Featured Articles

Is Jewish Leftism a ‘Reform Problem’?

“What Reform did not do, any more than the ‘Science of Judaism,’ was to solve the Jewish problem.” Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.

Sparked by Tucker Carlson’s remarkable move towards the Jewish Question, the recent condemnation of the ADL issued by 1,500 rabbis associated with the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) has once more raised the question as to whether destructive activity perpetrated by Jewish activists in America is a matter of denomination rather than ethnicity. For several years now, but increasing during the early Trump years, there’s been a quiet but growing argument from self-styled ‘right-wing Jews’ that Jewish leftist activists are anathema to Judaism, or that as adherents of the Reform movement or Liberal Judaism they are a variety of heretical neo-Frankists unrepresentative of “true Jews.” Underlying these arguments is the implication that anti-Semitic theories involving Jews as an ethnic group, perceived as uniform, rely on weak generalizations that do not take into account the political and cultural nuances of American Jews, and therefore that such theories are illogical and irrational. In the course of almost a decade of writing about anti-Semitism and historical and contemporary Jewish behavior among Europeans, I’ve addressed this issue of political nuance more or less directly in a number of essays, especially my discussion of Jewish attitudes to Brexit and Jewish Leftist activism in children’s fiction. Given the quite dramatic nature of this most recent intervention from a signification number of rabbis against one of the world’s most prominent Jewish organizations, however, I think it’s an appropriate time to tackle the subject directly.

Before beginning, it’s worth reflecting on the context of the initial contention made by self-styled right-wing Jews. These Jews, one of the most prominent being Nathan Cofnas, make the argument that Jewish involvement in the advancement of Leftism in the West is both limited (in the sense that the advancement of Leftism also involves massive numbers of Whites and other ethnic groups), and is a predominantly Reform affair, whereas Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews have a different socio-political direction entirely. In regards to the first element, the ‘limits’ of Jewish involvement, there are few, if any, anti-Jewish theories in circulation which ascribe to Jews sole responsibility for the entirety of contemporary leftist activism. What does exist, however, is a substantial volume of evidence demonstrating that individuals who self-identify as Jews have been over-represented as innovators, leaders, and funders of the modern Left, and this evidence has led to the logical and tactical adoption of an anti-Jewish political position by many conservative Europeans and those of European ancestry. To put it simply, Jews don’t need to be orchestrating a kind of solo conspiracy against the West for an anti-Semitic political position to make theoretical sense and be supported by the data, or for Jewish influence to be a reasonable and rational topic of public discussion.

In regards to the second element of the ‘right-wing Jewish’ contention, it should be understood that the trajectory of the argument is essentially diversionary. When I first read the “not all Jews” argument being employed by Cofnas against Kevin MacDonald, for example, I was immediately reminded of the historical framework of prior debates in which minor concessions on the Jewish Question appear to be made, but are then narrowed and finally diverted. Relevant examples can be found in the public debates between Christian Wilhelm Von Dohm and Moses Mendelssohn[1], and between Karl Marx and Bruno Bauer.[2] In both cases, which concerned the question of Jewish political emancipation, and the undesirability of such an event in the context of negative Jewish group behavior, the Jewish participants attempted to rhetorically carve off elements of the Jewish population, scapegoating them temporarily in order that broader Jewish goals (social, political, or economic) might be achieved. Both Mendelssohn and Marx conceded that harms were being wrought by Jews, but added that this was the result of historical mistreatment that produced a class of renegade Jews (crooks and usurers for Mendelssohn; arch-capitalists for Marx). The fundamental goal of these rhetorical strategies was to defuse and weaken the anti-Semitic reaction, with both Mendelssohn and Marx keen to ease the Jewish path to full civic equality in Europe.

The modern version of these strategies appears to be the insistence that historical treatment (exclusion from the Right[3]) and contemporary circumstances (tendencies in Western liberalism) have created a Frankenstein’s monster in the form of a radical left Reform Judaism. While right-wing Jews are comfortable, to an extent, in condemning these radical Reform Jews, they insist that the host population should remain tolerant of the Jewish ethnic group as a whole and to continue to support Israel. The crucial point here is that, because of its diversionary nature, and its quite obvious side-stepping of the cost-benefit implications of philo-Semitic tolerance (as if European problems with Jews and Judaism have ever been limited to postmodern Leftism), it is inherently political to ask if Jewish Leftism is a Reform problem. It is nevertheless interesting to ask, given that it interrogates the framing of anti-Semitism and opens up valid questions about the Jewish relationship to the Left, and about the nature of the Jewish-European conflict more generally. Most pertinently we should ask, even if Jewish Leftism is a Reform problem, does it ultimately matter?

Gaining conclusive and detailed insight into the socio-political leanings of contemporary American Jews is difficult. Part of this difficulty lies in historical Jewish evasiveness when it comes to, for example, being counted in national censuses, and more general suspicions that data collected on Jews will inevitably be used against them by the host population.[4] When Jewish organizations conduct their own surveys of political, social, or cultural attitudes, the direction of analysis is overwhelmingly against the host population. In fact, surveys of alleged anti-Semitism in the host population are extremely common, if not the most common type of social survey conducted by Jewish groups.[5] Scholars have pointed out that in those instances where Jewish groups engage in surveys among their own people, these surveys are overwhelmingly concerned with population size and Jewish identity, and are often loaded with agendas, biases, and goals such as the boosting of Jewish fertility and the reduction of intermarriage rates.[6] Furthermore, in those instances when Jews have conducted social research on themselves as a means of ‘explaining’ themselves to host peoples, this has also been warped by ulterior and often apologetic motives. Hebrew University’s Sergio DellaPergola, for example, has argued that “Jewish social research was never the mere exercise of human curiosity or analytical skill. Rather it was a means of advancing specific theses regarding the nature of the Jews vis-a-vis world society.”[7] All of which is to say that survey data and social research concerning Jews should be treated with an appropriate level of caution.

It’s nevertheless clear that gaining some kind of reliable insight into the political positions and divisions of American and Western Jewry is important, if not crucial, for host nations. Since their earliest arrival in Europe, Jews have been noted as influential political actors in Western nations, and in recent decades this influence has extended even to the manipulation of the demography of those countries. DellaPergola, for example, has argued that Jewish populations “may significantly influence national population trends in order to advance their own corporate interests — for example, by advocating particular policy interventions.”[8] DellaPergola notes that Jewish populations can often be divided into at least two categories: the core Jewish population of strongly-identified, full-blooded, and often religious, Jews; and the ‘enlarged Jewish population’ which embraces all those with at least some Jewish ethnic heritage that they have consciously embraced, as well as those full-blooded Jews of a less religious inclination but who see themselves as part of a Jewish peoplehood. It’s important to stress at this stage that both divisions are fully capable of formulating and pursuing ideas of what constitutes “corporate interests,” even differing ideas, since the ultimate corporate body in both divisions is not Judaism as such but the Jewish people or even merely the idea of the Jewish people and its putative destiny.

One of the weaknesses of DellaPergola’s division of contemporary Jewry is its lack of utility in the religious sense. Orthodox and Reform Jews can only be roughly mapped onto “core” and “enlarged” categories because, in an American context in which Reform Jews are certainly an influential demographic majority, it makes little sense to argue that they are not in fact the “core” of the American Jewish community. This is where the argument of the self-styled right-wing Jews encounters its first major stumbling block, because the attempt to defend Jews in toto by scapegoating Reform Jews misses the point that Reform, for all intents and purposes, is American Jewry and will remain so demographically far into the future.[9] XXXXXX

The “core” and “enlarged” categories are, however, of some interest and utility when discussing survey data on Jewish political attitudes. It’s been noted that most exit polls will collect reasonably accurate data on “core” Jews because they capture “Jews by Religion” (JBR) when asking if voters are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. The “core” Jewish population is more likely to include the more religiously identified Orthodox Jews, but it’s interesting that most recent exit polls (conducted by Pew Research) continue to show that even in the JBR category the party split was 68 percent Democratic, 7 percent Independent, and 25 percent Republican. Figures for “Jews of No Religion” (JNR) were 78 percent, 10 percent, and 12 percent. More than 40 percent of JBRs described themselves as liberal, while only 22 percent described themselves as conservative. The rest indicated only that they were moderate, which is open to any number of interpretations. Herbert Weisberg, writing in The Annual Jewish Year Book 2019 explained the figures as indicating that “Jews should be considered to be more Democratic and more liberal than media surveys and exit polls typically show.”[10] This would seem to be indicated also by a number of J Street exit polls which showed that Orthodox Jews are more liberal than ‘right-wing’ Jewish diversionists would have us believe. More than half of Orthodox Jews (59 percent), for example, voted for Obama in 2012, and a similar proportion (56 percent) voted for Clinton in 2016.[11] Even among the Ultra-Orthodox, normally viewed as overwhelmingly hawkish and likely to vote along with the flamboyant Zionism of the GOP, more than a third of respondents (35 percent) to one poll described themselves as Democrats.[12]

It’s important to note that the Jewish political profile is unique. While attempts have been made, by diversionists like Cofnas, to explain Jewish liberalism as an aspect of their higher educational attainment or their likelihood to be more urban-dwelling, serious scholars of Jewish demography and politics have long noted that “studies consistently find that Jews are significantly more Democratic than non-Jews with similar socio-demographic characteristics … Indeed, Wald’s calculations show they are more Democratic than the non-Jew who is their closest match on demographics and economic status.”[13] Wald and Weisberg instead argue that all Jews, whether Orthodox or Reform, “core” or “enlarged,” will vote or engage politically as part of a reaction to “the greatest perceived threat to their interests.”[14] In other words, Jewish political behavior is best explained by Jewish agency and perceptions of Jewish interests rather than cultural context.

It’s arguable that two of the most important Jewish interests are in the form of socio-economic dominance and multiculturalism, and here the unique pattern of Jewish political activity continues and amplifies. It’s extremely interesting that Jews very heavily support non-economic forms of leftism, and are very much in favor of the expansion of government power, but are much more reluctant to back purely economic forms of socialism. In this regard they differ significantly from non-Jewish leftists who embrace and emphasize economic socialism within their worldview. A 2012 survey found that a majority of Jews were not willing to pay more taxes in order to help the poor, were not likely to support a government health scheme, and were generally not supportive of government economic guarantees.[15] Jews have also been noted in the past as strong opponents of affirmative action, with even the ADL and the American Jewish Committee filing briefs against it.[16] This can be easily interpreted not as a method of opposing race politics, but as a means of preventing incursion into, or a breaking up of, established Jewish dominance within the professions. This would indicate that Jerry Muller’s theory that Jews have long had a “special relationship” with capitalism,[17] continues to have resonance despite the leadership of Jews in the onward march of purely cultural and political forms of leftism—now championed by large swaths of other elite sectors of America, including large corporations.[18] The general image that emerges is one in which Jews act politically to create socially and culturally fluid societies where a facade of social justice and equality is promoted and celebrated, and in which a pseudo-elite (Whites) is attacked, but in which no real threat to Jewish privileges and socio-economic dominance is present.

Jews also quite obviously have a special relationship with multiculturalism, being Europe’s first significant minority and the passive or active cause of most of the continent’s earliest legislation on tolerance and migration. It’s an unfortunate commonplace that many of those who have criticized Kevin MacDonald for suggesting that Jews promote multiculturalism in order to feel more secure, are completely ignorant of the fact that several of his ideas are in some form or another slowly becoming fairly mainstream in the sociological study of contemporary Jews. Historian Diana Pinto, a Jewish Harvard graduate, Fulbright Fellow, and board member for the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, has argued that, within a multicultural context, “Jews are no longer perceived as the only ‘diasporic’ people, or as the most significant ‘other’ in the society,” and that this “relieves Jews of burden.”[19] Any scenario in which the pluralistic principles of the host nation are fundamentally challenged, or in which demographic change could return Jews to a position of ‘burden,’ would therefore quite obviously represent a perceived threat to Jewish interests along the lines discussed by Wald and Weisberg, and the question of immigration and associated laws would be an area of political activity that one would expect to see high levels of Jewish participation. Jewish opinions on threat level can of course vary, with some Jews feeling content and secure with moderate levels of pluralism while others would feel secure only when the demographic dominance of the host population is completely undermined. If a proportion of the immigrating demographic is itself a perceived threat to Jews, for example in the case of Muslim migration to France and other parts of Europe, further division and divergence would be expected. The most important aspect of the topic, however, remains that Jews have a fundamental interest in preserving the pluralistic principles of the host nation and avoiding a return of the Jews to a position of being a salient ‘other,’ and therefore a ‘burden.’ In this respect, much as with the nature of Jewish leftism in relation to economic and social questions, the Jewish relationship to multiculturalism is unique, and involves a blurring of the standard left-right political categories that can be more crudely applied to non-Jewish political activity.

The apparent clash between the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) over Tucker Carlson presents an interesting case in which fundamental agreement on Jewish interests can be overlaid with disagreement between fringe cliques of Jews and the great majority of Jewish population on how to best achieve those interests. The first point worth stressing is that the incident is not a straightforward case of Orthodox versus Reform. The Coalition for Jewish Values is, as far as I am aware, exclusively staffed by Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who can be usefully described as “core” Jews. The ADL, however, cannot be neatly categorized as a Reform organization, because its most recent Directors have been Orthodox (Abe Foxman, Director 1987–2015) and Conservative (Jonathan Greenblatt, Director 2015–present), and because its behavior since its founding can be most accurately described as an expression of the “enlarged” Jewish population rather than any specific denomination within that. Further, the motivations and past actions of the CJV map comfortably within a reasonable conception of Jewish interests rather than being a novel break from them. And finally, in all such cases of division within the Jewish community, it’s important to assess where the power lies if one is attempting to discern relative influence on the wider society. The ADL, representing the interests of the “enlarged” Jewish population, is far more powerful and influential than CJV.

Even aside from the fact that they emerged from the momentum of Trumpist Zionism, it’s interesting that the CJV has rationalized its more socially conservative positions via the lens of Jewish interests. When the group filed an amicus brief in support of Christian groups fighting to keep a large cross placed on public grounds in Pensacola, Florida, for example, the CJV claimed that ruling against the right to place a cross would also “encourage the erasure of minority religions from public life.” In other words, they viewed their actions primarily as protecting Judaism and pluralistic principles in the host society, even if this commitment to pluralistic principles has not extended, as in the case of the “enlarged Jewish community,” to gays and transsexuals. The CJV may also be a response of sorts to increasing awareness among conservative Whites (like Tucker Carlson) that Jews occupy a very unique and prominent role in American leftism. This increasing visibility would obviously be perceived as a threat by Jews. Yaakov Menken, the CJV’s managing director, has recalled a conversation with a Christian pro-Israel leader who told him: “I can’t tell you how often people ask me “‘why are you devoting so much time to supporting the Jews and Israel when Jews oppose us on our core issues?’” The potential collapse of Christian Zionism and philo-Semitism in America would obviously have significant consequences for Jewish influence globally, and it should therefore come as no surprise that an effort to heighten the visibility of a “right-wing Judaism” would be made, no matter how superficial or self-interested.

Concluding Remarks

Is Jewish leftism a Reform problem? No. The Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox have their own history of endorsing and supporting leftism if it suited Jewish interests, motivated by their attempting to avoid or lessen perceived threats. Moreover, even if Jewish leftism was a Reform problem, the broader causes of anti-Semitism wouldn’t evaporate with the disappearance of that denomination. The Reform movement, we should recall, began in the nineteenth century — around 2,000 years after the earliest writings against the Jewish people. Many of the major historical provocations of anti-Semitic attitudes such as high levels of Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish economic domination and exploitation, and the special political relationship between Jews and elites, cross denominational lines and precede by centuries the emergence of the modern left. Some aspects of problematic contemporary Jewish behavior such as slumlordism, fraud, and white-collar crime are actually found in higher numbers among the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox than among Reform Jews.[20]

In short, the case for an ethnic interpretation of Jewish behavior far outweighs that for a denominational perspective. In the end, the diversionary argument of the self-styled right-wing Jews can only gain traction among those whose worldview is simplistic and without nuance, and who perceive all of contemporary politics under the basic rubric of Left versus Right. Among such people, it’s perfectly possible to look at the handful of anti-transsexual or anti-ADL statements of the CJV and conclude that one has an ideological brother. Among the more sophisticated, however, in which a definite sense of ethnic interests is foremost, a more nuanced approach emerges, along with a new question altogether: For how long will the politics of my nation turn on the axis of Jewish interests?

