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

Featured Articles

Black Squawks and Random Walks: Taking an Inebriated Excursion in Bullshit Space

September 2, 2026/15 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Randomness is racist. And sexist too. How do we know this? Because the study of randomness in statistics and probability theory has been utterly dominated by White men. It was White men like the Italian Girolamo Cardano and the Frenchman Blaise Pascal who founded these fields when they studied the mathematics of dice and gambling in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was White men like the Englishman Thomas Bayes and the German Carl Friedrich Gauss who built on those foundations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And it was White men like the Englishman Karl Pearson and the Russian Andrey Kolmogorov who introduced sky-scraping new ideas and techniques in the twentieth century. From beginning to end, the study of randomness is rancid, rotten and reeking with stale pale maleness.

The Beautiful and the Bestial: the Bell Curve and the hate-book named after it (image from Wikipedia)

This is another example of what I’ve called the “Pale Male Paradox,” of “How White Men Achieve Most And Are Vilified Worst.” And one of great achievements of those stale pale probabilists was to show that randomness can produce regularity. And beauty too. Take the bell curve, the famous bell-shaped graph that captures the distribution of biological variables like height and intelligence. The bell curve is both regular and beautiful. And yet it grows out of randomness — out of the rolling of both real and genetic dice, for example. Imagine repeatedly rolling ten dice and counting how often you get a particular score. It’s obvious that there’s only one way to roll a score of 10 or 60 — all ten dice must roll 1 or 6 — but how many ways are there to roll scores of 30, 35 and 40? It’s 2930455, 4395456 and 2930455, respectively. You’re much more likely to get a middling score than an extreme score like 10 or 60. And there’s the same chance of getting a score of 30 or 40 (2930455 in 60466176 = 2930455 in 610), just as there’s the same chance of getting a score of 10 or 60 (1 in 60466176). There’s symmetry in the scores and so there’s symmetry in the bell curve that you get by plotting the count of scores on a graph.

Races roll with different dice: the exceptional Jewish math-genius Grigori Perelman and the exceptional Black killer-athlete O.J. Simpson (images from Wikipedia)

The symmetrical bell curve applies to biological gambling too. Reproduction is like rolling genetic dice: a middling score on some trait like height or intelligence is much more likely that a very high score or very low score. Giants and dwarves, geniuses and morons, are much rarer than people of middling height or intelligence. But human beings don’t all roll with the same genetic dice, particularly when it comes to intelligence. In a sense, you could say that Blacks roll with octahedral gene-dice (eight sides), Whites roll with dodecahedral gene-dice (twelve sides) and Ashkenazi Jews roll with icosahedral gene-dice (twenty sides). With ten octahedral dice, the best possible score is 80; with ten dodecahedral dice, the best possible score is 120; and with ten icosahedral dice, the best possible score is 200. That metaphor helps us to understand a huge statistical anomaly: that single Jewish individuals like Grigori Perelman (born 1966) and Emmy Noether (1882-1935) have contributed more to mathematics than all Blacks who have ever lived. How can this be so when Blacks have always far outnumbered Jews? Well, it’s because the genetic dice have been loaded by evolution. One person rolling ten icosahedral dice will almost always get a better score that any of a million people each rolling ten octahedral dice (about 98% of the time, the one person will beat the million).

“Go ahead and drown, best buddy!”

These differences in racial gene-dice explain why, in theory, a child born to two Ashkenazi Jewish parents is far, far likelier to end up as a professor at Cambridge University on merit than a child born to two Ghanaian parents. And reality has confirmed theory: the Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen got to Cambridge on merit; the Ghanaian Jason Arday got to Cambridge on a mixture of DEI and fraud. The scandal of Arday’s fraud was broken by Nathan Cofnas, another Ashkenazi Jew who got to Cambridge on merit and was then thrown out for blasphemy (that is, for “racism”). During the scandal, Baron-Cohen has been one of Arday’s staunchest supporters. He claims to have been a friend of Arday, but I strongly disagree with that claim. Imagine that a friend of yours came to you and said that he was planning to swim the English Channel or the Catalina Channel. But you know that your friend can’t swim. Would you clap him on the shoulder and tell him to go ahead with his crazy plan?

Of course you wouldn’t. You’d know that your friend would be literally out of his depth and would drown. So you’d do your best to make him recognize his limitations and abandon his wildly over-ambitious swim. Simon Baron-Cohen knew that Jason Arday was metaphorically out of his depth at Cambridge. Arday’s low intelligence and lack of academic rigor were surely obvious to Baron-Cohen, because Baron-Cohen is both genuinely intelligent and a genuine scholar. He must have known that Arday was a pseudo-scholar even by the standards of a pseudo-subject like “the sociology of education.” And so Baron-Cohen knew that, sooner or later, there would be a storm about Arday’s pseudo-scholarship and Arday would drown. If Baron-Cohen had genuinely been a friend of Jason Arday and had genuinely cared about Arday’s welfare, he would have set about removing Arday from his post as discreetly and kindly as possible. Baron-Cohen knew that Arday wasn’t at Cambridge on merit and that the longer Arday stayed there, the worse the outcome would be for both Arday and Cambridge.

“Jews 4 Jason!”: highly intelligent Jolyon Maugham (left) and Simon Baron Cohen (right) were firm supporters of stupid Jason Arday (middle)

But maybe Simon Baron-Cohen wanted the worst possible outcome. The problems caused by Black criminality and incompetence have been a potent way for Jews to undermine White societies, because Jews have blamed Whites for Black failure. Whatever his real motives, Simon Baron-Cohen was certainly one of the truth-trashing leftists responsible for Jason Arday’s suicide. Baron-Cohen signed the ludicrous letter in support of Arday at the Good Law Project (GLP), a self-righteous and self-aggrandizing leftist organization run by the truth-trashing leftist Jolyon Maugham, who’s at least half-Jewish by ancestry, identifies as Jewish, and has a Jewish wife. The GLP letter said that “[e]ntirely false allegations of plagiarism” had been made against Arday and that its signatories stood “in unwavering solidarity with Professor Arday” against “persistent attempts to discredit exceptional Black academics.” When Simon Baron-Cohen and other academics signed that letter, Nathan Cofnas had already proved that Arday was guilty of extensive plagiarism and that Arday was an exceptional Blackademic bullshitter, not an “exceptional Black academic.” In short, the signatories had leapt before they’d looked. When the more sensible ones did look, they realized they’d made fools of themselves. That’s why the “unwavering solidarity” began to waver and the more sensible signatories began to quietly remove their names from the letter. In the end, Simon Baron-Cohen did that too.

Let’s Squawk

But Baron-Cohen has joined the synthetic squawks of outrage since Arday’s suicide. The mostly Black squawkers are trying to blame Arday’s death on a “racist witch-hunt.” There was a “vigil” in Arday’s honor in London on 17th August 2026, at which members of Britain’s Black elite addressed a mostly Black crowd of 15,000 people. But as you’d expect, it wasn’t truly a vigil. No, it was a hate-rally, with most of the hate directed at Nathan Cofnas, who rightly commented: “There is an anti-Cofnas hate rally in Trafalgar Square with ~15,000 attendees. If I were in London there is a real possibility that I would be murdered. 1000s of academics & journalists knew the truth about Jason Arday for more than a year. Now you know why no one said anything.” In fact, the White journalist Jack Grove had tried to expose Arday for Times Higher Education, but his newspaper was silenced by the threat of ruinous legal costs.

