventual result takes you beyond anything you might experience in Berkeley. It takes you down the road, to Hyde Street in San Francisco, where drugged-up zombies rock back and forth and dance, where people openly take and deal drugs in broad daylight, where people live in the street in tents, and where the street must be hosed down every morning. This runaway individualism will continue until it actually seriously impacts wealthy Woke people and so ceases to be a “luxury belief.”