[1] Crouter, Richard. “Emancipation Discourse in the Late 18th Century: Christian Wilhelm von Dohm on the Jews (1781)” Journal for the History of Modern Theology, vol. 13, no. 2, 2006, pp. 161-178. For translated primary sources on the debate between the two intellectuals see Mendes-Flohr, Paul R. (ed) The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 27-43.

[2] See on this topic, Peled, Yoav. “From theology to sociology: Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx on the question of Jewish emancipation.” History of Political Thought 13, no. 3 (1992): 463-485; Blanchard, William H. “Karl Marx and the Jewish question.” Political Psychology (1984): 365-374; Leopold, David. “The Hegelian Antisemitism of Bruno Bauer.” History of European ideas 25, no. 4 (1999): 179-206.

[3] Although ‘right-wing’ Jews like Cofnas seem unaware of it, they’re actually regurgitating an old-fashioned and now more or less discredited theory of Jewish liberalism. See, for example, the work of Werner Cohn in the late 1950s, where he often argued that Jews had been ‘pushed’ to the left by the association of the right with anti-Semitism.

[4] For a more detailed discussion of these difficulties see DellaPergola, Sergio, “Jewish Demography: Fundamentals of the Research Field,” in Rebhun, Uzi, The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Also of interest in the same volume is Saxe, Leonard et al, “Measuring the Size and Characteristics of American Jewry: A New Paradigm for an Ancient People.”

[5] Smith, Tom W. “A Review: Actual Trends or Measurement Artifacts? A Review of Three Studies of Anti-Semitism.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1993): 380-93.

[6] DellaPergola, Sergio, “Jewish Demography: Fundamentals of the Research Field”, 10 & 23. Such studies can, for example, be designed to “greatly exaggerate” notions of Jewish population decline in order to promote endogamy and increase Jewish fertility.

[7] Ibid., 15.

[8] Ibid., 17.

[9] Although having a higher birth rate, Orthodox Jews comprise only around 10 percent of American Jewry, and around 10 percent of Orthodox youth eventually drift into more liberal Jewish milieus or forms of Judaism. The decline of the Reform population via intermarriage has rightly been described as “greatly exaggerated” by Calvin Goldscheider. See Goldscheider, Calvin, Studying the Jewish Future (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004).

[10] Weisberg, Herbert. F. “The Presidential Voting of American Jews,” in Sheskin, Ira (ed), American Jewish Yearbook 2019 (New York: Springer, 2020), 43.

[11] Ibid., 82.

[12] Ibid., 77.

[13] Ibid., 73.

[14] Ibid., 46.

[15] Weisberg, Herbert F. The Politics of American Jews (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2019),127-128.

[16] Van Horne, Winston A. Ethnicity in the Work Force (Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 56.

[17] See Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

[18] Jack Dalton, “’Be Brave, Do Something’: Ashley Rae Goldenberg’s List of Corporations that Support the Riots asnd Want You Dead,” VDare (June 6, 2020). https://vdare.com/posts/be-brave-do-something-ashley-rae-goldenberg-s-list-of-corporations-that-support-the-riots-and-want-you-dead

[19] Quoted in Hartman, Harriet, “Studies of Jewish Identity and Continuity: Competing, Complementary, and Comparative Perspectives,” in Rebhun, Uzi, The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 93.

[20] See, for example, Rosen, Michael, “God Will Not Provide: Hasidic Jews and Fraud.” Journal of Law & Social Deviance 3 (2012): 245.

Biden’s Anti-White Speech Writer

On April 28, 2021, unelected President Joe Biden spoke the following statement in his address to the Joint Session of Congress: “We won’t ignore what our intelligence agency determined to be the most lethal terrorist threat to the homeland today: White supremacy’s terrorism.”

An examination of how “our intelligence agency” came to this determination will be reserved for another essay. Here let us explore how such a statement could have made its way into the speech of our current installed President, speaking to the entire US Congress (though due to displays of viral fear and social distancing policies, only a token few were actually present), and supposedly by proxy, the entire US population legal and illegal.

Here is the rest of Biden’s speech content relating to “racism” in America and implications that Whites are to blame:

We have to come together to heal the soul of this nation. It was nearly a year ago, before her father’s funeral, when I spoke with Gianna Floyd, George Floyd’s young daughter. She’s a little tyke, so I was kneeling down to talk to her so I could look her in the eye. She looked at me, she said, ‘My daddy changed the world.’ Well, after the conviction of George Floyd’s murderer, we can see how right she was if, if we have the courage to act as a Congress. We have all seen the knee of injustice on the neck of Black Americans. …we have to come together to… root out systemic racism in our criminal justice system and to enact police reform in George Floyd’s name… let’s get it done next month by the first anniversary of George Floyd’s death. …

We have a giant opportunity to bend the ark of the moral universe towards justice, real justice. And with the plans outlined tonight, we have a real chance to root out systemic racism that plagues America and American lives in other ways.

You can see on television the viciousness of the hate crimes we have seen over the past year and for too long.

Who could have installed such blatant anti-White invective into the President’s speech, bestowing sainthood on the Black drug addict and petty criminal Floyd, invoking the spirit of Communist Party asset Martin Luther (Michael) King, hypnotically repeating the mantra “systemic racism,” directing equally hypnotized viewers to vicious “hate crimes” on TV, and above all identifying the greatest domestic terror threat to be “White supremacy”?

Speech Writer Carlyn Reichel

Biden’s two main speechwriters are Vinay Reddy and Carlyn Reichel. Much media attention focuses on Indian-American Reddy, as can be seen with a basic search for “Biden speech writer.” It is far more revealing to bring our attention to the Jewish member of the speech-writing team, Reichel. Veddy is the goyim BIPOC (Black/indigenous/people of color) cover and obligatory representative of “diversity, inclusion and equity” (itself an anti-White policy), while Reichel is at the core of Presidential messaging today.

Carlyn Reichel was Biden’s foreign policy speech writer back when he was Vice President, from 2015 to the end of the term in 2017. She was also the Director of Communications for the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, whose vision includes “Addressing Threats to the Liberal International Order” and “Advancing the Dialogue on Internationalism.” She formerly served as Hillary Clinton’s speech writer when Clinton was Secretary of State. Reichel wrote an essay for Foreign Policy Magazine in 2017 titled “Trump Has Reshaped Presidential Rhetoric Into an Unrecognizable Grotesque.” The article is an anti-Trump screed based on her experience in crafting presidential-sounding rhetoric. For our purposes, here’s the main denunciation Reichel has of Trump’s speech in Warsaw: “For Trump, the boundaries of ‘civilization’ only extend to those who share his definition of ‘God’ and ‘family’ — that is, a Judeo-Christian worldview and power structures that continue to be dominated by White men.” We won’t go into the chutz-pocracy of a Jewess denouncing a Judeo-Christian worldview, but focus instead on her denunciation of White men.

With this history of anti-White messaging, Reichel is almost certainly the source of Biden’s outrageous statement about the “lethal threat” of “White supremacy’s terrorism” in America today.

The Cabinet Guides the President – The National Security Council

On January 20, Inauguration Day, nineteen people were appointed to Biden’s National Security Council. Carlyn Reichel was one of them. Fifteen are women, an overwhelming 80% representation in a group that typically and historically was overwhelmingly White males. Five are BIPOC: Colombian Hispanic Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, Japanese-American Melanie Nakagawa, and Indians Tarun Chhabra and Sumona Guha. Linda Etim (not insignificant as senior advisor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundaton) is Black. At least three are Jewish: Reichel, Edgard Kagan and Laura Rosenberger, with at least a fourth, Caitlin Durkovich married to a Jew (Rosenberg).  This makes Jewish representation in the National Security Council over 20% at minimum, more than ten times Jewish proportion of the population in America.

Reichel took the role of Director of Speechwriting and Foreign Policy. Biden’s speech to the joint session of Congress, loaded with the anti-White and particularly anti-White-male messaging we’ve noted, must have come from Reichel’s Jewish sensibilities. Edgard Kagan’s role on the National Security Council is Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania, addressing such delicate areas as US/Vietnam relations.  Laura Rosenberger is the Council’s Senior Director for China, and formerly top advisor to Hillary Clinton and a member of Obama’s National Security Council. She claims it was her Jewish upbringing in Pittsburgh that drives her to serve America. Caitlin Durkovich serves as the Council’s Senior Director for Resilience and Response. She is married to Simon Rosenberg, who was a high-level advisor to the Obama Administration, particularly on “immigration reform.”

Rosenberg worked at the Democratic National Committee, almost becoming its Chair, and founded the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute, which “has become committed to modernizing left-wing politics and building a persistent Democratic majority.” Current immigration policies are ensuring that. Rosenberg joined the hysterics about the stage set-up at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida this February, when the stage structure was said to resemble an obscure Germanic rune known as the Odal, displayed by a few German SS units in World War II. Rosenberg tweeted: “A short thread on #CPAC2021’s unusual stage, which is clearly in the shape of a well known Nazi symbol. It is also a symbol in use today by American extremists. … The CPAC leadership need to explain how this could have happened.” Undoubtedly Rosenberg’s influence on his wife Durkovich at the National Security Council will ensure Jewish paranoia elicits an intensive response to “Nazi extremism” in America today, civil liberties be damned. Of course, in the eyes of activists like Rosenberg, even mainstream conservatives and anyone who voted for Trump are considered be Nazis or proto-Nazis.

Please note, equating conservatives to “Nazis” amounts to “holocaust denialism,” since it is “belittling the attempted genocide of Jews and the memory of the 6 million,” according to Ellie Cohanim, former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the State Department. Does this make conservative White men safe from being called “Nazis” by the National Security Council? Doubtful.

Linda Etim’s Anti-White Hate Speech

Linda Etim is typical of many Black activists in projecting anti-White hate messaging. In her essay for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace of October 6, 2020 titled “Reimagining U.S.-European Development Cooperation,” as one of three main things to do for “leveraging the resources and capacities of the richest countries in the world to address global challenges,” Etim recommends:

Finally, we must prioritize the fight against global White supremacy and nationalist populism that verges on fascism, both in our own countries and internationally. The rise of xenophobic and ultranationalist populism is not only a domestic threat to our democracies, but it also leads to a dangerously perverted understanding of the world. The legacies of colonialism and persistent racism continue to impose a burden on the inhabitants of too many countries. There will be some in the Global North who push for an inward turn—who push to ignore what U.S. President Donald Trump infamously called ‘shithole countries’ in a racist quip.

Translated, this means that the popular movements to advocate for White interests in majority White nations amount to “Fascism,” a threat to democracy (tyranny), and abandoning the Third World to ruin.

Of course, Etim must reference the Neo-Marxist mobs rampaging through the streets of America’s cities: “The Black Lives Matter movement arose out of the specific context of the persistent race-based caste system of the United States.” It had nothing to do with activists like George Soros/Georgi Schwartz’s Open Society Foundations funding and organizing destabilization and crisis phases of the neo-Communist revolution such as funding public prosecutors who have essentially abandoned prosecuting Blacks and have ensured that rioting Blacks would not be charged with crimes. “But the movement’s fundamental claim—of the equal dignity and rights of all persons by virtue of their humanity—is one that needs to be driven through our perspectives and approaches to international development as well.” One doubts that she believes that White people should be included in such universalist platitudes.

Carnegie lists on its website that it has received “$1 Million and above” from Open Society Foundations.” Also in the highest category of donations at $2 million and above is the Pritzker Foundation.

The Chair of Carnegie’s Board of Trustees is Penny Pritzker, Jewish multi-billionaire of the powerful Pritzker family that includes the Governor of Illinois, J B Pritzker, and transgender billionaire Jennifer Pritzker. At least five other Jews are on the Carnegie Board.


No White people are safe in America today when the President evokes hysteria about “White supremacy’s terrorism” and “systemic racism.” In making these pronouncements, Biden is doubtless putting into words the attitudes of his Jewish speechwriter Carlyn Reichel and all the Jews and BIPOCs on the Biden National Security Council. Anti-White messaging has exploded in our nation over the last four years, inciting hatred, loathing, contempt and violence against Whites simply for being White. Now it is pouring from the podium of the President and a supportive US Congress and disseminated to all the American people of every race.


The War on Whites: Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels

The War on Whites is moving to a higher level — fast. Signs are everywhere; they are undeniable. First and foremost, understand and accept that this is happening. For many, there will be no escape. If you are White and don’t yet grasp what is happening, quickly find out from someone who does. Lives will depend on it.

In my previous TOO article, I reviewed “collapse” novels by Matthew Bracken as a means to put average Whites in the frame of mind needed to accept that “our” government is now fully ready to attack us. All institutions are now arrayed against the White Christian founding stock of the United States of America: from the government, to the media, to education, to corporations, to the military, to the churches — all of it. And I know many of you readers see this. Some, however, don’t.

To me this is highly perplexing, as it is to TOO writer Thomas Dalton, who recently addressed this puzzle. “How,” he asked about such people, “can they be in denial of what is, from a rational and objective standpoint, surely one of the major problems facing civilized humanity?” Deny it they do, which is why I’ve tried a variety of approaches here at TOO over the last dozen years or so. For instance, in my Bracken review, I did something new in my writing: I deliberately crafted my account for normies, with no reference whatsoever to Jews. Surely long-time readers noticed this. While I did it in part to allow TOO readers to share my ideas and Bracken’s descriptions with those Whites not yet awake, my primary purpose was to create a sudden shock when this current review appeared, for the central message, the key to understanding the War on Whites is this: This war is being waged by the mainstream, organized Jewish community. This cannot be denied.

To my amazement, however, a hefty majority who correctly write about the danger facing the White race either fail or refuse to take their analysis to its obvious conclusion: Who is behind this vast swath of anti-White activism? I would have thought that with the release of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews in the 1990s and its subsequent filtering into the growing culture of the Dissident or Alt-Right, the matter of who is on the attack would be settled. Unfortunately, it is far from settled, with a growing retreat from the obvious since Charlottesville in 2017 and the rise of “cancel culture” and deplatforming since.

Take, for instance, this typical headline: “These Key Similarities Between Lenin’s Red Terror and America’s Woke Culture Reveal Left’s Blueprint for Complete Takeover.” Shouldn’t that alert most educated people to the group we are discussing? I mean, right here in the opening of that blog, the author puts this in bold: “Cancel culture is the prelude to the rape, torture, and murder of the American people by a resentful underclass goaded on by a parasitic globalist ruling class.”

Say those last four words slowly: “parasitic globalist ruling class.” That sounds a lot like reporter Matt Taibbi’s excellent introduction to his essay “The Great American Bubble Machine,” where he wrote these immortal words: “The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Aren’t we talking here about some rather obvious, reliable identifiers here?

Readers, we are talking about the organized Jewish community. And it does no good to cleverly try to avoid saying this, mainly because Americans can’t figure it out if it’s not asserted in plain language. Thus, we have Andrew Joyce in “Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism” with his entreaty to “Strike through the mask!” Name the Jew. Joyce asserts that “the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned.” Such a sentiment was immediately echoed by John Q. Publius when he wrote that the role of writers at TOO is “to shoulder our way into the conversation and show plainly the architects of this modern horror show,” be it in Washington, Hollywood or on Wall Street.

This present essay names Jews as “the architects of this modern horror show,” the sponsors of this War on Whites. In fact, throughout my entire adult life, I have seen (and experienced) an escalation of the Jewish War on Whites, something that was so thoroughly documented for us in Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews, culminating in his 1998 Culture of Critique. Since then, MacDonald, E. Michael Jones, writers on this site, and many others have added trenchant commentary on this existential threat to Whites. One indefatigable pro-White activist was the late Harold Covington, who wrote novels that began as The Northwest Trilogy, became The Northwest Quartet, then finished as The Northwest Quintet. Every man just listed insists on naming the Jew.