Arday also reported Grove to the police. If Arday and Cambridge University hadn’t tried to maintain a cover-up like that, Arday’s misbehavior would have been exposed in the specialist education media, not in the general media during the “silly season,” when journalists are eager for stories, especially absurd and amusing ones. It’s yet another example of how Arday engineered his own downfall. But the Black elite speakers and Black attendees at that hate-rally were not interested in the inconvenient reality of Arday’s self-defeating stupidity. Instead, they wanted to pursue narcissistic Black fantasy. That’s why they were so intent on honoring the Black fraudster Arday and condemning the Jewish truth-teller Cofnas. In short, the rally was more proof that Blacks do not belong in Western nations. As a group, Blacks are incapable of understanding concepts like objective truth, academic rigor and statistical proof, let alone of applying those concepts in politics and academe. Blacks at the rally were still insisting that Arday got to Cambridge entirely on merit and was outrageously deprived of his wholly deserved professorship by nothing but the malevolent forces of “white racism” and “white supremacy.”

Elite Black intellectual Weyman Bennett, who called Arday’s downfall a “racist witch-hunt” (image from Socialist Worker)

Well, the highly ethnocentric Jew Nathan Cofnas makes a very poor White supremacist. But the Black speakers at the rally make an excellent case-study for Cofnas’s claims about Black intellectual mediocrity. It was the Black elite in Britain saying those risible things about Arday — the intellectual and ethical crème de la crème of the Community! But that wasn’t surprising. As anyone who’s debated with Blacks online will know, they often fail to understand mathematical concepts as simple as per capita. Do you think a dunderhead like Diane Abbott, the veteran Black Member of Parliament, has any grasp of the bell curve and of how even small differences in means can have big effects at the extremes? That is, a small difference between group A and group B on the average of some trait like height or intelligence may mean that group A contains far more very tall or very intelligent people (while group B contains far more very short or very stupid people).

Blacks can’t understand “per capita,” let alone the bell curve (images from KnowYourMeme and IFunny (the second image jokes about Blacks failing to replace batteries in fire-alarms too))

But the average intelligence of Whites and Blacks differs by a lot, not by a little. That’s why the Black squawks about the “under-representation” of Blacks in academe are so wrong and so ignorant. As the Jason Arday scandal has helped demonstrate yet again, Blacks are over-represented in academe, not under-represented. For example, I don’t believe that merit explains the honors showered on the Black academics Simon Woolley, Ijeoma Uchegbu, and Sonita Alleyne. They all hold prestigious posts at Cambridge and they all stood “in unwavering solidarity” with Jason Arday via the letter at the Good Law Project. Two of them, Uchegbu and Alleyne, then silently removed their names. Uchegbu was first to do that, perhaps because she’s by far the most intelligent of the three. She’s a “nano-scientist” and the President of Wolfson College at Cambridge. Far more White men had greater claim to the presidency than she did, but she had the trump hand of being B.F.U.: Black and Female.

The mediocre Blackademic Ijeoma Uchegbu, who holds the highly prestigious Presidency of Wolfson College (image from Wikipedia)

As part of their war on biological reality and objective merit, leftists favor Blacks over Whites, women over men, and the ugly over the attractive. But it’s ugliness and abnormality that most attract leftists, which is why they favor the ugly male perverts known as “transwomen” over real women. The Black woman Ijeoma Uchegbu would have appealed to them even more as a Black transwoman. But let’s be fair: Uchegbu is a genuine scientist, so I’m sure she can understand one of the most famous concepts in probability, that of the random walk through n-dimensional space. It’s also known as a drunkard’s walk, after the way a drunkard lurches, spins and totters to and fro, seemingly at random. But Uchegbu would hate to see the concept of a random or drunkard’s walk applied as a metaphor to the pseudo-scholarship of Jason Arday. Nevertheless, it applies very neatly.

The puddle is the paradigm

Or rather, it doesn’t apply, because Arday’s stupidity and laziness meant that he didn’t take the random walk that he should have done. In Uchegbu’s field of nano-technology, researchers aren’t taking random walks through three-dimensional space. No, they’re taking walks that are constrained by physics, chemistry, empiricism and applied mathematics. But in Jason Arday’s field of sociology, you could say that “researchers” are taking drunkard’s walks through bullshit space. As long as they arrive at the right conclusions — that Whites are evil, Blacks are oppressed — it doesn’t matter how they get there. They just take a drunkard’s walk through the bullshit space of sociological jargon and Critical Race Theory, clutching wildly at lamp-posts, falling over bins and street furniture, rolling down stairs, bouncing off walls, then finally collapsing in a puddle of their own vomit and urine. The puddle is the paradigm: Whites are evil, Blacks are oppressed.

I looked at Critical Race Theory or CRT when I discussed “Rollock’s Bollocks,” that is, the nonsense talked by Nicola Rollock, another Blackademic pseudo-scholar or BPS. But the difference between the BPS Nicola Rollock and the BPS Jason Arday is that Nicola hasn’t been lazy in her pseudo-scholarship. Whenever she has recorded a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space, she has actually undertaken the walk for herself. Here’s a small sample of how she undertook such a walk in a paper called “The Invisibility of race: Intersectional reflections on the liminal space of alterity” (brace yourself, folx):

I make use of the Critical Race Theory tool of chronicling (counter-narrative) to help demonstrate the complex, multifaceted and often contradictory ways in which ambitions for race equality often represent lofty organisational ideals within which genuine understanding of racism is lacking. […] Drawing on Wynter’s (1992) theorisation of the concept of marginality, Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 373) posit that racialised others occupy a ‘liminal space of alterity’ that is, a position at the edges of society from which their identities and experiences are constructed. They remain at the margins through acts and frequent reminders from dominant groups that regardless of achievement, qualification or status they are locked in ‘the power dynamic and hierarchical racial structures’ that serve to maintain unequal order in society (Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 372).

Yet Wynter (1992) insists that rather than regarding this space as a site of dismal subjugation, those excluded from the centre can experience a certain profound analytical insight that is ‘beyond the normative boundary of the conception of Self/Other’ (Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 373). In other words, it is precisely from this position in the margins that racialised others are able to acquire not simply an ‘oppositional world-view’ (hooks 1990, 149) but what might be understood as a unique surround vision that is able to recognise and deconstruct the multifaceted contours of Whiteness and therefore advance the broader objectives of the racial justice project. Such an all-encompassing analytic perspective is particularly important to challenge and move beyond the not seeing nature of Whiteness that works to perpetuate a racially inequitable status quo: “One of the most powerful and dangerous aspects of whiteness is that many (possibly the majority) of white people have no awareness of whiteness as a construction, let alone their own role in sustaining and playing out the inequities at the heart of whiteness.” (Gillborn 2005, 9) [etc, etc, ad nauseam nigrolatriae] (“The Invisibility of race: Intersectional reflections on the liminal space of alterity,” as published in the “Special issue: Critical race theory in England” of Race, Ethnicity & Education, 15 [1], pp 65-84)

That is a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space. And Rollock and her fellow Blackademic pseudo-scholars are indeed drunk. They’re drunk on CRT, self-righteousness, Black grievance, and self-worshiping Afrocentric fantasy. But note that whenever Nicola Rollock has spun around a lamp-post or fallen over a bin, she’s been careful to note its location by citing the previous pseudo-scholar who put it there. Accordingly, that record of her drunkard’s walk is trustworthy as a record: it really was her feets, and nobody else’s, that did the walking. You could say that Rollock is a genuine pseudo-scholar. Her academic work is worthless, but it is her own work and it carefully mimics real scholarship in its citations and so on.