I wrote about Harold Covington and his Northwest novels precisely ten years ago here, and the uproar over that has been unmatched by anything I’ve written since. The late Harold Covington (he died on July 17, 2018) had many enemies in “The Movement,” but that is not the point that now concerns me. Rather, I’d argue that Covington’s premises in his Northwest novels concerning a Jewish War on Whites are more relevant now with a new Democratic administration in office than they were when I wrote about him ten years ago. So much in those five novels is what we are actually living through today that I want readers of TOO to imagine a world in which the United States Government is essentially at war with a huge proportion of the White population (and can later mop up the surviving “useful idiot” liberal Whites acting as foot soldiers in this larger War on Whites).

Because Covington was such a contentious figure, I will offer a brief defense of using his prose by turning to former editor of The Occidental Quarterly (who now runs his own site, Counter-Currents) Greg Johnson, who, in late 2009 or early 2010, wrote:

So, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that everything you and the other Covington and Duke detractors who have contacted me say about these men is true. So what? I am not entrusting them with the virtue of my daughters, or the control of my trust fund, or the keys to my home. I am reviewing and discussing their ideas because I judge them interesting and relevant to White Nationalism.

Further, one of the premier former writers in TOQ and C-C stables, Michael O’Meara (now sadly missing in action), gave an intelligent and rousing endorsement of Covington’s early Northwest novels, writing:

Political fiction has one overriding purpose: to reach those who can’t be reached through rational discourse. In this, Covington’s Trilogy is superb. It is full of memorable characters — classic American types (daring, two-fisted White men) who remind us of our ancestors and not the ridiculous creatures we see on nightly television. It abounds with actions and adventures that evoke our earliest racial memories and reveal what we can be once free of the Jews’ lunar spirit. It conveys the ideals of our movement in a language and style accessible to those who might otherwise ignore them. It tells an exciting story that is both entertaining and didactic. But above all it imagines a course of action — perhaps the one possible course of action — that will ensure our existence as a people. Whatever one may say of Covington the activist, it has to be acknowledged that he’s made a work of art of his separatist vision, and it deserves a hearing.

(I can’t resist noting that O’Meara himself wrote at least some things in a way that paralleled the Northwest narratives of war and violence. Frankly, I’ve always been surprised that no one has raised any eyebrows at the thrust of O’Meara’s thrilling book  Toward the White Republic [Counter-Currents, 2010] a used copy of which still lists for over $1,000 on Amazon.com. One of the last chapters is [literally] an incendiary account titled “The Hotrod of the Apocalypse,” which can be read here. The point is that O’Meara has an unusually deep understanding of Covington’s intent in writing the Northwest novels.)

Again, we hear all manner of advice on how Whites can move forward, far too much of which never names the elephant in the room. A man writing as “Chechar” does not have that problem, and he also recognizes the value of Covington’s thought as transmitted through fiction. “The notion that racialists follow the left’s Gramscian ‘march through the institutions,’” writes Chechar, “is equally unserious. Covington’s Northwest Volunteer Army is a hundred times more realistic than the thought of re-establishing the integrity of White life through elections or an expanded media.” The left dominates the universities and the media, and they will not surrender it. Academic hiring is rigidly policed, and the media is hopelessly anti-White.

If people do not realize the futility of hoping for elections or changes in universities or the media to improve the White condition, then they need to read TOO more regularly. We’re in a totally new environment here. Covington’s character Mr. Ekstrom knew this: “Things must change,” said Lennart Ekstrom slowly. “Every White man and woman in America knows it, deep down inside of themselves. This isn’t America anymore.” Now let’s see how one of the Northwest Novels handles this.

Covington’s novels appeared in this order:

The Hill of the Ravens, 2003
A Distant Thunder, 2004
A Mighty Fortress, 2005
The Brigade, 2008
Freedom’s Sons, 2011

In my estimation, the crown jewel among these five novels is the fourth, The Brigade, so I will address only that novel here. The Brigade encompasses all of what Covington was trying to accomplish in these novels, makes the outlines of the War on Whites clear, and situates it all in engrossing action.

My contention is that Covington gauged accurately the situation in America during his lifetime and correctly projected where that situation would lead. Events since the The Brigade’s publication in 2008 have uncannily mirrored Covington’s fiction and are therefore of great use today in putting our White selves into the drama and its inescapable dynamics. Thus, I fervently hope readers will enter not into the “What if?” realm of fantasy but into the more pressing “This is it, guys” scenario offered by a true visionary like Covington. The choice offered in all five Northwest novels is a stark “Fight or Die.”

Having relied on Michael O’Meara to boost the Northwest novels, I’ll crib from O’Meara’s synopsis of the Northwest Imperative. Covington believed that remaining Whites in America (and to some extent elsewhere) must separate from the irreparably anti-White remaining core of the United States, gathering in Oregon, Washington State and parts of adjoining states to fight for and preserve their existence by establishing a White homeland. Having dedicated this book to the memory of David Lane, Covington implicitly endorsed Lane’s enduring fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” The Brigade is a fictional but believable account of how that could be done.

To achieve this, Covington believed that “the present situation is such that any hope of reversing America’s ‘de-Europeanization’ or replacing the Judeo-globalist regime in Washington responsible for it is no longer feasible.” These novels as well as years of weekly broadcasts pushed the imperative for a White migration of “racially aware Whites to the Pacific Northwest — the Whitest section of the United States — to create there the critical mass that will be needed once the time comes to wage an anti-colonial war against the Washington regime.”

This rebellion begins with a puzzle, one that has endlessly intrigued me, and must have puzzled Covington as well: What would it take to get today’s Whites to wake up and defend themselves?

Covington was as mystified as I am, so in his novels he writes of how “Whites in Coeur d’Alene Idaho finally rebel, when they spontaneously resist federal agents attempting to carry off the children of a politically incorrect but well-regarded family.” This ignites a local reaction, and neighbors intervene. “They help arm, organize, and lead several hundred Coeur d’Alene Whites against the troops sent in to crush them. Their rebellion is quickly quashed, but, like Ireland’s Easter Uprising, it ignites a war for national independence.”

In short, Covington creates a story about the “Northwest Volunteer Army” (NVA)

as it leads an IRA-style terror campaign against the Judeo-globalist forces in control of the United States. The NVA’s struggle is greatly facilitated by the fact that in this future period American society and the US government have become even more incompetent than they are today. The US military is bogged down in endless Mideastern wars fought on Israel’s behalf; its social system is increasingly dysfunctional, balkanized into rival racial-ethnic interest groups; an ever-growing part of the White population, unable to compete with coolie labor, is condemned to unemployment or conscription; and the material prosperity that has long served as a race-obliterating opiate has given way to the growing impoverishment and alienation of the White masses.

Covington’s rendering of this White war for survival is gripping, compelling, and prescient beyond measure. I’ve read the book three times and without fail the 517 pages flew by as if it was only a few hours of reading. Remember, political fiction must engage the reader by methods other than the rational. Greater numbers of Whites can be reached by music, by public demonstrations, by humor, by political cartoons — or by fiction. Covington chose the latter. For the sake of our race, I want him to succeed posthumously, which is why I am resurrecting my original review of the Northwest novels through a focus on The Brigade.

Ironically, this war story begins with an account of a heterosexual couple with children, all of whose lives are sundered by the wife’s decision to divorce her blameless husband and begin a new life with her lesbian lover, just as Matthew Bracken’s second Enemies novel had begun. Here we meet some of the main characters as they carry out their decision to prevent this by executing both women. It is far from the first bloodshed in the book.

Next we begin to see the budding structure of the NVA, where one man says, “I look back at all the crap our people have put up with over the past century and I am still astonished that we never picked up a gun before. Why the hell has the White man never fought?” Correctly, this character notes with respect to the brewing War on Whites, “This isn’t an overnight development. This has been going on for 50 years. What the hell was wrong with us back in the 60s and 70s? Or even earlier? Why didn’t we fight?”

Group leader Red Morehouse zeroes in on the answer: “The White man can still show physical courage, yes. Lots of it. That courage gene is definitely still there in our makeup. But what we can’t seem to do is to be brave on our own, for our own interests, without the Jewish seal of approval. We have developed a poisonous symbiosis with the system. It needs us and we need it, psychologically. White males are addicted to social approval nowadays.” In other words, White people only act when their actions are consistent with the attitudes of the moral communities they relate to. And right now, the moral communities that are dominant in the West are created by elites that are totally and irrevocably anti-White. The Northwest Volunteer Army aims to establish a moral community that would approve of White rebellion, including military action, and provide the means to achieve independence.

Covington effectively shows how the federal government, as depicted in The Brigade, now very much sees the White man as an enemy. For instance, a Vietnam vet shows a photo of several young naval officers on the flight deck of an old carrier, and his friend says, “You mentioned once that [it] was taken when you were on the Kitty Hawk launching air attacks against North Vietnam.” “Yep,” replied Fields nostalgically. “That’s me on the left, Al Vitelli on the right, and Bret Halsted in the center. Al died of cancer a few years ago, and Bret died in Atlanta federal penitentiary. He … got five years for hatespeech. Judge went light on him because of his age. He was 64. The first day the guards simply turned him into the yard and the Black gang members beat him to death.” Is America heading into the summer of 2021 so different?

Turning to new member Bert, Fields imparts a point far more Whites must understand: “Bert, the America that we once knew, that we were born into, the America that you fought for in ‘Nam, that America is now gone. It doesn’t exist anymore. It is gone forever. It will never come back. I need to know if you understand this, if you accept it. Because if you don’t, then there’s no point in my continuing with what I have to say.”

If I were to give you five narrow-lines pages of notepaper and let you loose on the Internet, how long would it take you to fill those pages with examples of how America is now lost to us? Not long, I suspect. And the main reason for this state of affairs is spelled out in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and other works. We face a Jewish War on Whites.

Media Silence and Distortion

Being a media specialist, I’ve known since the early ‘90s how awful the media is with respect to race—and I’ve known why: The media is overwhelmingly in the hands of Jews, and Jews are a hostile elite in White countries. One result is that the media has inverted reality and convinced many millions of Whites that Whites are savagely attacking Blacks, when the evidence overwhelmingly proves just the opposite. What a testimony to the power of media! What a tragedy that Jews control the majority of it, and even conservative media like Fox News completely avoids the issues so central to our survival and well-being as Whites.

Covington shows this in various places, such as in a conversation between two NVA rebels, one of whose daughters was brutalized by Black crack addicts:

“She wants me to take her out to the range shooting all the time. She always wears long-sleeved shirts and dresses or slacks, and never a swimsuit or a halter top. She broke off with Brad Gibbons, and she won’t date now. Ever wonder why? In Portland, she came home one night and found a couple of … crack addicts who had broken into her apartment waiting for her. When they had finished with her, they tried to stab her to death with a broken wine bottle. They didn’t kill her, but not for lack of trying. Her body looks like she was fed into a McCormick reaper, inch by inch. It was never mentioned in the papers or on TV because of the press censorship laws Hillary Clinton rammed through on her first year as president, the ones that forbid what they call racial incitement, such as reporting Black crimes against White people.”

Most readers of TOO know about this perverse inversion of reporting on interracial crime, as this blog and photo both show: “33 Whites Die (And ONE White-On-Black Murder!)”

Murdered White Victims

The truth is maddeningly simple to verify, but human nature crumples in the face of media power. Reality itself wilts when the vile power of the media blasts it at a billion watts a second. The truth, however, is constantly out there and can in fact be readily found. Just turn to Paul Kersey or revisit one of the greatest hidden Black-on-White crimes of the century, The Wichita Massacre. The truth is not hard to find—but paradoxically, it is impossible to see. Well, it seems paradoxical only to those who do not know about the evil surrounding the Jewish Question.

This media curse against Whites transcends the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, too, as shown below, where but one Black victim of White violence has become a martyr in Britain, endlessly commemorated in the media, while the enormously greater number of White victims died in obscurity (see “Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr Cult of Stephen Lawrence”).

Contemplate how one-sided this murderous violence is. Yet the majority of Whites, it seems, side with the narrative that Whites are overwhelmingly killing Blacks. Of course, the media is to blame—but can the media have that much power over the White mind, even when the truth is so obvious?

Covington ventures an explanation for this by creating a dialogue between a bereaved father and daughter. The father’s only other daughter, a beautiful young girl named Jan, fell in with a Black crowd at school, got involved with drugs, and started sleeping with the star basketball player, a Black youth who supplied her with drugs. In time, she got pregnant by him and was of course spurned. Not seeing a way out, she took her own life. The father, a quite affluent banker, tries to rationalize why the family must quietly accept their loss, but the surviving daughter objects to this rationale: “So we’re all nothing but a bunch of hogs slopping at the great American trough, and every so often the big Black butcher comes among us and drags one of us away squealing, and we just look the other way and accept it as the price of all that lovely swill and jam our snouts back in deep, so we don’t hear the screams? Is that it?” Sad to say, Covington is on to something here.

Another way the choice of fiction serves Covington well is in his ability to present a scene rather than make an argument. For example, instead of explaining how bizarre it is that American Jews are well above average income yet unceasingly claim to suffer from anti-Semitism, Covington uses a dinner to make the point. The Goldmans are a wealthy Oregon couple who will have a special $60,000 dinner flown in from Jerusalem, while a working-class White who hears about this gasps, “I’ve never even seen $60,000 in one place. My family has to make do with meat twice a week, and that’s with me and my wife both working. My boys will never enter the door of a college because they’re males with White skins, and we’ll never be able to afford to send the girls either.”

In The Brigade, the Goldmans have to pay for being part of this unspeakable crime syndicate, and two NVA members approach the Goldmans as they head for that dinner from Israel. “The two gunmen said nothing, but Jacob Goldman gasped out in a strangled cry, ‘You!’” Here Covington provides a philosophical—even cosmic—description of what this war entails: the biblical brothers Esau and Jacob forever in conflict, but this time Esau gaining the upper hand:

All four of them understood what Jacob Goldman had said. He did not know or recognize the men who were about to put him to death. They had always been far beneath him, part of the scenery he saw from the window of his luxury car or a plush office suite, animals who through some accident of nature resembled God’s Chosen People in outward form, but whom the sages of Torah assured him were beasts without souls. Yet he knew who they were, and why they were here. Four thousand years of racial instinct crackled in a moment of cosmic, hideous recognition and knowledge. A timeless drama was once again about to be played out, an ancient debt was once more to be paid, and blood was about to be spilled once more in humanity’s longest war. The men before Jacob Goldman could have been wearing Roman armor, or Crusaders’ chain mail, or Cossack leather and furs, or the Black tunic of the SS. Now they wore denim jeans and ski masks, but oh, yes, he knew them. Now he was going to die, because they knew him as well, knew him for what he was.

Affirmative Action

Another area Covington addresses is affirmative action and its negative consequences. In The Brigade, his examples might have gotten ahead of the real world, but the real world has certainly seen fit to catch up. For example, we just had the headline that “United Airlines Wants To Train More Female, Minority Pilots,” with this intro: “United Airlines, the only major U.S. airline to own a flight school, has kicked off a plan to train 5,000 new pilots by 2030 – at least half of them women and people of color.” If this 50 percent goal pans out, and worse, spreads throughout the industry, it isn’t going to work out well, as Covington’s delicious narratives demonstrate.

The first one involves Rabang Miller, a Filipina who has judiciously used affirmative action and a willingness to sleep her way to the top to become fairly senior in the FBI, lording it over competent and straight-laced White male agent Brian Pangborn, who is forced to endure Rabang’s untouchable status. Unfortunately, Rabang’s incompetence gets them quite killed in an encounter with the NVA.

Because Rabang and Pangborn are agents of the American government, the Northwest Volunteer Army considers them enemy combatants. As such, they are stalked by some volunteers. The White male’s warrior instincts tell Special Agent Pangborn something is amiss, so he turns off the highway to observe the behavior of the SUV behind him. All of a sudden, however, a Toyota Camry pulls out in front of them, and “Pangborn saw two men in ski masks leap out of the car. He heard the stuttering of the Uzi, saw the muzzle flash and heard the pop pop pop as the 9-mm slugs slammed into the windshield. The polycarbonate glass held, but big ugly White splotches blossomed on the windshield before him. ‘It’s them!’ screamed Rabang in terror.” Minutes later, both agents were dead thanks to the Filipina’s consistently foolish choices.

Covington’s tour de force depiction of an affirmative action disaster comes later in “The Battle of Sunset Beach,” which beautifully details the predictable consequences of real recent changes in the military such as this: “Obama started the process of turning the military into a social justice institution.  While Trump managed to slow the process, Biden’s administration, with help from a highly partisan Pentagon, is purging the military of people expressing views with which Democrats disagree while doubling down on race, radical feminism, and transgenderism.  Defense is an afterthought.” Here is the new face of the United States military:

28th United States Secretary of Defense

Covington imagines a battle of the new military vs. White male former soldiers. In order to end the “racism” of the “domestic terrorists” trying to create a White homeland in the Northwest, the U.S. government has sent a flotilla of ships to Oregon. Loaded with 1,400 FATPO troops (federal soldiers), the team is led by a Black general named Roland Rollins, who plans to make a MacArthur-esque beach landing to be used as a photo op. At the same time, the commander of the Coast Guard cutter protecting the convoy is a Hispanic woman, who reached her position as an affirmative action appointee. Unsurprisingly, she is woefully incompetent. Meanwhile, the Freedom Fighters of the Northwest have laid an ambush on the beach.

General Rollins’ landing plans involved grounding the ferry he is on, then lowering the door and wading triumphantly onto the beach as cameras roll. The result was “what happens in a system when you promote people into important jobs and positions based on the color of their skin or the fact that they’ve got tits on ‘em, instead of on their ability to do the job.” As such, Rollins waded off the ship, the powerful guns of the NVA opened up from the beach, and “Rollins whirled away into the air flapping like a scarecrow in the wind.”

The Coast Guard cutter commanded by the Hispanic woman could have been a very effective deterrent, but this affirmative action captain was a huge liability. In a priceless scene, she manages to single-handedly destroy and sink her own ship. And Covington makes it all sound plausible, so much like what today’s America has actually become.


As epic as The Battle of Sunset Beach is, however, one of the most important sections of the book is without a doubt Chapters 17–26 (excluding Ch. 25, which is the culmination of The Battle of Sunset Beach). The idea begins as “Taking Down Tinsel Town,” where the NVA hatches a mission to mete out some justice to Hollywood. The commander of the volunteers explains:

“After a lot of consideration, the Portland brigades have been selected to put together a special active service unit for a series of highly sensitive and risky operations, the first extensive campaign the NVA has mounted outside the Northwest Homeland itself. The name of this unit will be Task Force Director’s Cut. Its mission will be to neutralize one of the prime weapons that ZOG has in this war, which is the Hollywood movie, media, and entertainment industry, and to render that industry as useless to the enemy as we can possibly accomplish. Put bluntly, we are going down to Hollywood, and we are going to take the Dream Machine apart at the seams.”

Covington’s writing shows that he understood the disastrous impact Hollywood has had on the White world, as a commander of the NVA sums it up:

“Gentlemen, I don’t have to tell you that ever since the invention of the motion picture over a century ago, the movie industry has been the most completely Jewish field of private enterprise in the world, with the exception of international banking and the stock exchange. Even today, Yiddish is considered to be Hollywood’s second language…. Every crucial, non-technical job on the business and creative end of any major movie is either held by a Jew or is in the power of a Jew, from the studio heads, the producers and the directors, down to the scriptwriters, the casting directors, the agents, the accountants, and anything to do with the money…. This control by the Tribe is pervasive and complete, and it extends into television as well …

I do not need to tell you of the terrible and largely irreversible damage that Hollywood has done to the White race and to Western civilization over the past century. For four generations, the international bankers and the corrupt politicians have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, especially the war after war after bloody war they have plunged our people into for Jewry’s sake, but it is Hollywood and Hollywood’s mutant bastard spawn television that has made the White people of America and the world swallow these atrocities and actually support them with enthusiasm. It is Hollywood that has spent the past 50 years pushing every conceivable kind of perversion of body and mind down the throats of White people. It is Hollywood that has turned the loathsome practice of homosexuality into something cute and trendy, the subject for silly jokes, when it is in fact a poison of the very soul. It is Hollywood that has turned White women as portrayed on film into either mindless sex objects, or else de- gendered, masculinized, man-hating neurotics. It is Hollywood that has poisoned the minds and broken the spirits of generation after generation of White children who are now beyond recovery, and turned them into whiggers. The bankers have stolen our money. The federal government of the United States has stolen our lives and our freedom and soaked the earth with Aryan blood, spilled to save a filthy race of Asiatic parasites. But Hollywood has stolen our peoples’ minds and souls, and in some ways that makes Hollywood more evil to my mind even than the sinks of iniquity centered in New York and Washington, D.C. Comrades, we will go down to southern California, we will grip this monster by the throat, and we will cut its heart out!” There was a cheer from around the table; the men found the project to their liking.

So a highly coordinated attack was launched on Hollywood, one which forced Jews there to stop their subversion of goyische society. It was an ugly mission, but a necessary one. And fitting, given that Covington ends The Brigade with the motto:

Ex Gladio Libertas — Freedom comes from the sword


Now here comes an odd circumstance: I’ve spent a lot of time describing a book called The Brigade, but it appears we can no longer get our hands on a hard copy of the book at all. I guess Covington was catching serious flak because he was flying directly over the right target.

I used to own all five Northwest novels but left them behind when I moved, thinking “I’ll be able to pick up used copies later for next to nothing.” Not in today’s world, however. While I haven’t done an exhaustive search for The Brigade, I have searched far longer than I normally do for something I really want.

Then again, maybe the lack of a hard copy is not that much of a hindrance, and the majority of those now interested in the book will download an e-version. Perhaps these sites will suffice: here, here or here. Otherwise, readers can assist us in the comments section.

We’ve come full circle. I began this essay by insisting that 2021 is the year that serious physical assaults on Whites begin. I then took readers through a fictional reply to what people might do to counter such an assault. In Covington’s novel, Whites fought and won. What about now, though? In the real world of the Spring of 2021, the tension is thick but no real action has yet broken out. What to do, then? Greg Johnson’s recent advice is no doubt good: “What should White normies do? Batten down, because a great wave of chaos is coming, and your skin will be your uniform. You may not want colored people as your enemies, but sometimes your enemies choose you.”

Or learn from the analysis of Andrew Anglin, whose coverage of BLM, government shenanigans, and the overwhelming role of Jews in it all has been exemplary: “What we are witnessing here, right out in the open, is a build up to a mass killing of White people. That is why they are trying to remove the police – they want nothing standing in the way of these Blacks and you.”

And still, I feel something is lacking, for a population as used to victory as Whites has become incurably indifferent. Thus, I am convinced of the need for a mental stimulus that will break enough Whites out of their stupor and false sense of prosperity and get them to envision doing something—and how to do it. And soon. To me, Harold Covington’s Brigade, along with the other Northwest novels, is possibly that stimulus. Before we stand up again for our own survival, we need the proper mental conditioning. As Michael O’Meara concluded, “Only myths can galvanize the collective unconsciousness of a nation.” The Northwest novels provide one such myth.

In another column I wrote in 2011, commenter “Trainspotter” sagely averred that “People don’t man barricades, they don’t risk life and limb over statistics. They need a vision, a sense of destiny. Our cause is far greater, deeper and more beautiful than any scholarly tome. The intellectuals are developing the vision, but the artist must give it life and spread it. People must feel it, not just think it.”

He’s right. Covington understood that as well, which is why I will close this long essay with the words Covington put into the mouth of one of his Freedom Fighters:

“Our goal is not to kill people, it’s to free people, our people, White people, from a government and a society that have become absolutely intolerable and morally indefensible, and to build something new and better in its place. What this will turn into, what it’s already turning into, will be a civil war between White people, maybe as bad as the one in 1861. But we’re going to win.”

The Road to Kosher Singularity


In the course of our research on kosher awareness, we couldn’t help but notice that kosher agencies have mainstream media on their side, with little to no counterpoints to this practice being published by anyone. Our surveys lean heavily towards 10% consumer recognition of the most ubiquitous kosher seal, the logo of OU Kosher, which certifies more than one million items today. However, even upon reading the content from professional Kashrus sources, one finds that there may only be one million orthodox followers of the kosher dietary laws in America. That’s only about 0.3% of the population.  Accordingly, justifying the hassle and expenses of kosher certification to food manufacturers and others has become very creative, and yet it is very consistent among the certifying agencies in the industry. Outlets like the New York Times will pump out supportive articles to defend Big Kosher with titles like “You Don’t Have to be Jewish to Eat Kosher.”[1] But in signaling the “virtues of kosher” on every kosher website and pro-kosher news article, where does one draw the line in marketing it for those outside the faith of Judaism? We strongly feel that line is with non-Jewish vegetarians and vegans, and we are shocked that not one vegetarian or vegan organization has taken a similar firm stance! But that’s what political correctness gets you these days, wolves and sheep.

Yes, there are observant kosher-keepers who refrain from meat, and there are countless recipes and articles catering to kosher-keeping vegetarians or vegans. But that is not the subject of this article. This is about selling “kosher” outside the synagogue or temple, promoting its religious services to secular companies in the free marketplace, and doing it all guilt-free despite there being no taxes paid, no financial disclosures for public view, and no patronizing companies or corporations free to openly discuss their kosher costs.

Kosher Certification Agencies Initiate the Marketing Pitch

We looked over the websites of six kosher agencies in America, and found them all exploiting the vegetarian or vegan edge to their marketing advantage: Star-K[2] did so on their About Us page: The Kosher Food Market – “Kosher products appeal to the Islamic world, vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, and others, who look for a Kosher symbol on the foods they purchase.” OK Kosher[3] brings it up by reprinting the New York Times article we already mentioned. KOF-K[4] puts it in their introduction, What is Kosher: Kosher Certification Then and Now, and states “It is interesting to note that a significant sector of the market for kosher products is composed of people who are not interested in the kosher aspect at all. Kosher certification is a drawing card for many…fitness and natural food/health food enthusiasts, and vegetarians and vegans.” KSA[5] brings up “vegetarianism” on their page What is Kosher?: How Much is the Kosher Market Growing? Interesting point on their pitch is this, “Market studies repeatedly indicate that even the non-Jewish consumer, when given the choice, will express a distinct preference for kosher certified products. They regard the kosher symbol as a sign of quality – a ‘Good-Housekeeping Seal’.” In fact, we already wrote about the problems with this claim in our article The Great Kosher Seal Comparison: Is it Just Chutzpah?. Or how about this from Seal-K[6]: “People with food preferences or sensitivities, including vegans, vegetarians, and those wishing to avoid dairy ingredients, could use kosher status information to make decisions about what they choose to eat.” [7] Lastly, the largest kosher certification agency in the world, OU Kosher[8] leads this push towards non-Jews in The Power of OU Kosher Certification:

The U.S. kosher market has become an unheralded boom for food manufacturers. Today, consumers are concerned about more than just the kosher status of their food. Over 12 million American consumers choose Kosher food products for reasons related to health, food safety, taste, vegetarianism, lactose intolerance, and other dietary restrictions. Generating over $12 billion in annual sales, the kosher food industry has become big business.

And boy are they right! May we inquire if one can even go into the food business these days thinking they could avoid kosher certification? Someone on the outside looking in at our supermarkets may even suggest that we are living under Kosher Supremacy!

A Comparison

Bishul Akum is a rabbinical proscription for orthodox observers of the kosher dietary laws. It is a man-made religious law that keeps kosher-keepers from eating substantial meals (fit for royalty) absent of having Jewish involvement in creating that meal, and it admittedly encourages segregation between non-Jews and Gentiles.[9] Infringement of this law would likely present deep wounds to the religious spirit of that person, and it would be considered disrespectful to trick such kosher-keepers. In fact, a scheme that would deceive Jews on this matter would be reprehensible, but that’s why there are criminal codes across our nation protecting kosher keepers.

Is it equally reprehensible to lure vegetarians into a religious labeling scheme that might be convenient for them, but coincidentally and in some small way supports kosher slaughter? We find it very unsavory, to say the least. Nobody on the KosChertified staff abstains from eating meat, but we’ve known enough vegetarians to conclude that the purpose of this exclusionary diet runs viscerally within their spirit, as if it were a religion. It is similar to Bishul Akum of Talmudic Judaism. So if Tikkun Olam instructs Jews to “repair the world,” should they – themselves – act with more compassion and respect to non-Jewish vegetarians and vegans, and cease making this promotional marketing pitch to secular companies and consumers? Let’s look at one kosher certification agency’s response to a consumer inquiry on their support of Shechita, the religious slaughter of animals:

STAR-K provides start to finish certification to Shechita, including plant design, humane handling compliance, shochtimand mashgichim recruitment, education and management.[10]

Clearly, this one major kosher certification agency is intimately involved in a practice that vegetarians find offensive. But there’s a problem: the trademarked kosher certification symbols, of which there may be over 600 in the United States alone, do not tell the vegetarian consumer whether they are involved in kosher slaughter. Hence, the kosher labeling scheme, foisted upon them, may or may not be working against their interests.


So let’s hear what the powerful organization PETA has to say, given their mission as advocates for the ethical treatment of animals: “What About Kosher Symbols? This issue is complex, but vegans and vegetarians shouldn’t base their purchasing decisions on kosher symbols and markings.” (emphasis added)  “Here is what they mean:…”[11] Their article then goes into great detail explaining the kosher labeling scheme, and finishes with “If you have further questions regarding kosher symbols, please consult Jewish organizations or publications.” Question for our reader: By listing in great details the kosher labeling scheme (as we’ve included in our footnotes), does this not make PETA equal to that of the Enabler and the Alcoholic, allowing the vegetarian to merrily continue along his/her dietary exclusion of meat without carefully scrutinizing the essence of kosher certification symbols and associated industry? Is calling the issue “complex” an easy out, when they should actually be calling the kosher agencies to the carpet for the trickery they cultivate in their marketing? Or would this draw accusations of anti-Semitism as has happened recently: “Jewish Groups Condemn EU Ruling Upholding Belgian Kosher Slaughter Ban”?

Indeed, writing at PETA must be an act of managing cognitive dissonance, exposing “Extreme Cruelty at Kosher Slaughter Houses” on one day while on the next praising its virtues in pro-kosher articles like “Here’s Why Israel is the Vegan Capital of the World.” We read, “Judaism has a long, proud tradition of compassion for animals” – a message that has been resonating like an advertising campaign for Big Kosher ever since the 2008 fraud and related criminality of Sholom Rubashkin. It was then that Agriprocessors kosher slaughter house attracted the largest ICE raid in American history, embarrassing the entire kosher industry.[12] (Note to reader: don’t be too concerned about Rubashkin’s long 27-year sentence. President Trump made it one of his first actions to commute his sentence and release him. Now that’s “compassion”!)

It was PETA that delivered to the public terrifying scenes from that very kosher slaughter house. But they also maintain positive messaging, like the litany of rabbinical quotes defending Judaism in the article “Kosher Meat is an Oxymoron.” Maybe they employ different writers for the diametric positions, but one thing is certain: they refrain from tipping the apple cart that exploits vegetarians and vegans for the purpose of promoting expanded market share to non-Jews. PETA’s lack of harder stance here will not just perpetuate Big Kosher, but help grow every part of it, even if the population of kosher keepers stays stagnant.

More on the Agencies

OU Kosher is literally in the business of “certifying” slaughter houses, and we also know that the same agency provides logistical expertise in the matter of Schechita. It is probably impossible to fill a shopping cart with packaged groceries without unwittingly supporting OU Kosher. So, with every purchase displaying the OU seal, consumers indirectly support this New York City based NGO in its efforts and interests. Do all kosher agencies partake in Shechita affairs? No. But read the response from one agency that doesn’t, and you’ll understand that cherry-picking the agencies won’t matter:  “In reality, each aspect of a robust kosher community supports each other part; by the very fact that we help certify the other component of a kosher gastronomic universe…we support shechita.” – Yechezkel Auerbach, KSA Kosher Certification, Los Angeles, CA[13]. This was an honest and sincere reply to a question sent out to many kosher agencies, one that few answered.