Arday’s exposure was inevitable

But Jason Arday was fake even in his pseudo-scholarship. Rather than chug a gallon of CRT and record his own drunkard’s walk through bullshit space, he copied someone else’s drunkard’s walk through bullshit space. And that was fatal. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, it’s almost certain that no-one, including Arday himself, actually read Arday’s PhD thesis after he’d completed it and put it forward for examination. After all, there’s a rogue apostrophe even in the title of that thesis: “An exploration of peer-mentoring among student teachers’ to inform reflective practice within the context of action research.” In the cargo-cults of sociology and CRT, the point is to mimic genuine scholarship, not to perform it. But Arday was too stupid and lazy even to mimic genuine scholarship. If he’d performed and recorded a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space entirely for himself, no-one could have challenged his thesis for plagiarism. But he didn’t: he tried to claim for himself someone else’s drunkard’s walk through bullshit space.

So he was always doomed to fall when a genuine scholar with moral courage came along and ran his thesis through plagiarism software. The Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen must have known that, sooner or later, Arday would be exposed as a fraud. But he did nothing to prepare Arday for the inevitable and persuade Arday out of academe for Arday’s own good. The irony is that it was another Ashkenazi Jew, Nathan Cofnas, who proved to be Arday’s nemesis as a genuine, albeit ethnocentric, scholar with moral courage. The Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen, on the other hand, is a genuine scholar without moral courage. Or rather, Baron-Cohen’s morality tells him that Blackademic bullshitters like Jason Arday are good for Jews, whereas Cofnas’s morality tells him that they’re bad for Jews. That’s why Baron-Cohen supported Arday and Cofnas exposed him. This might look like two Jews with two opposing opinions. In fact, it’s two Jews with one opinion: “We must do what’s best for Jews.” Baron-Cohen and Cofnas disagree only about how to achieve that all-important end. Like a debate in the Knesset.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2026-09-02 08:03:582026-09-03 03:14:59Black Squawks and Random Walks: Taking an Inebriated Excursion in Bullshit Space

The Corrupt Regime’s New Tactic: Banning Foreign Speakers

September 1, 2026/17 Comments/in Featured Articles, Political Correctness/by Edward Dutton

At the end of August, a group of British traditionalists, nationalists and freethinkers held their annual conference in Bedfordshire in the south of England. “The Witan,” as it is known, with reference to the group of wise men who helped to rule Anglo-Saxon England, attracts an audience that is mainly male, under-40 and “based.” And it is part of a growing rebellion against Woke by the younger generation who have been raised knowing little else. One of the people whom they invited to speak was the Danish independent IQ researcher Emil Kirkegaard, with whom I have written many academic studies. Kirkegaard, who had designed a detailed power-point presentation, made his way to the airport. However, he was prevented from boarding the plane.

As a citizen of the European Union, you require a “visa waiver” (ESTA) in order to come to the UK. Kirkegaard had obtained one of these and it had been confirmed, but upon trying to board his flight it emerged that his visa waiver had mysteriously been revoked and he could not board. He was handed a letter by the airline titled “AUTHORITY TO CARRY REFUSED.” It explained that the UK Home Office had refused the airline permission to fly Kirkegaard to Britain. A Home Office email, which Kirkegaard had missed because it was sent at about 3am on the day of his flight, later gave Kirkegaard the reason, “Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good.” Kirkegaard was invited to apply for a visa but, naturally, he would almost certainly have been rejected.

All Kirkegaard had planned to do was give a speech about his research; the kind of research he’s been doing since 2013. His presentation, which he had to give via a video-link, was entitled “How much can we boost fertility rates?” Frighteningly, as Kirkegaard tried to work out what had happened, he realised that the previous year he had successfully entered the UK to attend the Heterodox Conference at Buckingham University. The UK’s only private university, it is the country’s only institute of higher education that is effectively anti-Woke. As such, he hadn’t needed to re-apply for an ESTA because they last a number of years and he already had a valid one. However, he didn’t realise this, so he did re-apply, and this was his mistake.

One year earlier, then, the British government had had no problem letting Kirkegaard into the country to attend a conference; in 2026, however, they did have a problem. Hence, despite all the talk of how we have reached “peak Woke,” it appears we are now seeing a counter-reaction against the rise of anti-Woke forces. It is possible that this is merely a coincidence and that an academic conference was acceptable but a more political one, like the Witan, was not. But it seems more likely that the Home Office is infested with Woke civil servants who, between May last year when he got his original visa waiver and now, have decided to make life more difficult for those who question their dogmas.

Not long ago, you had to be relatively prominent on the “far right” to be banned from the UK. In 2018, Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone and Lauren Southern were all refused entry, but now, it seems, even an independent academic coming to a small conference is persona non grata. Woke civil servants, in other words, are ramping up the pressure. Civil servants are supposed to be scrupulously politically neutral but, since 1997, there has been a cultural revolution in the UK and a Gramscian Long march Through the Institutions, so everyone knows that this is not the case. The British government openly takes advice from the “anti-racist” group “Hope Not Hate,” a group whose head has admitted to lying about racist attacks and “far right” riots, arguing that it was for the public good that he did so. Kirkegaard is on their list of dissidents; of people whose opinions, for these regime-enforcers, are unacceptable. Clearly, feeling that the dominance of their ideology is increasingly under attack, their sympathisers in the Home Office are getting desperate. And the one thing they can do to make life for their opponents difficult, and demoralise them slightly, is banning foreign speakers from their conferences. Similarly, they can feel a renewed sense of power by stopping foreigners whom they dislike from entering the UK.

It is not only the British civil service that are behaving in this way. The same weekend as the Witan, there was a remigration conference in Canada run by the Dominion Society of Canada. One of their speakers, Austrian activist Martin Sellner, was refused entry to the country, while another, Charlie Downes, who was there to represent the UK political party Restore Britain, was held at the border and subjected to a lengthy interrogation before, eventually, being permitted entry. This is despite the fact that the party which he represented actually has a Member of Parliament and a number of councillors.

Jared Taylor was banned from the Schengen zone for two years but has been traveling freely in Europe lately, much to the dismay of leftist publications like Searchlight. But recently, the Irish dissident Keith Woods applied for an ESTA in order to speak at a forthcoming conference in the US. This was denied, so he went to the American Embassy in Dublin to apply for an actual visa. He was interviewed about his “far right” connections and duly refused a visa to enter the US. (So much for the Trump administration’s fight against DEI which has mainly been focused on opposition to pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses.)

In May 2026, there was a “Remigration Conference” in Porto in Portugal. German delegates were prevented, by edict of the German government, from boarding their plane to attend this conference, even though the Portuguese government had no problem admitting them and there is free movement within the European Union’s Schengen Zone. Farcically, the delegates were able to get round this by simply driving to Portugal, as there are no land borders within the zone. The German authorities must have known that these delegates could get to Portugal by car, so the only possible reason to prevent them flying was spite and a desire to feel powerful; to make the lives of those you hate inconvenient, to sap their morale.

Clearly, as there is an on-going reaction against Woke, the tactic of the beleaguered Woke civil servant is to corruptly use her power to prevent speakers entering her country, intimidate them if they can find no means of preventing their entry, and even to prevent opponents from leaving her country. This spite is entirely compatible with the high Neuroticism that predicts being left-wing and, it seems to me, it only increases a sense of solidarity and togetherness among her opponents. It will only make the fissioning of Western societies along political lines more likely.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Edward Dutton https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Edward Dutton2026-09-01 08:02:182026-09-01 08:03:18The Corrupt Regime’s New Tactic: Banning Foreign Speakers

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Rupert Lowe’s Restore UK parties compared and contrasted

August 30, 2026/17 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Martin Webster

I was very grateful that The Occidental Observer published this very important article about the Jewish strategy for diverting and subverting white Nationalist political parties — not just in America, but everywhere on the planet where European people survive:

Beware of Yoram Hazony’s Attempts to Subvert Nationalism

The process set out in this TOO item is more-or-less the method by which Nigel Farage MP’s Reform UK party has been swallowed whole by the Jewish hydra.