Others Organizations Chime In

Promoting the kosher symbol scheme to the non-Jewish vegetarian community doesn’t stop with kosher agencies, but continues in myriad Jewish news outlets:

Mara Friedman, editor-in-chief of The Jew & the Carrot, a blog about Jewish thought and food tradition, along with contemporary issues like sustainability, organic eating and nutrition (jcarrot.org), stated, ‘Vegetarians navigating a world of confusing food labels know that innocent-sounding ingredients in conventional products are often animal-derived. A kosher label on food is one of the most trust­worthy guarantees that certain animal products will not be present.[14] (emphasis added)

Jiv Daya, an Indian philosophy of “being kind” to “life” has a resource center that elaborates on the kosher labeling scheme: “What About Kosher Symbols?” they ask. “What Advantage [does it offer] to a Vegetarian or a Vegan. “Kosher” is meant for observant Jews. [So] how can it help any Hindu or Jain? The answer is that the word ‘Parve’ (also spelled as ‘Pareve’ or ‘Parevine’) is very functional. It means a guarantee that the food product does not contain any meat or dairy products, and it has not come in contact with either. So it is very useful for all the vegetarians and vegans.[15] But this website also forewarns: “It is clear that the various Kosher symbols have no specific relation to ethical vegetarianism or veganism, but are designed partly to certify that animals meet certain standards of slaughter, and largely for keeping the meat and dairy products in separate meals, not primarily from a desire to avoid them altogether. Moreover, the degree of strictness certified by the symbols is far too lax to be dependable for vegetarian or vegan purposes. (emphasis added) For example, in the Kosher system, fish and fish products are not considered ‘animal’ and thus can be included where you might not expect animal products.”[16]

Kosher Agencies Ally with Vegetarian Organizations

Allow us to re-emphasize our point that nobody in the mainstream is taking a firm stand to stop the exploitation of non-Jewish vegetarians and vegans for the furtherance of the kosher certification industry. To make matters worse, alliances are created by kosher agencies with the non-religious food certifiers, enhancing the perception of “kosher” as healthy, high quality and meeting other dietary restrictions. For you may not know that Quality Assurance International has used rabbinical supervisors from Star-K Kosher to certify organic products, or that a subsidiary of OU Kosher performs the gluten-free certification for that famous trademarked GF seal you’ve grown accustomed to recognize.[17]

Trademarked Gluten-Free Certification Seal
Trademarked QAI Seal

The network of food certifiers is almost getting incestuous, as follows here:

OU Kosher and the American Vegetarian Association (AVA) are pleased to announce that they have recently partnered to more easily provide their clients who produce both kosher and vegetarian products with the opportunity to obtain OU Kosher and AVA Vegetarian certifications for their products.

Research has shown that obtaining such certifications greatly enhances the perception of quality among consumers. Even those who do not keep strict kosher or vegetarian diets are often reassured as to the quality of food products when they see well known symbols on the labels. As the respective leaders in their markets, OU and AVA present food producers with the ability to differentiate their products from the competition, by adding both well-known emblems that signify quality to millions of consumers. According to research from Mintel, the top three reasons why consumers intentionally purchase kosher food are quality (62 percent), healthfulness (51 percent) and food safety (34 percent). (http://www.thestar.com/living/food/article/785423—kosher-food-market-growing). Likewise, the Vegetarian Resource Group reports that health is the most common reason for consumers purchasing vegetarian products.[18]

Ah, that one Mintel study seems to be the magnum opus of research repeated by almost every kosher certification agency, ad nauseam. But we would like the reader to know that we have done some studies of our own…

Our Research

Our first survey tested 200 Costco members on symbol recognition related to labels, and only 10% could recognize the ubiquitous OU Kosher seal (the most common kosher seal in the world).[19] This strongly refutes the claims that any kosher seals are “well known symbol[s]” that consumers particularly seek out. In fact, Costco stores are literally saturated with the OU kosher seal, even sometimes on the bulk boxes where they store their products. But consumers just don’t notice them, and our respondents’ three most common guesses to the meaning of the OU symbol were “United Aluminum Certified”, “Usable With Food” and “U.S. Department of Agriculture Certified”. How wrong they were! Also, only 1.5% in this survey recognized the Canadian “COR” kosher seal that is largely displayed on the Kirkland dishwashing detergent sold in this big box wholesale store.

Kirkland Dishwasher Detergent, Kosher-Certified by Canadian COR

That was our first check on Big Kosher’s assertions, and perhaps there were few kosher keepers in that initial survey. But this article is on vegetarians, and we wanted to check if they really are a core segment of the non-Jewish consumer who seeks out kosher seals, as the kosher agencies regurgitate. To get an approximation, we surveyed over 450 “self-identifying” vegetarians or vegans, and the results were oddly similar to our Symbol Recognition survey. While 66% of them claimed to “scrutinize product labels when shopping for food,” the OU Kosher seal was ranked fourth out the five kosher seals we presented when asked which “they’d expect to find more frequently when shopping?” Think about it, 4th-out-of-5, and only 11% of respondents choosing the OU seal. On the other hand, one response that stood out quite clearly received 42%: “I’m not too familiar with common kosher seals” (49% when excluding self-identifying Jews, Muslims and Seventh-Day Adventists). Anybody who is truly kosher aware, familiar that kosher certification permeates nearly every major food category and brand, knows well that OU Kosher seals are the most common to be found. They are everywhere! And if vegans or vegetarians were actively looking for kosher seals, then they’d be more “shopper wise” than our Costco respondents. Instead, the 11% correct response (9% for Christian respondents) better reflects recognition reality and general kosher awareness.

Trademarked OU Kosher Seal (Plus descriptive text not usually seen by consumers: “KOSHER CERTIFICATION SERVICE”)

In that same survey, The Veggie Shopper, we did present to them a visual display of four common certification seals – two that are strictly vegetarian, one gluten-free, and the OU kosher seal. While being instructed to select as many of these that they “regularly seek out” when shopping “to support their diet”, the Vegan.org certification was most popular coming in at 52%. The gluten-free seal came in next with 36% of respondents. AVA displays a carrot within a triangle representing the American Vegetarian Association. They received 26%. Finally, the widespread and pervasive OU kosher seal was selected by 22%, the lowest of all four trademarked symbols, while 10% simply do not look for any of these. Perhaps they shop more at farmers markets than supermarkets. Interestingly, when our survey was filtered out by religious faith or ethnicity, only 28% of the 25 Jewish respondents chose the kosher seal, and only 14% of veggie eaters outside of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Seventh Day Adventist (or preferring not to state their identity) did the same.

Trademarked Vegan and Vegetarian Certification Seals

There were plenty of other questions that gauged the shopping behavior of vegans or vegetarians, but our final one was this: “How would you feel about financially subsidizing religious organizations (and their interests) that reside outside your faith/congregation/identity through the purchase of food products at the supermarket? (Example: You buy a Halal certified product for $5, and the food company that produced it is paying a Muslim agency 5 cents for that certification, but you are Hindu).” Our results were interesting. First, we’d like to share with you that we posed a similar question on a previous consumer survey, and this general population appeared to be more displeased with the scenario.[20] Veggie shoppers, we found, are instead fairly indifferent with 32% neutrally stating that they are “neither satisfied or dissatisfied”, while about 14% reported firmly negative on this. Call it irony, though, that the most bothered group to this question that did identify religiously or ethnically were those claiming Jewish identity, coming in with 20% marking “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”. Maybe we should reach out to this self-concerned group for answers on The Kosher Question given their deeper conviction on the differences between religious freedom and religious intrusion. Indeed, the inquiring consumer has historically been met by utter silence, obfuscation or deflection when questioning non-profit organizations and companies on the details of these secular/religious partnerships, and this could lead to kosher delusion.


On the web page titled “The World’s Best Known Kosher Trademark” supporting the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, they proclaim, “The  logo indicates that a product may be consumed by all those who observe kosher dietary laws, as well as by many others who have special dietary requirements. … It also serves as a guide to millions of individuals who are vegetarian or lactose intolerant.[21] Well, we can now call this prideful embellishment at best, shameful gratuitous lies at worst. The OU symbol was ranked near the bottom of popularity when presented five choices, and claims like this are used to justify the pervasive expansion into every brand seeking to grow in the supermarket chain. A sincere promotion of this religious trade to our avoiders of meat might include a clickable warning such as this simple facet of Kashrus, as read off of a kosher certification website:

“Another kosher procedure [is] the mandatory salting and rinsing of meat and poultry…There are many steps that have to be completed before a piece of steak is considered kosher…First, meat has to come from a kosher animal source.  It’s pretty well known that beef is a kosher animal source, and pigs are not.  But after the cow is selected, it needs to be checked for overall health.  Then it must be slaughtered according to the Torah guidelines by a shochet, a rabbi expert in this area. The Torah’s Extra Health Requirements: But this meat is still not yet considered kosher.  It needs to be checked by a specialized rabbi for internal signs of ill health.  For example, if he finds certain lung “adhesions” — growths that show there was once disease in that location, it is a problem. Such a cow, or a cow with any other Torah “health” issue, will be sent to a different line to be processed as non-kosher.  Its area and equipment must be cleaned well so that the next cow does not come into contact with any residue from the non-kosher beef…If the animal passes the test, then the blood must be removed from the meat, since the Torah does not allow the blood to be eaten.  This has to be done within a certain time limit.  Once the meat is cut into pieces, it will be rinsed, salted, and rinsed again.”[22]

As much as PETA can post apologetic quotes from rabbis indicating the religion’s humane compassion for animals, only mass control of the media can hold back the facts that kosher ritual slaughter is an integral part of the kosher certification business, that its methods are quite different than traditional slaughter, and that enough of the general public finds these differences so outrageous that entire countries ban it. So if European countries are so inclined to ban this practice from their territory, is it “kosher” to push kosher certification on vegetarians and vegans?

Our surveys conclude that only 9 to 22 percent of this dietary class even know what the most common kosher seal looks like after nearly one century of craftily putting these tiny symbols on labels! A casual look into American vegetarian demographics indicate anywhere from 2 to 6% of our nation. On the low end of this data, there may be 0.2%, and on the high end, 1.3% of U.S. adult demographics, who are vegetarians, actively engaging the kosher seal scheme for the benefits of health or general identification of ingredients. And so other than attempting to grow this market “perception”, the pitch that vegetarians are looking for hekhshers (kosher seals) is weak.

Sure, the animal lover of 1923 may have been pleased that the Heinz Corporation produced a version of their famous baked beans minus the pork, Vegetarian Baked Beans – but they probably didn’t notice the accompanying OU kosher seal. For with all our research of newspapers from that time, it didn’t appear that “kosher” was being marketed in the mainstream ads towards the non-Jew. This Heinz product did, however, signify the beginning of a new realm, thanks to technology. And even as more of the general public may complain about the industry, the industry will continue to employ more marketing strategies to bring the entire food market into kosher singularity[23]. Think we’re kidding? Did you know that Impossible Foods partnered with  OU to certify their Impossible Burgers as OU Kosher’s newest kosher products.[24] Won’t that make the vegans happy! Perhaps the closer we get to kosher singularity, the easier it will be for industry lobbyists to fend off any intolerant anti-kosher slaughter movements like that in the EU? Who knows, maybe all slaughter houses will eventually be kosher certified?

So you’ve seen the PETA videos of kosher slaughter on YouTube. Which do you find more sickening, these videos or the trade practice of promoting “kosher” to the non-Jewish vegetarian? We at www.TheKosherQuestion.com believe the line of decency has been crossed, just as 20% of our Jewish respondents felt strongly about not supporting the interests of outside religions.

We dedicate this article to the inactive account of @CursedSalad on Twitter, whose profile page quotes a famous Jewish propaganda guru, Edward L. Bernays:

“Opinions of the masses are manufactured by mechanisms unseen.”

His account, boldly critical of Jewish influence in our society and history, includes a lengthy thread on the kosher certification business. And even though much of what he wrote there was understated compared to the research we’ve produced, we find this particular tweet sums up our own sentiment, and represents this article’s core issue:

The kosher industry builds itself beyond their religious patrons with two words: “perception” and “healthy”. So in this regard, allow us to reiterate our healthy perception:

This is shameful!

Finally, for the 45% of our Veggie Shopper Survey respondents who reported a Christian identity, we leave you with John 2:16:

“Get these out of here! Stop turning my father’s house into a marketplace!” – Jesus [Christ cleaning the temple]

Appendix: Extraneous Quotes

“Who Buys Kosher?: In addition besides religious groups, the greatest boon in the industry has been people seeking out kosher food for health reasons: vegans [and] vegetarians…who favor kosher foods because the industry’s labeling practice are considered more rigorous. – https://kosherorganics.com/kosher-certification/why-certify/

“Why Go Kosher? In addition, Muslims, Vegans, Vegetarians, Seventh Day Adventists, Lactose Intolerant and Celiacs all look to Kosher certified products to support their religously inspired, moral or health informed way of eating.” – Earth Kosher

“Why is Kosher Food Soaring in Popularity? It also offers certainty for vegans” – BBC News (1/16/2020)

WebMD: “You might also appreciate kosher food labels if you are vegetarian or vegan. Kosher food packaging must note when the food shared equipment with meat or dairy.”

“VegeCert’s inspections are performed by COR – The Kosher Council, one of the largest and most respected kosher certification agency. COR – The Kosher Council has been servicing the food industry for over 60 years and now certifies over 65,000 products at over 1000 facilities around the world. There is considerable crossover between kosher certified food products and vegetarian and vegan diets, so VegeCert is proud to benefit from COR’s considerable expertise.” – https://vegecert.com/about/

Reposted with permission from KosChertified?® : mynkcproducts.com.

[1] “You Don’t Have to be Jewish to Eat Kosher”, New York Times, by Sherry Day, 6/28/2003

[2] Star-K Kosher Certification, Baltimore, MD

[3] The Organized Kashrus Laboratories, Brooklyn, NY

[4] KOF-K Kosher Supervision, Teaneck, NJ

[5] Kosher Supervision of America, Los Angeles, CA

[6] Seal-K Kosher Certification, Chicago, IL

[7] What is Kosher?, Seal-K, The Seal of the Kosher Trust   https://sealk.org/what-is-kosher/

[8] The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, New York, NY

[9] https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/playing-with-fire/

[10] Rabbi Zvi Holland, Star-K Kosher Certification, from email correspondence passed to us by supporter

[11] https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-about-kosher-symbols/

A “K” or “OU” kosher symbol basically means that the food-manufacturing process was overseen by a rabbi who, theoretically, ensured that it met Jewish dietary laws. (There are actually dozens of symbols used by different kosher certifying agencies.)

There may be additional letters indicating the presence of meat, dairy, or fish. A “K” or “OU” by itself could indicate that the food is pareve, meaning that it doesn’t contain meat or dairy, but it may contain fish, eggs, or honey. For example, kosher gelatin, like that used in kosher gelatin dessert and marshmallows, usually comes from a fish source.

An additional “M” or “Glatt” symbol means the product contains meat.

An additional “F” symbol means that fish ingredients are present, but if “fish” is in the name, some products don’t display the “F” symbol. Please note: Some foods that contain small amounts of fish, like Worcestershire sauce, aren’t labeled with an “F” if the fish comprises less than 1/60 of the product.

An additional “D” or “DE” symbol means that the food either contains dairy or was produced with machinery that handled dairy. For example, a chocolate and peanut candy may be marked “kosher D” or “kosher DE” even if it doesn’t list dairy products in the ingredients, because the dairy-free chocolate was manufactured on machinery that also made milk chocolate.

The additional “P” or Passover symbol means that the food is suitable for consumption during the Passover holiday, when leavened grain products may not be eaten.