Farage’s Deputy, Richard Tice MP, went on an all-expenses-paid (by the Israeli government) pilgrimage to Israel a couple of months ago. For some reason Farage did not join him. The Wailing Wall, Yad Vashem and all the other locations at which Gentiles must grovel were on the itinerary.

At about the same time, Reform UK announced the formation of a ‘Reform UK Friends of Israel’ organisation, just like similar organisations set up by the Conservative, Labour, Liberal-Democrats and other Establishment parties.

Now some MPs (identity unknown — possibly Corbynite anti-Zonist Labour) have instigated a Parliamentary Standards investigation into Tice’s failure to record in his Declaration of Interests who paid the costs of his trip to Israel. He will have to answer “The Israel Government”. Tice has described this demand for information “antisemitic”.

The Restore UK party is a breakaway party from Reform UK. It seems to welcome and protect those of its senior (and junior) membership who have been denounced by the pro-Jewish media as “antisemites”. Restore UK’s leader, Rupert Lowe, is an MP.

The co-founder of Restore UK, 25-year-old Charlie Downes, is under Jewish media fire for “suggesting that Reform UK has been bought by the Jews”.

His act of “suggestion” was posting (without comment) a photo of Farage, Tice and other Reform UK figures on the ‘Reform UK Friends of Israel’ platform with various Israeli and Jewish symbols on display.

This photo had been circulated to the media by Reform UK, but on the ‘nudge-nudge, wink-wink’ understanding that the photos were not for publication but simply evidence to prove what good pro-Jewish boys and girls they were and that they had passed Jewry’s ‘Entry to the Establishment’ test.

Another senior Restore UK campaigner, Frank Wright, based in Newbury, Berkshire, is also under fire for posting on a Restore UK site an ABC of Zionism article which asserted that the Israelis were responsible for the “9/11” attacks on the Twin Towers in New York.

Rupert Lowe is refusing to sack either man; on the contrary, he has praised both of them.

Please see attached Daily Telegraph report of 12th August 2026 and the attached Restore UK leaflet: Sexual Offences in the UK by NATIONALITY.

Martin Webster’s website is Anglo-Celtic.org.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Martin Webster https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Martin Webster2026-08-30 05:17:452026-08-30 05:17:45Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Rupert Lowe’s Restore UK parties compared and contrasted

A Note on Jews and Feminism

August 29, 2026/26 Comments/in Featured Articles, Gender/by F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.

My recent review of Janice Fiamengo’s The Goddess that Failed cited her summary of a study by four Israeli social psychologists of a personality trait they called “TIV,” or the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. Fiamengo considered it valuable as a description of a kind of woman frequently met with in feminist circles, and I agree. I also noted in my review that the Israeli origin of the researchers might not be an accident: readers of this site are familiar with the salience of victimhood within the self-concept of many Jews. I did not explore this question in the review, because I wished to keep the focus on Prof. Fiamengo’s ideas, but will try to address it briefly here.

Here, as a reminder, is Fiamengo’s summary of the TIV type:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

A look at the original paper by the Israeli psychologists (which can be read here) reveals that the ethnic angle did not escape the authors’ attention. They refer explicitly to the cult of the holocaust, and recognize that it can represent a moral hazard for their own people by way of the TIV personality. Good for them: we all know what epithet would have been assigned to any gentile researcher bold enough to make the same point.

Group differences are statistical, and the TIV personality presumably occurs at different rates in different races and ethnicities. It is likely to be elevated among Jews, although it would probably be futile to expect any objective research on this question in our current cultural and intellectual environment. But the TIV type can and does occur within other races.

Indeed, much group conflict over the past forty years has been aptly described as a “victimhood sweepstakes” wherein not only Jews and feminists but blacks, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other identity groups competitively jockey for moral authority by signaling their victimhood. The only group not allowed to participate in the sweepstakes—White, heterosexual, able-bodied men—are by now a distinct minority of the American population (possibly a third). So the increasing prominence of the personality type described by these Israeli researchers would seem to help explain many aspects of our historical moment, and not just feminism or Jewish-gentile conflict.

Anyone who writes against feminism as I do eventually encounters the thesis that it is all simply a product of Jewish subversion, often backed up with long lists of prominent Jewish second-wave feminists. Here is a popular graphic currently doing the rounds on the internet that embodies this thinking:

This view is historically myopic: it requires that one’s familiarity with feminism be limited to the American second wave, usually dated from 1963. But feminist ideas have been widely circulating in the West since the eighteenth century, and not only in the form of Mary Wollstonecraft’s celebrated tract. A review of long-forgotten German debates for and against the “emancipation of women” in the 1780s and -90s, for example, reveal that there is not much novel in twentieth century feminism (cf. Klaus Epstein’s The Genesis of German Conservatism pp. 229–236). Indeed, we have plentiful evidence that similar ideas were discussed in ancient Athens, as witness book 5 of Plato’s Republic and Aristophanes’ comedy The Assemblywomen. Western man did not need the Jews to invent feminism for us.

It remains true, however, that Jews have been massively overrepresented in second wave feminism—by far the most successful version, as they have been in other forms of twentieth-century radicalism, and this calls for explanation. A good place to start might be the work of the above-discussed Israeli psychologists on the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. If Jews are indeed especially susceptible to this “toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness,” it would explain much of their involvement in destructive movements such as feminism without our having to assume the existence of a conscious conspiracy to subvert alien races.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.2026-08-29 05:16:162026-08-29 05:26:50A Note on Jews and Feminism

Dumb Genes and Dead Teens: How Two Crime-Crews Crashed into Biological Reality

August 28, 2026/20 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Imagine you’re a Martian. You don’t know a syllable of any Earthly language or a symbol of any Earthly script. This being so, which of these sentences in English would you think was the odd one out?

  1. It’s hot in here with the goats.
  2. It’s not in here with the coats.
  3. The temperature is elevated at this caprine-congregated locality.

If you were a Martian, you’d surely think sentence #3 is the odd one out, whether you saw the sentences written or heard them spoken. After all, sentences #1 and #2 are only fractionally different in two places, while sentence #3 differs entirely from both of them. Yet it’s sentence #2 that’s the odd one out, saying something completely different from #1 and #3. Meaning is what’s important: the output of the symbols, not the similarity of the symbols. Very different sentences can have very similar meanings; very similar sentences can have very different meanings.[1]

Bodies, brains and behaviors

That’s true in all symbolic fields, from linguistics to mathematics to genetics: tiny changes in the coding can have huge effects on the output. In genetics, a tiny change can mean the difference between life and death: changing one A to T in the four-letter genetic code can mean fatal organ damage or stroke. That’s part of why it’s ludicrous to argue that all races and both sexes of human beings must be very similar in cognition and psychology because their genes are very similar. Does that apply to dogs? No, of course not. Chihuahuas and Great Danes, collies and borzois, have very similar genes and very different bodies and brains. Chihuahuas are tiny, Great Danes are huge; collies are clever, borzois are stupid.[2] Indeed, it’s astonishing to think that chihuahuas are a sub-species of wolf, the common ancestor of all dogs. Tiny changes in lupine genes have created the bewildering variety of canine bodies, brains and behaviors.

Same species, very different specifics: Dogs are a sub-species of wolf (images from Wikipedia)

What applies to dogs also applies to humans, because we have not floated free of biology and DNA as the left would like to pretend. Take Travellers. They’re an inbred, nomadic, criminally inclined, low-IQ group from Ireland that behave remarkably like Gypsies, who originally came to Europe from India. But Travellers aren’t in fact Gypsy in their genetics. No, their genetics are very similar to those of the Irish Whites among whom they emerged very recently. But similarity in genes does not mean similarity in behavior. You could say that Travellers look White and behave Black: they excel at crime and violence; they fail in education and employment. Like Blacks, Travellers despise the White majority that surrounds them, regarding them as fit only for predating and parasitizing. Travellers routinely enslave vulnerable Whites, tricking or coercing the homeless and mentally ill into working without pay and living in filthy housing, sometimes for decades. In effect, Travellers are White Gypsies, which is why they themselves identify with non-White Gypsies and are so often linked with Gypsies. The champion boxer Tyson Fury is a Traveller, but calls himself “The Gypsy King.”

Time and Gene-Space

If it’s astonishing that chihuahuas are the same species as wolves, it’s also astonishing that such a good boxer as Fury has emerged in such a small group as Travellers. Or is it? In fact, no, it isn’t. Travellers have self-selected for fighting and aggression, just as Jews have self-selected for scholarship and cognition. And so the tiny group of Jews produces a wildly disproportionate number of geniuses and fraudsters, just as the tiny group of Travellers produces a wildly disproportionate number of boxers and criminals. Yet Jewish evolution for higher intelligence seems to have begun as recently as the Middle Ages. Traveller evolution for lower intelligence and higher aggression seems to have begun even later: they first emerged as a distinct, inbreeding group “around the mid-17th century.”

Gang-signs and gold chains: the White-looking, Black-acting Traveller thieves and thugs who died in the same way in Ireland (above) and England (images from Irish Independent and the London Independent)

That’s an eyeblink of evolutionary time. But the tiny distance Travellers have moved in time and gene-space has had huge effects on their brains and behavior. Britain has just witnessed two glaring examples of bad Traveller behavior in what you could call a crashing coincidence. On 16th August, four teenaged Travellers and a friend with a Polish name died in a head-on collision in Ireland. They’d been driving the wrong way at high speed down a motorway to evade the police. On 22nd August, four more teenaged Travellers and a friend with a Polish name died in another head-on collision in England.[3] Again, they’d been driving the wrong way at high speed down a motorway to evade the police. And the two groups didn’t just die in the same way. They’d lived in the same way too, as thugs and thieves. So consider this: Travellers are a tiny group and almost identical in their genetics to the general White British population. So how could Travellers have produced two very similar sets of stupid and reckless criminals who died in the same way in such a short space of time?

Flocking and fornicating

Well, Travellers couldn’t have produced that crashing coincidence if leftist propaganda about human genetics were correct. Leftists have a core commandment of “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy,” so they say that all humans are the same under the skin. Some leftists are lying when they say that, some are simply deluded. We’re not the same under the skin even if we have the same skin, as Travellers and the White British do. And when I talked about those friends “with a Polish name” above, I was choosing my words carefully. I think the friends with apparently Polish names will have been Gypsies or from some other equivalent of the Travellers in Poland. Birds of a feather flock together. Birds of a feather fornicate together too, because August isn’t the only month of 2026 when Travellers have hit the headlines in a disturbing way. There was a scandal in June about teenaged Travellers not being sent to jail after being found guilty of committing and filming two rapes. But like the car-crashers, the rapists hit the headlines only as criminals, not as Travellers. The mainstream media censor the race and religion of minority criminals whenever they can. This is in accordance with another core commandment of leftism: “Thou shalt not see patterns, except when they’re not there.”

And so leftists have stayed silent about the obvious ethnic pattern in those two deadly car-crashes, while shouting about a pattern that wasn’t there at all in the crashes. Leftists haven’t condemned the Traveller criminality that caused the crashes. Instead, they’ve condemned the social media that didn’t cause the crashes. The left hate social media because the truth is spoken there, so they’re trying to bring it under firm leftist control. There is an undeniable trend of young men filming themselves driving dangerously on public roads for social-media kudos, but those two sets of Traveller car-crashers weren’t taking part in the trend. They drove the wrong way on the motorway to escape the police, not to film themselves for social media. There’s another ethnic pattern that the mainstream media are staying silent about: an astonishing 50% of Travellers, predominantly male, die before the age of 39 in road accidents and other violent ways, while 70% of Travellers fail to live past 59.

Importing more savagery

That’s what happens when the genetically mediated stupidity and aggression of Travellers meet the genetically mediated inventiveness and technology of Whites. As a group, Travellers can produce world-class boxers like Tyson Fury, but they can’t produce world-class inventors like Carl Benz (1844-1929), the great German pioneer of Mercedes-Benz fame and der Vater des Automobils. Travellers steal and misuse high-performance cars rather than inventing and building them. And yet, genetically speaking, Travellers are almost identical to Whites and have been evolving as a distinct group for only a few centuries. That tiny movement in time and genetic space has had huge consequences for the cognition and criminality of Travellers. Their intelligence and insight have fallen; their thieving and thuggery have risen. But Britain’s leftists haven’t been content for us to have one indigenous group rich in stupid criminals, namely Travellers, and one immigrated group rich in stupid criminals, namely Gypsies. No, leftists have imported lots more groups of stupid criminals from all over the Third World. Take Pakistanis. Like Travellers, Pakistanis don’t excel at invention and technology, but they do excel at rape and dangerous driving:

More gang-signs from more car-cretins: the three inbred Pakistanis self-slain in Bolton (image from LBC)

A two-car crash that killed four people in [the heavily enriched English town of] Bolton on Sunday was a “tragedy waiting to happen” in an area that has seen regular crashes in recent months a neighbour has said. Taxi driver Masrob Ali, 54, from Blackburn, Lancashire, died when his car was involved in the head-on collision on Wigan Road.

Three teenagers also died – Muhammad Danyaal Asghar Ali, 19, Farhan Patel, 18, and Mohammed Jibrael Mukhtar, 18 – all from Bolton. Gulam Patel, who has lived on Wigan Road for 25 years, said there had been “four or five” crashes on the road in just the last year.

“It’s happened before but this time it’s four lives gone,” the 61-year-old said. He said the situation was “frightening” for the families who live on the street and speed cameras or speed bumps need to be installed to slow drivers down. (“Bolton fatal crash was ‘tragedy waiting to happen’,” BBC News, 13th January 2026)

Whites are the inventors and innovators of the car; Pakistanis and Travellers are the idiots and abusers of the car. Those eight dead Travellers and four dead Pakistanis were killed just as much by their genetics as by their dangerous driving. Without the one, we wouldn’t have the other.


[1]  Note that a thoughtful Martian might well recognize that nearly identical sentences in a Terrene language could have very different meanings, because that would presumably also be in true in whatever language or languages were used on Mars. But it wouldn’t be true if Martians communicated by telepathy or some other non-symbolic system.

[2]  Borzois have been bred to have narrow skulls, with unpleasant consequences for borzoi brains and behavior.

[3]  Thousands of future crimes have been prevented by the deaths of the ten youths, but unfortunately the crash in Ireland seriously injured those in the other car and the crash in England killed two policemen in the other car.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2026-08-28 06:08:282026-08-28 06:08:28Dumb Genes and Dead Teens: How Two Crime-Crews Crashed into Biological Reality

Jewish woman praises WWII Germans! SS man singled out as a true gentleman

August 27, 2026/25 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ganainm

Book review. Gone to Ground: One Woman’s Extraordinary Account of Survival in the Heart of Nazi German
Marie Jalowicz Simon. 2014

Marie Jalowicz Simon survived WWII as a Jew in Berlin. From 1942 she was illegal, but survived . She was helped by hundreds of Germans. Thousands knew about her. Nobody snitched

She is full of praise for the Germans who helped her. She names her managers at her forced labour job at Siemens and praises them to the skies. She names various SS, SA and other enthusiastically anti-Semitic people who helped her, because she was obviously just a Little Jew, not one of those nasty Big Jews that everybody loves to hate.