[12] https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/omaha/press-releases/2010/om062210.htm

[13] Email correspondence passed on from KosChertified supporter

[14] The Kosher Symbol: A Seal of Trust, by Ted Powers, Jewish Herald-Voice, 8/12/2010 https://jhvonline.com/the-kosher-symbol-a-seal-of-trust-p9497-148.htm

[15]  Jiv Daya Resource Center https://www.jivdaya.org/kosher_parve_certification_what.html

[16] https://www.jivdaya.org/kosher_and_vegetarianism.html; Also from this site regarding their take on vegetarianism: “We put a strong emphasis on a strict plant-based vegetarian diet.  We are also against using animals as ingredient or for testing cosmetics and other household items.  We believe in simplicity of life that is friendly to us, animals, and environment…We can live, even in this country, without exploiting poor animals…We aim at helping members of the Indian community to live by the principle of Ahimsa – fundamental to Indian philosophy”

[17] https://oukosher.org/blog/news/new-food-safety-program-independent-certification-program-for-gluten-free-food-processing/

[18] AVA to Benefit Clients with Kosher, Vegetarian Products, by OU Kosher Staff, 11/28/2012 https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-news/ou-ava-partner-to-benefit-clients-with-kosher-vegetarian-products/

[19] http://www.thekosherquestion.com/#!our-blog/symbol-recognition:-our-commissioned-survey-results

[20] https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-LGSHWNLX7/ ; In this Consumer Recognition Survey,   54% of respondents either wanted above average transparency in religious-secular partnerships (23%) in the grocery market, or no such intervention at all (31%); also in that survey, only 14% properly recognized the OU kosher seal/symbol

[21] The World’s Best Known Kosher Trademark, by OU Kosher Staff, 12/18/2006 https://oukosher.org/blog/corporate/the-worlds-best-known-kosher-trademark/

[22] Ibid., https://sealk.org/what-is-kosher/

[23] We’ll define this as the outcome of Kosher Supremacy, a point in time where growth of the kosher industry becomes so large and uncontrollable, that it will signify irreversible changes to society

[24] Impossible Burger: Now Kosher!, by OU Kosher Staff, 6/5/2018 https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-news/impossible-burger-now-kosher/

White Replacement Isn’t a Conspiracy Theory

Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue on demographic replacement has sent leftists into a frenzy. It’s not that they categorically deny the fact that Whites are being demographically replaced, they just think it’s “racist” for Whites to talk about it.

The few influential people (like Tucker) who draw attention to “conspiracy theories” (like White replacement) are made the poster children for the radical left’s justification of right-wing censorship. The last thing anti-Whites want is 200 million White people not only asking themselves why they’re being replaced, but why it’s in their best interest. To save face, leftists just eliminate the discussion by virtually eliminating the influence of anyone who brings the subject up (e.g. the ADL immediately calls for FOX to fire Tucker for “spreading poison”). In other words, they don’t want to talk about it, and they definitely don’t want Whites to talk about it. This alone should be cause for concern. In a free society, all things should be up for discussion, especially a group’s existence.

On the rare occasion that leftists decide to talk about things like White replacement, it’s usually accompanied by a barrage of anti-White slurs and childish analogies that depict Whites as angry racists. Such can be observed in a recent Salon article titled: Tucker Carlson’s immigration bait-and-switch betrays his desperation: No one denies that immigration brings change, Tucker — just that it’s racist to be angry about it:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is really determined to sell his audience on what is — and this cannot be stressed enough — a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. Neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups have long pushed the idea that a shadowy cabal of Jews is secretly conspiring to “remake” America and “steal” it from its rightful owners, white Christians. They are supposedly doing this by “importing” non-white people — who neo-Nazis believe to be mentally inferior and therefore easily controlled by the shadowy Jewish conspiracy — into the U.S.

Carlson’s only spin is replacing the word “Jews” with “Democrats,” but other than that, he’s lifting “replacement theory” wholesale from the neo-Nazi dregs of the internet and now is repackaging this ridiculous conspiracy theory as if it were an inarguable fact, much to the delight of White nationalists. And because Carlson’s main modus operandi is trolling, he’s relishing the negative attention he gets by hyping a racist conspiracy theory and he’s using his audience’s love of liberal-triggering to encourage them to mindlessly burrow deeper into the worldview of unapologetic fascists.

Carlson is a moral monster. It’s likely he has been this way since his high school “Dan White Society” days. Sadly, he is a monster that must be dealt with, despite the unfortunate risk of troll-feeding. It’s not just because Carlson has an audience that regularly tops 3 million viewers, though that alone is terrifying. It’s that he is a smart man whose strategy for selling this conspiracy theory is sinister and clever. To fight back, it’s crucial that progressives don’t fall into the trap he is setting.

Needless to say, there’s no argument here that rebuts the demographic realities resulting from immigration. Just moral posturing. What the left does best when they don’t really want to deal with reality.

It’s not only “racist” for a White man to be “angry” about his race being demographically replaced, but it also makes him a “moral monster” who promotes “a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory” if he mentions it to his audience? How does that make sense on any level? Is it racist for Blacks to get angry about gentrification, or when Mexicans take over Black neighborhoods?

On one hand the leftist says, “European colonialism is genocidal,” even when they politely leave after building infrastructure that the natives could only dream of. But on the other hand they in effect are saying, “non-White immigrants replacing White people is a good thing”—never mind why it’s good, much less good for Whites. How can any rational person take that argument seriously? Furthermore, how can any rational person attempt to present that argument in the very same article in which they are chastising someone for allegedly using “bait-and-switch” tactics?:

Basically, Carlson is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, he falsely conflates any cultural change with his ridiculous “replacement” conspiracy theory. Second, he tries to paint the debate as one over whether change is real — something that literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it’s nuclear-level racist to react to cultural change like it’s some kind of existential threat. In reality, it’s just what happens if you’re lucky to live long enough to experience it.

Did I just read that right? Is she really saying that it’s nuclear-level racist to think that replacing a White population with a non-White population is an “existential threat” to Whites? Cultural change just happens. It’s inexplicable, and our media and political elites have had nothing to do with it. Nobody’s interests are at stake. Deal with it. It’s always good. Like when millions were massacred in the Soviet Union after the cultural change when the Bolsheviks took over. Or Cambodia. Or Rwanda. Even the nuclear-level racist ADL, as quoted by uber-racist Carlson, thinks that a one-state solution would be a disastrous cultural change for Jews. Actually, I wonder if she would even have a job if she said that about any group other than White people, excluding Christians.

There’s no way anyone could be so callous as to refer to what’s happening as just “cultural change.” This cultural change was brought about by ethnic activists who feared and loathed the traditional White majority of America, and it is kept in place by our new, post-1965 elite. Ms. Marcotte should give us a clear picture of how she sees the future when Whites are a relatively powerless minority in America. I’m sure she would see it as nothing but harmonious multiculturalism. But what if it isn’t? What if lethal ethnic conflict comes to the fore, as it has so often in the past. What majority group in their right mind would want to take that risk?

Nevertheless, I’ll give Ms. Marcotte the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is ignorant and not inherently evil (a courtesy she didn’t grant Tucker). Maybe she had a bad day and got confused with what she actually meant to say. Or maybe the editor called in sick. Either way, as a thankless gesture, I decided to post an edited version of the previous quoted paragraph:

Basically, Marcotte is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, she falsely conflates White replacement with her ridiculous “cultural change” conspiracy theory. Second, she tries to paint the debate over whether demographic replacement is real — something literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it’s nuclear-level stupid to react to becoming a minority like it’s not an existential threat. In reality, only total idiots would consider themselves lucky to live through demographic replacement.

There, that’s better.

But in all seriousness, she acknowledges that immigration changes the face of society, but in the same way that “generational shifts” result in skinny jeans and TikTok. Again, it’s important to understand exactly what this woman is saying: she is saying that White replacement is comparable to “changing fashions and evolving social norms.” She even attempts to cleverly justify it by comparing White people’s demographic decline to the bad hair products of the 80s:

Here’s the thing, though: Lieu didn’t give any game away. Liberals have never denied that immigration changes society. Of course it does, along with generational shifts, changing fashions, and evolving social norms. When I was young, people wore low-rise jeans and MTV still played music videos. Now it’s skinny jeans (though apparently not for long) and TikTok. Change is inevitable, and generally good, as anyone who has a memory of hair-destroying styling products in the bad old days can contest.

What makes “replacement” a conspiracy theory, however, is that it invents this elaborate fantasy ascribing change not to the normal churn of human society, but to a sinister and hidden conspiracy of Jews and Democrats who are secretly inflicting change to pull off some grand scheme.

She says the reason “White replacement” is a conspiracy theory is because Whites point the finger at “Jews and Democrats” as the those responsible for massive non-White immigration into the United States. What she doesn’t say is that Republicans wanting cheap labor—Jews and non-Jews—bear a healthy portion of the blame.  But yes, Jews and Democrats have been the prime movers—Jews heavily involved since early in the twentieth century, and Democrats totally on board now that they have basically jettisoned their White working-class base and are dreaming of permanent hegemony due to their non-White voting base.

What would make “White replacement” a conspiracy theory would be if it wasn’t an observable phenomenon. If it’s such a positive transition, why can’t we have an honest discussion about it without name-calling, moral posturing, and censorship? If this “normal churn of human society” is so wonderful, why are so many Whites unhappy and complaining about it? Are they just too stupid to know what’s best for them? But to make that argument, Marcotte would have to explain exactly why it’s just wonderful for Whites.

The data are conclusive: White demographic replacement isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a statistical fact. The fact is that it’s stupid for Whites like Marcotte to believe that the share of the population like them just magically decreased by 30 percentage points in less than 50 years and that it is “nuclear-level racist” to think it may not turn out well. Particularly in a era when tens-of-thousands of non-Whites are marching for the southern border at any given time on Biden’s promise of mass amnesty, and legal immigration continues at an all-time high.

Immigration is 100% causative, meaning that it happens for a reason. There are two primary elements that define a nation: ethnicity and borders. Borders are designed to keep people from other nations out, or at least they used to be. Protocols are in place as to who gets to immigrate into the United States (all countries have an immigration policy). It’s not just some random act of human migration called “cultural change” (unless that’s the new liberal term for legal and illegal immigration”) that determines who gets to come here and who doesn’t. Up until 1965, the National Origins Formula prevented immigration from changing the ethnic composition of an America determined to retain its Northern and Western European character.

Historically speaking, immigration has always been a politically divisive topic in the United States. It goes without saying that if America was 90% White, Democrats would never win a presidential election in the current political climate. Just as it’s safe to say that Republicans will never win a presidential election when Whites become a minority. It’s as simple as that. Just because the writers of Salon pretend it isn’t happening doesn’t mean it isn’t.

The weird thing about this line of liberal “logic” is that they would never apply it to any other group besides White people. Do African nations have a moral imperative to import enough non-Africans so that they are a minority? For that matter, they wouldn’t apply it to animals or plants either. These people would sacrifice their lives to save a tree or an endangered insect. But for some reason they won’t do it for White people. Why is that? Well, for starters, anti-White hostility has been dramatically increasing in recent years, to the point that Critical Race Theory, which blames White people for everything bad about society, is now the more-or-less official position of the establishment: media, academia, politics, Big Tech, and Wall St. — with “Jews and Democrats” leading the charge. This singling out White people as a group for all social evil borders on dehumanization, the third of the 8 stages of genocide, according to the US State Department. Ironically, the eighth and final stage is denial (e.g. “it’s not White genocide, it’s cultural change due to a normal churn of human society”).

More importantly, Carlson is propping up this fake debate so that he can smuggle in his real argument, which is that change is bad.

Carlson’s whole gambit depends on the presumption that change is a terrible thing. But that belief is both delusional and, on the subject of immigration, racist.

But it’s only a “fake debate” insofar as liberals and the left don’t even try to tell us why ethnic replacement is a good thing for the people being replaced. They opt instead to write slanderous articles filled with anti-White slurs and buzzwords without addressing the real concerns of those who are talking about White replacement. They don’t want the Tuckers of the world telling you that demographic change could be very bad for the people in the process of becoming a minority. Left-wingers ultimately want Whites jumping up-and-down with joy for their impending demographic doom. It’s just “cultural change.”

One can’t help but notice why liberals (or Ms. Marcotte) never offer an explanation as to why Whites should be so happy about their replacement. And even when they do, it’s always the same narrative: if you’re White and not happy about being a minority in your own country, it’s just because you’re an angry racist who can’t accept change. We’ll see what happens when the children of White liberals can’t get into a top university because all standardized tests have been thrown out and equity demands that non-Whites be admitted according to their percentage of the population (or more). And we’ll see what happens when liberal White suburbanites have to deal with poor non-Whites being dropped into their neighborhoods as local jurisdictions lose power over zoning.

If White replacement is a good thing for Whites, and they should be happy about it, wouldn’t it make more sense to offer an explanation of how it’s going to be beneficial?: if you’re White you’re going to be demographically replaced in the United States, but don’t be scared, it’s just cultural change and it’s going to be good for White people. And here’s why: you’re taxes are going to go down, you’re communities will be safer with less crime, your children are going to get a better education, healthcare is going to be more affordable, there will be less social unrest, no more BLM/antifa riots, there are going to be more jobs, there will be fewer suicides and opioid overdoses and so much more. Not to mention, your children and grandchildren will absolutely love being a minority. Just ask the Blacks!

Could anyone really believe this? Until “Jews and Democrats” are willing to have an honest debate on the causes and effects of the rapid demographic change ongoing in the United States, White replacement needs to be called what it is: placing Whites in a position where they will be vulnerable to the ethnic hatreds and historical grudges of others — and, quite possibly, violent (rather than creeping demographic) genocide least on the scale of what happened in the USSR. The hatreds among ethnic partisans and the mindless idealism of liberals like Marcotte are already in place.

Mark Steyn Lies As Naturally As He Breathes: A Master-Class in Mendacity on behalf of Zionism and the ADL

Mark Steyn is a highly intelligent man and an excellent, erudite writer. I admire (and envy) his ability to write so much so fast and so entertainingly. Unfortunately, Steyn is also a liar and fraud. And I can prove that very easily.

Mark Steyn, the porky-purveying Pied Piper of Zionism (“porky pie” is Cockney rhyming slang for “lie”)

Here goes. As Kevin MacDonald set out in two recent articles at the Occidental Observer, the Fox broadcaster Tucker Carlson has recently tangled with the rabidly anti-White, ruthlessly pro-Zionist liars and censors at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). And Carlson doesn’t seem to have come off worse. The dispute began after he correctly said that the Democratic Party in America wants to import a new Democrat-voting electorate of non-Whites and “dilute the political power of current registered voters.”

Steyn knows whereof he speaks

The repulsive Jonathan Greenblatt, Inquisitor-General of the ADL, immediately condemned Carlson for supporting “replacement theory,” a “white supremacist tenet” that “is antisemitic, racist and toxic.” He said: “Tucker must go.” But Carlson didn’t go. Instead, he struck back at the ADL, pointing out that the organization opposes population-replacement in firmly Jewish Israel even as it supports population-replacement in ever-less White America. Mark Steyn discussed the dispute in an article imposingly titled “The Perversion of Public Discourse.” When Steyn talks about perverted discourse, you should listen, because he knows whereof he speaks. Indeed, he can’t avoid knowing about perverted discourse, because he practises it so often himself.

Jonathan Greenblatt, Inquisitor-General of the ADL

Steyn’s priority is to serve Jewish interests, not the truth. He doesn’t want his goyish fans to recognize the truth about Carlson’s dispute with the ADL, because the ADL’s attack on Carlson was a blatant example of anti-White activism by a strongly ethnocentric Jewish organization. Accordingly, Steyn assumed his well-practised role as the Pied Piper of Zionism and began piping a seductive tune of falsehoods. He wanted to pretend, first, that Jonathan Greenblatt is a typical leftist, rather than a typical ethnocentric Jew; and second, that the ADL is corrupt in typically leftist fashion, rather than typically Zionist fashion.

Big bad goyim corrupting Jewish rubes

As I’m sure Steyn himself won’t need telling, two trusty weapons in the armoury of the perverted discourser are suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. In the first, you mislead by suppressing what is true; in the second, you mislead by suggesting what is false. Steyn used both in his article. Here he is skilfully wielding suggestio falsi: “Jonathan Greenblatt, the Obama hack who now runs the Anti-Defamation League, demanded that Fox fire Tucker.” Steyn is falsely suggesting, first, that Greenblatt is an essentially minor figure corrupted through his association with the big bad goy Barack Obama; and second, that Greenblatt has in his turn corrupted the formerly pure ADL.

In reality, Obama was a minor figure corrupted by Jews who shared Greenblatt’s ethnocentrism, as you can see in this very interesting mainstream article from 2008 about the “Chicago circle” of Jews who “nurtured [Obama] all the way to the top”:

Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed Bill Clinton “the first black president” – a title he fervently embraced. Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. “If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president,” says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.