She came to a realization that might be useful in stopping the current Israeli slaughter. Is there some way to transmit this message to the Israeli population about the general Little Jew population over the world? It might help reduce the persecution mania.

I realized that the same Aryan Germans who hated the rich Jew from the big house like poison…had nothing against starving young girls who worked hard, just as he did himself.

This story could be made into a superb TV comedy. It is a wonderful antidote to the horrific allegations of widespread German cruelty towards the Jews.

Marie is by her own account, mostly kosher, mildly Zionist and enthusiastically communist. Praising goys is forbidden by the Jewish religion. Even accepting a favour from a non-Jew invokes a blessing on the non-Jew and therefore should be avoided. The socialist and Zionist will also object to the praise of Germans.

Her words of praise are somewhat swamped by the amount of insulting and scandalous details she reveals about the people who risked their necks to help her. A Dutchman saved her by allowing her to live unregistered in his apartment for two years. She is quite insulting about the man, considering that if discovered the authorities could potentially charge him with a crime and even hang him.

She is gracious enough to describe how she provoked him into throwing a boot at her and giving her a black eye. She admits that she was behaving outrageously.

She reveals much of her personality: cruel thoughts about people who helped her and a remarkable tendency to tell lies when there was absolutely no advantage to lying. At the end of the war, the Dutchman invites her to come back to Holland with him. She declines and advises him not to tell people that she declined, but instead to tell the lie that he could not find her.

She has very high praise for the postmen of Berlin. If they were prepared to swear to the authorities that they knew the person, it could help with getting a type of ID card. Not one Berlin postman refused to help!

She describes a sociological experiment she persuaded her two glamourous Jewish lady friends to take part in. They dressed up well and put on their newly obligatory yellow stars. Then they asked various policemen for directions. When the cops advised them to take public transport, they sweetly told him that as Jews, they were forbidden to use it except for getting to and from work. When the cop suggested a route through central Berlin, they told him that they were forbidden even to walk in those areas. The cops were embarassed at the restrictions. One policeman gave them good advice, which they followed: You don’t look like Jews. Take the stupid star off and nobody will know any different.

In some ways being a Jew in Nazi Berlin was a bit like being unvaxxed in the Covid era—stupid restrictions on Little Jews while Big Jews bought Aryan certs and partied with the Nazis.

She tells how by the right attitude, an awkward situation can be resolved. A minor official threatens to have her arrested because she didn’t have her ID card with her. She starts thanking him profusely for not arresting her and promising that she will carry her ID card in future. He relents.

She prepared a plan for her arrest. It worked. She feigned unconcern when the policeman knocked on her door in the early morning and told her she must come to the station for questioning. But she asked about food. It might take many hours, the policeman agreed. She asked if she might go downstairs and some get bread from a neighbour. “I’m half naked, in my slip. You know I won’t run onto the street.”

He says OK. She unobtrusively picks up her wallet and a bottle as she leaves. She plans to use the bottle to hit the second cop over the head, if necessary. At the main door, the other cop is waiting. She switches roles and pretends her two-year-old boy has locked her out of the house and she must go for two minutes to get the spare key from her mother-in-law’s place.

She also makes a suggestive remark to him, which causes him to roar with laughter and slap her on her rump and she goes out the door. She walks slowly, turns the corner and runs.

She asks the first person she meets for help: “The cops want to arrest me! Can you help me?”. It’s an old German man. Of course he can. He gives her his coat and walks with her to friends where she can get more clothes.

It seems that she got much more practical help from random Aryan Germans than she got from fellow Jews — even her own family. This is an important message that every Little Jew should be made aware of.

It is greatly to her credit that she does not spare Hebrew blushes when she describes bad behaviour by her tribesmen. This reviewer strongly suspects that in the 600 pages that did not appear in the book, there is much unflattering commentary about the behaviour of Big Jews in Berlin during the war and their links to the Nazis. She was a native Berliner who knew all sorts of people. She heard the rumours and they must be in the extra pages.

Her description of the SS manager in Siemens is the portrait of an honest and decent man. She claims that she and the SS man closely resembled each other and they were both aware of it.

At break time the Jewish girls used to boast about how much their various managers loved the Jews. Some were smuggling in sandwiches for them.

There was only one nasty German at Siemens, and Jalowicz specifically states his nastiness was nothing to do with Nazis.

It seems that management/labour relations were better in the Siemens’ forced labour workshops than in many modern workplaces.

She describes only a handful of times where someone was suspicious of her and threatened to call the police. Only once does she describe rude behaviour by a state official. In the busy waiting room of the Jewish Labour Office, a guy is desperate to know if he can smoke. The head of the whole office is passing by and she asks him whether smoking is allowed. He roars an ethnic insult at her. But he doesn’t hit her or punish her in any way.

That is it. That is the only insulting remark made to her by an official of the German state.

The book is based on 77 tapes recorded in the months before her death. They yielded 900 pages, but only one third made it to the book. What was omitted?

There is a lot of detail of her daily life and scandal, and very little on political matters.

Zionist collaboration with Hitler was well known at the time, as was his collaboration with strongly Jewish communists. Rumours of Jewish ancestry amongst high-ranking Nazis were commonplace. Otto Strasser tells us that even amongst Party leaders, it was common to ask what Adolf was doing in Munich in 1919 when a Jewish communist revolt was ongoing? Was the Fuehrer a Jew-loving communist in 1919?

The missing 600 pages must surely have some comments on these questions.

Hitler’s numerous Jewish helpers must have been an inspiration to the thousands of Big Jew-hating Berliners who knew she was illegal but didn’t snitch on her.

“If mein leiber Fuehrer can have Jewish SS men (Oppenheimer), financiers (Schroeder), doctors (Morell), girlfriends (Eva, Geli Raubal), soldiers (150k), PR guys (Lazar) and sundry assistants, there can be no harm in me turning a blind eye to this charming little Jewish girl.”

After the war, she had a successful academic career in east Germany. Her son is a historian and edited the book.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ganainm https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ganainm2026-08-27 08:11:232026-08-27 15:46:49Jewish woman praises WWII Germans! SS man singled out as a true gentleman

The New Elders of Zion

August 25, 2026/32 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Influence/by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

Anyone who has looked into the Jewish Question, and even many who have not, likely have at least a passing awareness of the infamous document known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—or ‘Protocols’ for short. This small booklet, which first emerged in Russia around 1900, purports to lay out something of a plan for Jewish world domination.[1] Loosely organized into 24 short essays or individual protocols, this rambling, anonymous work portrays itself as a sort of ‘meeting minutes’ or ‘lecture notes’ from an evidently prominent and influential speaker, talking to a group of (presumably) Jews, explaining the means and mechanisms by which they will dominate individual nations and eventually the world via a master leader called “the Sovereign.”

As one might imagine, such a work has been roundly condemned as one of the most anti-Semitic publications of the 20th century. It has also—owing to its anonymity and fuzzy origins—been regularly denounced as a “forgery”; this assertion relies primarily on textual similarities to passages from an 1865 book by a Jewish writer, Maurice Joly, titled Dialogue in Hell. And because it is a forgery, we are told, the work as a whole is bogus and invalid, and therefore ought to be utterly disregarded.

But this, of course, is nonsense. Even if the writer lifted certain passages from Joly’s book as he was writing in (say) the late 1800s, that does not invalidate any truths in it; it simply reveals the author to be a bit of a plagiarist. The protocols could still be legitimate versions or encapsulations of some actual Jewish plan. But since we do not even know if the writer was a Jew (conveying in summary form an actual plan) or a non-Jew (attempting to make the Jews look bad), it is almost impossible to make clear and accurate determinations here.

As for myself, I do claim some knowledge of the origins and context of the Protocols, having edited and translated a new edition of this work in 2023: Protocols of the Elders of Zion: The Definitive English Edition, published by Clemens & Blair. This work includes the full Protocols in a new, readable American English translation, as well as early commentaries from 1920 and 1921, and later analyses by National Socialist and contemporary thinkers. In what follows below, I will be citing this edition.

First appearing in print in Russia in 1903, the Protocols gained some initial traction there during the first Russian Revolution of 1905, a conflict (really, a civil war) in which a force led by the Jew Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jew Vladimir Lenin violently confronted Czar Nicholas II; the Jews were defeated, but their actions would certainly have at least given credence to a Jewish movement to dominate Russia.

Then came World War One in 1914. The war raged in Europe for three long years, often devolving into a trench-warfare stalemate. England, though, was in increasingly difficult shape, especially into the second half of 1916; in the Battle of the Somme that year, they lost upwards of 600,000 soldiers. Becoming desperate for assistance, the Brits then made a “contract with Jewry” (Temperley) by which they agreed to help the Zionist Jews obtain a homeland in Palestine, if American Jews would bring the U.S. into the war against its will. Pressure on Woodrow Wilson quickly intensified, and he yielded in April of 1917, declaring war on Germany. Britain then reciprocated by drafting the Balfour Declaration, which was signed in November of that year.[2]

Then in March 1917, Russian czar Nicholas was ousted, paving the way for a Jewish-Bolshevik takeover of that nation in October. Jewish activity culminated in late 1918, when Germany collapsed and was defeated, thanks in large part to the revolutionary activity of German Jews like Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, Karl Radek, and Kurt Eisner. Thereafter, Jews led the formation of the so-called Weimar government in Germany, dominating that nation for several years—until the rise of Hitler.

Thus, in relatively quick succession, it became obvious to many people that Jewish wartime activity had led to their taking power in Russia and Germany, and demonstrated their dominance over Britain and America. The Jews truly were “taking over the world.” Consequently, the then-15-year-old Protocols, once a curiosity, could now be understood as a very real, very serious plan for world domination. Non-Jews everywhere had to face the Protocols as a literal blueprint for action, and to deal with it accordingly.

“Ruler of the Rulers”

We need to keep in mind two things at this point. One: The state of Israel obviously did not yet exist when the Protocols were written; Israel would not come into being until a UN General Assembly vote in 1947, and was not declared by the Jews until 1948.[3] For the writer(s) of the Protocols, they could only speculate about a future Jewish state in Palestine, which certainly was not imminent in 1900.[4]

Two: World power, however, was another matter. Well before 1900, Jews were already considered by many to be de facto “rulers of the world.” As early as 1798, German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that “the wealth of the Jews…apparently exceeds per capita that of any other nation at the present time”.[5] In 1823, the poet Lord Byron wrote “all states, all things, all sovereigns [the Jews] control”.[6] In 1843, Bruno Bauer observed that “the Jew…determines the fate of the whole [Austrian] Empire by his financial power. The Jew…decides the destiny of Europe”.[7] And perhaps more than Europe. In an essay of 1860, Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked on Jewish toughness, brought on by years of persecution and suffering: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew, has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth”.[8]

By 1850, German composer Richard Wagner could complain that much of European society was controlled by Jews. It was no longer a question of “emancipation” of the Jews but rather of coming to grips with their power. He wrote: “According to the present constitution of the world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipated; he rules, and will rule, so long as money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force.” Where money rules, Jews rule: this was his message. Hence, “Jewry itself is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.” In a follow-up essay of 1869, Wagner noted that the European press was “entirely directed by Jews”; control of the press, combined with their accumulated wealth, resulted in a Jewry that was “the mightiest organization of our time”.[9]

In 1873, writer Frederick Millingen published a booklet entitled “The Conquest of the World by the Jews.” There, he wrote that “the Jews…are now the wealthiest and most influential class of men; and [they] have attained a position of vast power, the likes of which we do not meet in all history”.[10] Specifically with respect to Germany, in 1879, journalist Wilhelm Marr issued an influential essay, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom,” decrying the fact that “Jewry has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis.” Into a naïve and innocent Germany “penetrated a smooth, crafty, pliable Jewry” that defeated “the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices”—that is, by exploiting his weaknesses. “Germany is finished,” concludes Marr.[11]

In 1880, Laurent Oliphant could write about the Jews’ “financial operations of the largest scale.” “Owing to the financial, political, and commercial importance to which the Jews have now attained,” they have become an indispensable ally in any future conflict.[12] Then, in his influential book Jewish France (1885), French journalist Edouard Drumont made a shocking and frankly unbelievable claim: “Jews possess half of the capital in the world.” Commenting specifically on France, he noted that the total wealth of that nation was around 150 billion francs, “of which the Jews possess at least 80 billion”—that is, slightly more than half.[13] A decade later, historian Goldwin Smith confirmed this view: “Judaism is now [in 1894] the great financial power of Europe, that is, it is the greatest power of all”.[14]

All this, then, had emerged and was circulating in intellectual circles well before the final version of the Protocols was written. Any talk there about world rule was not mere speculation; it was well underway. It was realistically attainable. And it was within grasp. All they had to do was stick to the plan.

And here it becomes clear, I think, that the identity of the author(s) of the Protocols is perhaps irrelevant. The document describes in fair detail the “Jewish plan” from ages past: Acquire wealth by hook or by crook, use that wealth to corrupt the government, and then use governmental power to tilt the playing-field even more in the favor of Jews. Strive, ultimately, for world control. Do all this while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to debase, degrade, humiliate, and destroy the Goyim (non-Jews); the world is a zero-sum game, and every loss for gentiles is a gain for Jews. Hold no moral code but “Jewry first.” Might makes right, and ends justify the means. This has been the plan for three thousand years, and it is the plan today; it has worked in the past, and it will surely work in the future. “God” (Yahweh) promised this to the Jews long ago, and he has proven true to his word. This is the message of the Protocols. Whether it is the exposé of an actual Jewish cabal or the work of some Jew-hating anti-Semite does not really matter. It lays out the actual plan in stark terms for all to see. We can either act on it, or choose to ignore it.[15]

Two Relevant Questions

In the remainder of this essay, I will focus on two issues: First, how does the plan look today, in light of recent world events? And second, who might plausibly count as the new “Elders of Zion”—that is, who are the most influential Jews (in America, at least), those who might be leading the charge toward Jewish domination?

Let me begin, then, by working through the protocols in sequence, pulling out some select passages that have a particular resonance today. In what follows, the reader must bear in mind that, here in America, both major political parties are dominated by Jewish money. Republicans receive at least 25% of their political funding from Jewish sources, and Democrats at least 50%.[16] Hence, the actions of both parties are reflective of Jewish wants and interests. American politics are Jewish politics, pure and simple.

In the end, the reader must judge for himself whether or not the following quoted passages conform to current events—passages that are now at least 125 years old.

“I will describe our system, both from our own viewpoint and from that of the Goyim” (P1, p. 77).[17] The word ‘goyim’ (plural of ‘goy’) is a Jewish term of contempt for non-Jews. This immediately marks it as a (nominal) Jewish document, one in which non-Jews, or gentiles, are viewed with utter disdain. This latter point is hardly contentious; if there is one dominant trait of Jewry from millennia past, it is a kind of misanthropy—a hatred for all non-Jews.[18] Such an attitude is well-documented in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, and in the Shulchan Aruch. This misanthropy has been a virtual hallmark of the Jewish people for thousands of years, and it holds as true today as ever; it is the key component of the Jewish supremacism that drives nearly all rich and powerful Jews.