“I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him,” explains Mikva. “It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from.” …

Abner Mikva: The Mensch who managed Obama

Obama’s circle of Jewish patrons and advisers widened further in 1992 when he became involved in a voter registration drive that brought him into contact with Bettylu Saltzman, a liberal activist (and daughter of the late Philip Klutznick, a former commerce secretary and shopping mall developer). Saltzman says she knew from the moment she met Obama that he would someday be president. … “As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars,” Mikva said. Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama’s Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama’s “Jewish side.” … (Barack Obama: The first Jewish president? Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top, The Chicago Tribune, 12th December 2008)

Mikva was also one of the powerful Jews—others include Sean Wilentz, Elizabeth Holtzman, Ted Weiss, Geoff Stone, and Larry Summers—who greased the rather undistinguished (i.e., very few publications from an elite academic) Elena Kagan’s path to the Supreme Court—a classic case of how Jewish ethnic networking operates.

Barack Obama, like Tony Blair in Britain, was a narcissistic shabbos-goy of mediocre intellect who worked assiduously for the Jews who funded his rise to power and ensured him friendly coverage in the media. It is not honest of Mark Steyn to call Jonathan Greenblatt an “Obama hack” or to say that “Greenblatt is a humbug” for opposing population-replacement in Israel while supporting it in America. By using the weak and inaccurate term “humbug” rather than the strong and accurate term “hypocrite,” Steyn is trying to suggest that Greenblatt isn’t sincere about protecting Israel’s Jews from replacement. But he is sincere – very sincere. Greenblatt applies a typical Jewish double-standard. Or rather, he applies a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Mass immigration into Israel would harm Jewish interests, therefore Greenblatt opposes it. Mass immigration into America harms White interests, therefore he supports it.

The ADL’s mission is a mystery

But Steyn was even less honest later in his article. Lachlan Murdoch of Fox had stood by Carlson but assured Greenblatt that “Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind” and therefore continued to “support your mission.” Steyn commented thus:

As for “supporting your mission”, I have no idea what the ADL’s “mission” is these days: They’re either rubes or just the usual American “activist” grifter racket. But at any rate they had no difficulty giving a genuine Jew-hater, Ilhan Omar, the full hagiographic tongue-bath in an ADL book of “inspiring stories”. If you’re interested in committing immigration fraud, Ms Omar’s story is certainly inspiring – because it doesn’t get more all-in than being willing to marry your brother.” (The Perversion of Public Discourse, 13th April 2021)

There you have it: the highly intelligent and astute Mark Steyn claims: “I have no idea what the ADL’s ‘mission’ is these days.” He’s lying, because he knows perfectly well that the ADL’s “mission” remains what it has always been: to promote Jewish interests and harm White and Christian interests. It’s not as though the ADL has ever made any secret of its support for everything that harms Whites and undermines America’s status as a White Christian nation. Steyn is dishonest to use the term “rubes” of the ruthless, effective and very wealthy ADL. He’s also dishonest to suggest that the ADL might be a “usual American ‘activist’ grifter racket.” In fact, it’s a specifically Jewish “‘activist’ grifter racket.”

Muslims don’t threaten Jewish power

And note Steyn’s use of the phrase “these days.” In the past, he knew what the ADL’s mission was; today, oy, who can say? Again, he’s dishonestly suggesting that the ADL has strayed sadly from its original pure path, corrupted by powerful non-Jewish folk like Barack Obama. This simply isn’t true: the ADL was corrupt right from its inception in 1913, when it used undeniably dishonest and anti-Black means to defend a probably guilty Jew called Leo Frank, who had been accused of raping and murdering a 13-year-old shiksa called Mary Phagan (for further discussion, see Ron Unz’s excellent “American Pravda: the ADL in American Society”).

And what of the ADL’s support for the Somali Muslim Ilhan Omar? Steyn knows very well that the ADL supports Omar because she is anti-White and anti-Christian. She appeared in that “ADL book of ‘inspiring stories’” as a celebration of everything that is bad for traditional America and the Christian Whites who built it. The ADL doesn’t see unintelligent, incompetent and criminally inclined Somali Muslims as a threat to Jewish power, but as an excellent way to further atomize formerly cohesive White nations. Indeed, Muslim misbehaviour strengthens Jewish power by justifying an ever-stronger security and surveillance state. That’s why the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche enriched Britain with 200,000 Somalis and counting: “Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain [by Roche]’.”

No, Greenblatt will never abandon Zionism

Steyn is well aware of ethnocentric, anti-White Jews like Roche and their often-repeated claim that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” As I’ve said, Steyn serves Jewish interests rather than the truth, so he deliberately lies about why the ADL supports non-Whites like Omar Ilhan. However, Steyn saved his best dishonesty till the end of his article, when he produced this positively pyrotechnic porky:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the likes of Greenblatt abandon Zionism as a practical matter in the years ahead. His contemptible predecessor certainly had no difficulty abandoning the remnants of Europe’s Jewish community, as I wrote a few years back in “Hath Not a Jew, Eyes?” – after Abe Foxman blamed the Continent’s new Jew-hate on “neo-Nazis” and “neo-Fascists”. … As Laura Rosen Cohen writes of this contemptible nothing of a man: ‘Shame on you, Abraham Foxman. Shame on you. These Jews are a danger to the Jewish people… It’s so cozy to be a professional Jew, fighting the ghosts of WW2 over and over and never facing the real threats to the Jewish people.’ (The Perversion of Public Discourse, 13th April 2021)

Steyn knows very well that “the likes of Greenblatt” will never abandon Zionism, because Zionism is absolutely central to their identity as strongly ethnocentric Jews. Steyn and the similarly dishonest Laura Rosen Cohen also know that Abe Foxman was not a “contemptible nothing of a man,” but a very powerful Jewish activist with a perfectly coherent and well-applied anti-White agenda—the same agenda as Greenblatt. Foxman sought to blame Muslim “Jew-hate” on Whites not because he was mistakenly fighting old battles, but because he was (and is) anti-White and anti-Christian. Foxman and other Zionists don’t fear incompetent and unintelligent Muslims. Rather, they fear the competent and intelligent Whites who have, down the centuries, so often recognized Jewish misbehaviour and expelled Jews from their territory.

That’s why the hostile Jewish elite and its treasonous gentile collaborators have imposed Muslim immigration on unwilling White nations. By atomizing the West, they seek to reduce the chances of a collective White response to Jewish misbehaviour. That’s also why members of the hostile Jewish elite have so often announced that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” Against whom? Against bigoted White Christians, of course. Mark Steyn collaborates with that anti-White campaign. After all, who is he addressing in dishonest articles like “The Perversion of Public Discourse”? His large audience of far-too-trusting goyim, that’s who. He’s piping a seductive tune of Greenblatt as an “Obama hack,” Foxman as a “contemptible nothing,” and the ADL as a formerly decent organization corrupted by gentile leftism.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

He doesn’t want his goyish readers to recognize the truth about Carlson’s dispute with the ADL. The truth is that the ADL is a strongly ethnocentric Jewish organization that hates Whites and seeks to suppress any expression of support for White interests. And Steyn is happy to lie and lead his readers away from the truth about the ADL. In effect, he’s defending Greenblatt and Foxman even as he pretends to criticize them.

I conclude, therefore, that Steyn is a liar and his metaphorical pants are most definitely on fire. If he happens to read this article and wants to disagree, I invite him to take on a simple bet. Let’s give “the likes” of “Greenblatt” five years to “abandon Zionism as a practical matter.” If they don’t do so, Steyn’s forfeit will be to re-publish at his website Larry Auster’s excellent and incisive critiques of his dishonesty and trickery. If, on the other hand, the likes of Greenblatt do indeed abandon Zionism, my forfeit will be to do whatever Steyn thinks suitably chastening for a contemptible nothing of an anti-Semite like me. But I’m sure Steyn will decline the bet. He knows the truth as well as I do.

Review of David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years

The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Year
David Skrbina
Creative Fire Press, 2019

David Skrbina is a professional philosopher who was a senior lecturer at the University of Michigan from 2003–2018. In addition to the book under review, he has written and edited a number of books, including The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2014), Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017), and the anthology Confronting Technology (Creative Fire Press, 2020).

The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity and that the motivation for its main originator, St. Paul, was antagonism toward the Roman Empire. Within this framework, Paul was a Jewish nationalist whose goal was to recruit non-Jews to oppose the Roman imperium: “Since the biblical Jesus story is false, it was evidently constructed by Paul and his fellow Jews in order to sway the gullible Gentile masses to their side and away from Rome” (43). Indeed, Skrbina claims that Paul may have been a Zealot, i.e., a member of a Jewish sect dedicated to violent resistance against the Romans, concluding “it seems clear that he was an ardent Jewish nationalist opposed to Roman rule, as was the case with most elite Jews of the time” (37).

Skrbina argues that there is no convincing evidence for the truth of the Jesus story, either within the canonical New Testament or from non-Christian sources. The earliest reference from a non-Christian source is a paragraph from the Jewish writer Josephus dated to 93 recounting the basic story, that Jesus was crucified “upon the accusation of the principal men among us”—i.e., the elite Jews of the period. Here Skrbina raises a general issue: the earliest source for the passage from Josephus is from the Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century, and the oldest sources for the gospels themselves are dated much later than they were supposedly written (70–95), leaving open the possibility of redactions and interpolations. For example, the oldest copy of the complete Gospel of Matthew, which, as noted below, contains the most inflammatory anti-Jewish passage of all, dates from the mid-fourth century, well after Constantine had legalized Christianity in the Empire and anti-Jewish attitudes were rife among intellectuals like Eusebius and the Church fathers such as St. John Chrysostom.”[1] The extent of redaction and interpolation remains unknown and presents obvious problems of interpretation.

The first Romans to comment on Christianity were Tacitus and Pliny (~115), both of whom disliked Christianity. As Skrbina notes, “the Romans were generally tolerant of other religions, and thus we must conclude that there was something uniquely problematic about this group” (60).

And Skrbina is well aware that an analysis of the entire early Christian movement must be aware of Jewish issues, quoting Nietzsche: “The first thing to be remembered, if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is that we are among Jews” (34). He is quite accurate in his assessment of Jewish ethnocentrism: Jews “saw themselves as special, different, ‘select,’ and thus they put these ideas into the mouth of their God. Certainly, no one would deny a people pride in themselves. But these extreme statements go far beyond normal bounds. They indicate a kind of self-absorption, a self-glorification, perhaps a narcissism, perhaps a conceit. To be chosen by the creator of the universe, and to be granted the right to rule, ruthlessly, over all other nations, bespeaks a kind of megalomania that is unprecedented in history” (63).

Not surprisingly, such a people have often been hated by others, and Skrbina recounts the many examples of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the ancient world: “where the Jews settled amongst other peoples, they seem to have made enemies” (65), noting particularly the recurrent theme—a theme that continued long past the ancient world—of Jews allying themselves with ruling elites against the native population. I was particularly struck by a passage Skrbina quotes from recent scholarship referring to advice given in 134 BC to King Antiochus VII, the Greek ruler of the Seleucid Empire, to exterminate the Jews: “for they alone among all the peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy; their forebears, impious and cursed by the gods, had been driven out of Egypt. The counselors [cited] the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws, which forbade them to share their table with a Gentile or give any sign of benevolence.”[2]

Skrbina concludes that there is a “deeply-embedded misanthropic streak” in Jews that continues into the contemporary era, quoting the famous passage from Rabbi Yosef who, in 2010 stated, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world—only to serve the people of Israel. They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [a man of high social standing] and eat” (Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2010). Skrbina: “There is something about Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred” (79).

Based on the extensive citations to the Old Testament, Skrbina concludes that the Gospels, commonly dated well after Paul’s writing, were also likely written by Jews. Skrbina notes that the latest-dated gospel, John, is addressed to “intra-Jewish squabbling” (41) over the issue of Jesus being the Messiah—obviously a view rejected by Orthodox Jews. In other words, John identifies as a Jew but as a Jew battling the Orthodox Jewish establishment. Importantly, John contains anti-Jewish passages that would echo down the centuries: Jews “sought to kill Jesus,” and the gospel represents Jesus as saying, “You [Jews] are of your father the devil… He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44) (41). Many contemporary scholars accept the view that anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels are intramural disputes about whether Jews or Christians were the chosen people of God.

Of course, there are many other anti-Jewish statements:

  • John 5:18: For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus], because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
  • John 7:1: After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
  • John 7:12–13: And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, “He is a good man,” others were saying, “No, he is deceiving the crowd.” Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews.
  • John 8:37: I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word.

And the most influential of all:

  • Matthew 27:25–26: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but thatrather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Such sentiments are not only found in the Gospels. St. Paul: 

  • 1Thess 2:14–15: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they haveof the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.

Skrbina, discussing the Gospel of Mark, notes that Paul et al. had two enemies, the Romans and non-believing Jews like the Pharisees who “wanted to kill Jesus” (95). Mark therefore blamed both, and Skrbina concludes that “Mark’s anger against his fellow Jews … got the better of him; for centuries afterward, Christians would blame the Jews for killing Christ, not realizing that the whole tale was a Jewish construction in the first place” (95).

Later in Matthew and Luke, “the anti-Jewish rhetoric heats up a bit; the Jews are called ‘a brood of vipers’ (Mat 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) and ‘lovers of money’ (Lu 16:14). And there are repetitions of the message of revolution, including armed confrontation (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” [Mat. 10:34]) and it depicts that the coming confrontation would split families.

Skrbina’s reconstruction of the trajectory of Christianity is presented as tentative (“I’ll not claim certainty here” [81]). For example, he imagines a soliloquy by Jewish patriot Paul asking, “What message could our ‘Jesus’ take to the masses,” answering “we need them to be pro-Jewish, not make them Jews–no, that would never work. We need something new, a ‘third way’ between Judaism and paganism. Maybe for a start, we could get them to worship our God Jehovah, and not that absurd Roman pantheon” (84; emphasis in text). And the whole point was to encourage revolt: “Throughout [Paul’s] letters we find numerous references to enslavement, revolution, insurrection, war, the importance of the disempowered masses, and so on. In the early Galatians we read of the need for Jesus to ‘deliver us from the present evil age’ ([Galatians] 1:4)” (90). Skrbina considers the following passage, from 1Corinthians 1:4 “decisive” (92): 

For consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are. (Skrbina’s emphasis)

Militancy increases in Luke and Matthew, both dated to 85. Matthew (10:34): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

If one agrees with Skrbina on all this, then he suggests that you “go to your local church leaders and confront them with the evidence (or lack thereof). Their response will confirm everything you need to know. Then, make it clear to them that you have been swindled” (112). And: “Christians need to own up the fact that they have been swindled, and then see if anything can be salvaged of their religion. Keep the social club, do charity work, help the poor—just dump the bogus metaphysics” (116). 


Since I am not a believer and since I am quite cognizant of Jewish efforts to manipulate the beliefs and attitudes of non-Jews—the thesis, after all, of The Culture of Critique—I am quite open to Skrbina’s interpretation. However, there are a few things that bother me. 

Liars? In Skrbina’s view, the entire project was based on lies, lies made possible by Jewish contempt for non-Jews. In a section titled “Paul, Liar Supreme,” we find “The Gentiles were always treated by the Jews with contempt. … They could be manipulated, harassed, assaulted, beaten, even killed if it served Jewish interests” (99). The gospel writers were also likely liars: “Even in ancient times, people were not idiots. How could Mark accept without any apparent evidence or confirmation, such fantastic tales? And accept them so completely that he would write them down as factual truth, as real and actual events? And then how could the same thing happen three more times, to three different individuals?” (106). And Paul is even more unlikely to have actually believed what he was writing because he was so close to the events he wrote about, and because he was a “clever man. How could he possibly have fallen so completely for a bogus Jewish messiah that he would dedicate his life to spreading the story?” (106).

This is presented as an issue of cleverness, and it is certainly true that there is a small but consistent negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.[3]  But the weakness of the association—explaining around four percent of the variance—indicates that there are plenty of intelligent people who are quite religious. This would have been even more likely in the ancient world—a context in which religion was taken very seriously, where miraculous events were taken for granted by many, and where there wasn’t already a long history of philosophical skepticism about religion, as there is in the contemporary West. Or consider the medieval period in the West that produced highly intelligent believers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas or William of Occam. Or the ultra-religious but very intelligent Puritans who settled New England and quickly founded Harvard University and the other elite Ivy League universities. We live in an age where science has become the height of respectability—hence the attempts to manipulate what can pass as scientific to serve other interests and have a dramatic impact on contemporary culture. However, the cultural context has been much different in the past, and I suspect that correlations between intelligence and religiosity would have been approximately zero in many historical periods.

Another issue related to lying is martyrdom. The proposal that Paul and the gospel writers were liars must deal with the issue of “Who would die for a lie? … as Jews, they were all, already, under persecution from the Romans. As extremist, fanatical Jews they were willing to do anything and suffer any punishment, in order to help ‘Israel’” (110). It’s certainly true that Jews died and were enslaved in droves when the Romans put down the Jewish uprisings, and this was presumably on the minds of the putative gospel writers (the first Roman-Jewish war was in 70), so the extreme altruism of martyrdom for the benefit of the group seems possible, particularly among Jews—there is a long tradition of Jewish martyrdom that continues to be an important aspect of Jewish identity. However, stories of martyrdom in both the Christian and Jewish traditions may well be at least exaggerated if not entirely apocryphal (e.g., here) because of their usefulness in creating a strong sense of ingroup identity.

Again, there are the questions of who wrote the New Testament and when was it written, including possible redactions and interpolations. I am not at all a scholar on the New Testament, but I note that a recent scholar, Robert Price, dates the first collection of St. Paul’s letters from Marcion in the second century, with the authorship of some letters highly contested, and a strong possibility of interpolations by later collectors:

The question of authorship would have little bearing here one way or the other. In this process, interpolations were made and then gradually permeated the text tradition of each letter until final canonization of the Pastoral edition (and concurrent burning of its rivals) put a stop to all that. … But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly. Of the epistles themselves, he is probably the original author of Laodiceans (the Vorlage [i.e., original version] of Ephesians) and perhaps of Galatians, too. Like Muhammad in the Koran, he would have read his own struggles back into the careers of his biblical predecessors.

But there are other scholars who continue to uphold the view that the New Testament is a reliable account, or at least reliable enough (see, e.g., Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs). I am certainly not in any position to evaluate what continues to be a very contentious area which has been covered in minute deal for at least 200 years, often by highly motivated scholars. At this late stage of scholarship, it seems unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached, especially because a great deal of the scholarship may well be motivated by a desire to defend deeply held religious beliefs—or dispute them; e.g., Blomberg describes himself as “a Christian believer of an evangelical persuasion” (xxv), which doesn’t mean that he is incorrect, but indicates that he would be motivated to defend his beliefs.

Given all this complexity I take that path of humility in trying to assess these issues, resulting in my being an agnostic about the historicity of the New Testament, whether whoever wrote it were liars, and what their real agendas were. I am persuaded that there is no consensus on what was actually written in the first century, and I accept the possibility that the writings that survive as the canonical writings of Christianity may well include later redactions and interpolations that reflect very different perceptions and interests from those of the putative first-century writers.

The Anti-Jewish Statements in the New Testament. I noted above that there are quite a few anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament, including from St. Paul himself. Skrbina claims that “The scattered anti-Jewish statements in all the Gospels—especially John—more reflect an internal Jewish battle over ideology than an external, Gentile attack” (107–108). This is a common scholarly view, but if you are trying to recruit Gentiles to your movement to serve Jewish interests, would you really want to litter your writing with anti-Jewish statements? In fact, these statements, particularly the claim that Jews committed deicide, have been used by Christians against Jews throughout the succeeding centuries, most notably “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Although the major outbreaks of anti-Semitism have always involved far more than Christian religious beliefs—they have typically occurred during periods of resource competition of various sorts (MacDonald, 1998)—I have no doubt that Christian beliefs about Jews fed into and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes, especially in the past when vast sections of the European population were deeply religious—e.g., during the Middle Ages when religious beliefs motivated the Crusades and long, arduous pilgrimages to sites where miracles were said to have occurred. It was a period when, e.g., Notre Dame de Paris, the symbol of traditional France, was adorned with anti-Jewish imagery.

Ecclesia (right) and Synagoga, illustrating Jewish blindness in rejecting Christianity

Indeed, Jewish perceptions of the anti-Jewish nature of Christian theology have resulted in Jewish activism to essentially rewrite or reinterpret the New Testament in their interests. Antonius J. Patrick summarizes this strand of Jewish activism in his review of Vicomte Léon de Poncins’ Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion:

The pronouncements on non-Christian religions and the declaration Nostra aetate passed in the Fourth Session of the Council (1965) accomplished almost all that the Modernists had hoped for. In effect, these pronouncements repudiated nearly two thousand years of Catholic teaching on the Jews. Ever since, the Church has continually bowed to Jewish pressure in regard to its liturgy, the naming of saints, and in the political realm—its most infamous decision in the latter being the recognition of the state of Israel in 1994.

Poncins, who closely covered the Vatican II proceedings, wrote of the declaration:

. . . a number of Jewish organizations and personalities are behind the reforms which were proposed at the Council with a view to modifying the Church’s attitude and time-honored teaching about Judaism: Jules Isaac, Label Katz, President of the B’nai B’rith, Nahum Goldman, President of the World Jewish Congress, etc. . . . These reforms are very important because they suggest that for two thousand years the Church had been mistaken and that she must make amends and completely reconsider her attitude to the Jews.

The leading figure in the years prior to the Council was the virulent anti-Catholic writer Jules Isaac, and he played an active role during the Counsel. “Isaac,” Poncins describes, “turned the Council to advantage, having found there considerable support among progressive bishops. In fact, he became the principal theorist and promoter of the campaign being waged against the traditional teaching of the Church.”

Isaac had long before begun his hostile campaign to overturn Catholic teaching on the Jews with his two most important books on the subject: Jésus et Israel (1946) and Genèse de l’Antisémitisme (1948). Poncins accurately summarizes the main thrust of these works:

In these books Jules Isaac fiercely censures Christian teaching, which he says has been the source of modern anti-Semitism, and preaches, though it would be more correct to say he demands, the ‘purification’ and ‘amendment’ of doctrines two thousand years old.

Moreover, whatever the beliefs and motives of St. Paul and the Gospel writers, the Church had essentially become an anti-Jewish movement by the fourth century when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire:

The proposal here is that in this period of enhanced group conflict, anti-Jewish leaders such as [St. John] Chrysostom [who retains a chapel named after him at St. Peter’s basilica in Rome] attempted to convey a very negative view of Jews. Jews were to be conceptualized not as harmless practitioners of exotic, entertaining religious practices, or as magicians, fortune tellers, or healers [as had been the case previously], but as the very embodiment of evil. The entire thrust of the legislation that emerged during this period was to erect walls of separation between Jews and gentiles, to solidify the gentile group, and to make all gentiles aware of who the “enemy” was. Whereas these walls had been established and maintained previously only by Jews, in this new period of intergroup conflict the gentiles were raising walls between themselves and Jews….

The interpretation proposed here is that group conflict between Jews and gentiles entered a new stage in the 4th century. It is of considerable interest that it was during this period that accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common (Simon 1986, 213). Such accusations did not occur during earlier periods, when anti-Jewish writings concentrated instead on Jewish separatism. These new charges suggest that Jews had increasingly developed a reputation as wealthy, and they in turn suggest that anti-Semitism had entered a new phase in the ancient world, one centered around resource competition and concerns regarding Jewish economic success, domination of gentiles [especially enslaving gentiles], and relative reproductive success. …

Jews were increasingly entering the imperial and municipal service in the 4th century until being excluded from these occupations in the 5th century—an aspect of the wide range of economic, social, and legal prohibitions on Jews dating from this period [particularly prohibitions on Jews owning Christian slaves—itself an indication of the superior wealth of Jews]. These factors, in combination with traditional gentile hostility to Judaism (because of its separatist practices and perceptions of Jewish misanthropy and perhaps of Jewish wealth), set the stage for a major anti-Semitic movement. The proposal here is that this anti-Semitic movement crystallized in the Christian Church. (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3, 96, 98, 99)

It is quite possible that the anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament are interpolations made much later by anti-Jewish writers motivated by resource competition and Jews enslaving Christians. If so, the liars were not Paul and the Gospel writers, but Christians concerned about Jews in the third and fourth centuries. J. G. Gager suggests that the extant literature from the early Church was deliberately selected to emphasize anti-Jewish themes and exclude other voices, much as the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch retained from earlier writings only what was compatible with Judaism as a diaspora ideology (J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), 7; N. deLange, “The origins of anti-Semitism: Ancient evidence and modern interpretation,” In Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, S. L. Gilman & S. T. Katz (NYU Press, 1991, 30–31). It’s quite conceivable that, rather than reflecting real intra-Jewish squabbles in the first century, as suggested by Skrbina, these early works were deliberately embellished in order to emphasize anti-Jewish themes in the originals—or they were completely fabricated—at a time when these writers had become strongly anti-Jewish for reasons that would not have been salient in the first century. In any case, this possibility is highly compatible with the view that there was a qualitative shift toward the conscious construction of a fundamentally anti-Jewish version of history during the formative period of the Catholic Church.

Consequences of the Lies. Skrbina ends by claiming that Paul’s lies were successful: “It took a few hundred years, but when enough people fell for the hoax, it helped to bring down the Roman Empire” (122). And he describes the lies as a “mortal threat”: “eventually drawing in 2 billion people, becoming an enemy of truth and reason, and causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities” (101).

I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire. The Eastern Empire, although losing substantial territory to the Muslims, was only overthrown in 1453 after centuries of battling them. However, it’s certainly a reasonable idea given that Christian religious ideology was the polar opposite of thoroughly militarized Indo-European culture upon which Rome was built. Ancient Greco-Roman culture was fundamentally aristocratic and based on ideas of natural inequality and natural hierarchy. Thus, Plato’s “just society” as depicted in The Republic was to be ruled by philosophers because they were truly rational, and he assumes there are natural differences in the capacity for rationality—a modern would phrase it in terms of the behavior genetics of IQ and personality. Aristotle believed that some people were slaves “by nature” (Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 52), i.e., that the hierarchy between masters and slaves was natural. Reflecting themes common in Indo-European culture emphasized by Ricardo Duchesne (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization), the ancients prized fame and glory (positive esteem from others) resulting from genuine virtue and military and political accomplishments—but not labor, because laborers were often slaves and the rightful booty of conquest.

So the Christian ethic of prizing meekness, humility, and labor was quite a change. Within Christian ideology the individual replaced the ancient Indo-European family as the seat of moral legitimacy. Christian ideology was intended for all humans, resulting in a sense of moral egalitarianism, at least within the Christian community, rather than seeing society as based on natural hierarchy. Individual souls were seen as having moral agency and equal value in the eyes of God—a theology that has had very negative effects in the contemporary world.

However, universalism and the Christian virtues of meekness and humility are not the only story and indeed, as Skrbina notes, the sword also makes an appearance in the New Testament. In the Middle Ages Christianity was Germanized (James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, Oxford, 1996), making it much more compatible with an aristocratic warrior ethnic. And in the medieval period and beyond, Christianity facilitated Western individualism and essentially ushered in the modern age of science, technological progress, and territorial expansion (Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, 2020; MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019).

As a direct result, Christians who had a firm conviction about their beliefs eventually conquered the world and have been responsible for essentially all of the scientific and technological progress that created the modern world. Indeed, in his The WEIRDest People in the World, Joseph Henrich argues that the medieval Church invented Western individualism by insisting on monogamous marriage and by “demolishing” extended kinship relations, presented by Henrich as an attempt to understand, as phrased in his subtitle, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Harvard, 2020). I have quite a few objections to his approach (see here), but he is certainly correct that the Church was influential in opposing the power of extended kinship groups and preventing concubinage and polygyny among elites, thereby facilitating a relatively egalitarian marriage regime. Essentially Henrich ignores the ethnic basis of Western individualism that reaches back into pre-historic Western Europe and is certainly reflected in the classical Western civilizations of Greece and Rome. Henrich also ignores genetic influences on IQ and personality. But I agree with a much weaker version—that the Church facilitated Western individualism and so helped give rise to the modern world (Chapter 5 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019).

So it’s not entirely a story of “causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities.” But the sad reality is that contemporary Christianity, or at least the vast majority of it, is utterly opposed to the interests of the people who have historically made it their religion. For example, Prof. Andrew Fraser has interpreted fundamental Christian texts in a manner consistent with an ethnic form of Christianity (e.g., “Global Jesus versus National Jesus”, and in The Sword of Christ (2020; this book seems to have been banned by Amazon), Giles Corey attempts to rescue an ethnically viable Christianity from the ruins of contemporary, leftist-dominated Christian theology. As I note in my preface:

Religious thinking is by its nature unbounded—it is infinitely malleable [so that, for example, redactions and interpolations on the New Testament could easily have been adapted to create a fundamentally new theology]. It is a dangerous sword that can be used to further legitimate interests of believers, or it can become a lethal weapon whereby believers adopt attitudes that are obviously maladaptive. One need only think of religiously based suicide cults, such as People’s Temple (Jonestown), Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate. Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life. It was compatible with a culture characterized by extraordinary scientific and technological creativity, [territorial expansion], and standards of living that have been much envied by the rest of the world. …

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. [Guillaume Durocher notes that only 6–12 percent of the French population are practicing Catholics, indicating that Catholicism cannot be blamed for France’s current malaise.] On the other hand, [American] Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel. [In general, they have rejected an explicit White identity or a sense of White interests.]

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.”  This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity, a Christianity that was compatible with Western expansion, to the point that by the end of the nineteenth century, the West dominated the planet. Christianity per se is certainly not the problem.

The decline of adaptive Christianity coincides with the post-Enlightenment rise of the Jews throughout the West as an anti-Christian elite, and Corey has a great deal of very interesting material on traditional Christian views of Judaism. Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ. …

In fact, intellectual movements of the left—disseminated throughout the educational system and by the elite media—have exploited the Western liberal tradition. The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and the media were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism by essentially creating a moral community that appealed to these traits but also served their interests. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that moral indictments of their opponents have been prominent in the writings of the activist intellectuals reviewed there, including political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and the Frankfurt School developed the view that social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The triumph of the cultural left to the point of substantial consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil. Moral communities rather than kinship are the social glue of Western societies. Westerners, being individualists and relatively unconcerned about the prospects of their kin beyond their immediate family, willingly punish other Whites who oppose their moral community, even at cost to themselves (altruistic punishment). Their main concern is to have a good reputation in their moral community which is now defined by the media and the educational system—a moral community that was created by hostile elites out of fear and loathing of the traditional White American majority (see Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Finally, Skrbina asks, “Can it really be beneficial to accept a myth as truth? Can one really live a happy, successful, and meaningful life dedicated to a false story or a lie?” (16). I think that the answer is that yes it can. As an evolutionist, my working hypothesis is that when it comes to the realm of ideas, evolution does not aim for truth but rather for success in continuing one’s family and increasing the prospects of one’s tribe. Certainly the religious beliefs of other groups, say Muslims, Jews, or Mormons, may well be false and based on inventions. But the people believing in these lies have often done very well in evolutionary terms and are continuing to do so. Ashkenazi Jewish eugenics proceeded for centuries in a religious context, resulting in a highly intelligent elite able to wield vast influence throughout the West. Islam expanded over hundreds of years, controlling vast territories, with leaders rewarded by large harems and many descendants; Islam is now rapidly expanding in Europe and has higher fertility than native Europeans. It’s well known that seriously religious, fundamentalist Christians in the West have more children on average than non-Christian Europeans, which is certainly adaptive. But they are also more likely to swear fealty to the interests of Israel and in general they are entirely resistant to being informed about the negative effects of multiculturalism or about Jewish cultural influence (whose effects they despise) or even Jewish traditional hostility toward Christianity.

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armor that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

So, in my view, it’s a complex story, and one that is far from finished.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (AuthorHouse, 2003; originally published: Praeger, 1998), Ch. 3.

[2] Quoted in Emilio Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude toward the Jews.” In W. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–656, 645).

[3] Miron Zuckerman, et al., “The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 6(2020): 856–868.