“This task [of crushing those in power] becomes easier if the [Goy] ruler himself has embraced the idea of freedom, of ‘liberalism’” (P1, p. 77). Liberalism, loosely defined as a broad freedom of thought and action, has proven useful to Jews because it gives them license to unleash all sorts of detrimental, damaging ideas and institutions upon otherwise innocent people. In a tightly-run society that operates with oversight, moderation, and regulation, Jews are constrained in their options; in a free and liberal society, “anything goes,” and Jews have a free hand.

“Guided entirely by shallow passions, superstitions, customs, traditions, and sentimental theories, the mob becomes embroiled in party dissensions that prevent all possibility of reaching an agreement, even one based on perfectly sound reasoning. Every decision of the mob depends upon an accidental or prearranged majority… (P1, p. 78). In a democracy, the “mob,” the masses, rule; but their decisions are based on all sorts of irrational things (“shallow passions,” “superstitions,” etc.). Party strife—like ‘left’ versus ‘right’—overrides sound thinking and good judgement, even as the Jewish overseers are able to “prearrange” the outcome by manipulating the people via mass media.

“He who desires to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. Noble and popular qualities—like honesty and frankness—become vices in politics, as they will defeat a leader more rapidly than the most powerful enemy” (P1 p. 78). Jewish politics sinks to the lowest common denominator. Moral virtue in a politician is not only irrelevant, it is a handicap.

“Given the present instability of all authority, our power will be more unassailable than any other because it will be invisible until it is so well-rooted that no cunning can undermine it” (P1, p. 79). Jews are masters at hiding both their own identity and the effects of their action. Jewish power is indeed largely invisible to the common man; it takes a fair amount of effort to uncover the truth, even in this Internet age.

“The fact that the representatives of the nation can be replaced [via elections], delivers them into our power and practically places their appointment in our hands” (P1, p. 82). American elections are essentially a continuous string of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel candidates. When one leaves office, a new one is “elected” to take his or her place. Exceptions like Kentucky’s Thomas Massie are rare and largely powerless to effect change. Very recently, we have seen a slight shift toward more anti-Israeli (never anti-Jewish) rhetoric, but it remains to be seen how significant this will be.

“It is necessary for us that, whenever possible, wars should bring no territorial advantages; this will shift war to an economic basis and force nations to realize the strength of our predominance” (P2, p. 83). Jewish-instigated wars have shifted, since WW2, from territorial gains to economic gains; from territorial defeats to economic defeats. At one time, territory was important, but once Jews gained their Jewish state in 1948, territorial advancement became largely irrelevant—except of course for Israel, which has a never-ending thirst for more land—the Greater Israel project. (The Protocols are rife with explicit double-standards: rules that hold for Goyim but not for Jews.)

“The administrators chosen by us from among the people in accordance with their capacity for servility will be inexperienced in the art of government; consequently, they will easily become pawns in our game…” (P2, p. 83). Virtually all prominent politicians, and most minor ones, are utterly subservient to Jewish interests and Jewish money. Their careers live or die upon their conformance with the Jewish-Israeli line. This has been true for at least 50 years in America, but it is more obvious now than ever; just consider how many politicians call for a complete end of aid to Israel; for a prosecution of Israeli war crimes; for an open discussion about the pervasive role of Jews and Jewish money in government, business, academia, press, and entertainment—zero. Utter servility is the name of the game today.

“There is one great force in the hands of modern states that arouses thought movements among the people: the press. The press’ role is to indicate necessary demands, to register complaints of the people, and to express and promote dissatisfaction. The triumph of free speech is incarnated in the press; but governments have been unable to profit by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it, we have attained influence, while remaining in the background.” (P2, p. 84). Jews own, control, or otherwise dominate all the major US media corporations: Comcast (Brian Roberts), Disney (Dana Walden, and recently Bob Iger), Warner Bros (Michael DeLuca), Paramount Skydance (David and Larry Ellison), and Fox (Zionist Murdoch family, likely part-Jewish).

“Thanks to the press, we have gathered gold in our hands, although it cost us rivers of blood and tears. It cost us the sacrifice of many of our own people. But every sacrifice on our part is worth a thousand Goyim before God” (P2, p. 84). Of the ten richest Americans, at least five are Jews: Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Michael Dell. (Possible Jewish heritage of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would of course add to this number.) Not far down the list are other Jews, such as Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Yass, Stephen Schwarzman, Miriam Adelson, Marilyn Simons, Henry Samueli, Len Blavatnik, and Dan Gilbert. Much of their wealth comes from high tech, which is now effectively part of “the press.”

“Today I can tell you that our goal is close at hand. Only a small distance remains, and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent—the symbol of our people—will be complete. When this circle is completed, then all the European states will be enclosed in it, as in unbreakable chains” (P3, p. 85). The EU flag is circle of gold stars on a blue background; it was designed primarily by a Jew, Paul M. G. Levy. Europe is certainly under Jewish control today—both internally and indirectly, via the power of the U.S.

“To induce the lovers of authority to abuse their power, we have placed all forces in opposition to each other, having developed their liberal tendencies towards independence. We have encouraged every undertaking in this direction; we have placed formidable weapons in the hands of all parties, and made power the goal of every ambition. We turned governments into arenas in which party wars are fought out. Soon, chaos and bankruptcy will appear everywhere” (P3, p. 85). Political strife is an excellent means by which to distract from the real problem, namely Jewish manipulation and control of society.

“We, on the contrary, are concerned with…the degeneration of the Goyim. Our power lies in the chronic malnutrition and weakness of the worker, because through this he falls under our power and is unable to find either strength or energy to combat it. Hunger gives capital a greater power over the worker than any sovereign legal authority under an aristocracy. Through misery, jealousy, and hatred, we manipulate the mob and crush those who stand in our way” (P3, p. 86). Junk food, drugs, alcohol, chemical preservatives, sugar, contrived pandemics—all these serve to addict and sicken the masses, who then can barely function in their daily lives, let alone spend time and effort on serious political matters.

“This hatred [of the upper classes] will be still more accentuated by an economic crisis, which will stop financial transactions and all industrial life. Having organized a general economic crisis by all possible underhanded means, and with the help of the gold that is all in our hands, we will throw great crowds of workmen into the street, simultaneously, in all nations” (P3, p 87). An excellent anticipation of the Depression, which was likely induced by Jewish action.[19] This also anticipates later economic crises such as the 1973 oil crisis, the junk bond crisis of the late 1980s, the 2008 housing collapse, and the Covid recession—and now the Iran War financial crisis.

“As things stand, as an international force, we are invulnerable; if we are attacked by one state, we are supported by others” (P3, p. 88). In 2003, Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said “Today Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” He was speaking of Jewish control over the US military and the executive branch. Of course, Israel is looking very vulnerable at the moment, thanks to Jewish overreach in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza; but even a defeat there will not mean the end of the power of world Jewry. As long as they own or control trillions of dollars, they are effectively “invulnerable.”

“We will create a strong centralized government, so as to collect social forces under our power” (P5, p. 91). Jews have always pushed for centralized governmental control, which makes it much easier for them to manipulate the levers of power. A decentralized system is much harder to control. Consequently, we have seen massive pressure for a large centralized government in the US (since 1900) and in Europe—hence the formation of the EU.

“All the wheels of government mechanism move by the action of the motor that is in our hands, and that motor is gold” (P5, p. 92). Money indeed is the decisive factor in U.S. politics, and Jews, by far, donate more political money than any other interest group.

“We must direct the education of the Goy societies so that their arms will drop hopelessly at their side whenever they face any task where initiative is required. The intensity of action resulting from individual freedom of action dissipates its force when it encounters another person’s freedom. This strikes a heavy blow against morale, yielding disappointments and failures” (P5, p. 93). Western academia is in a disastrous state, both in the U.S. and Europe. Jewish money, administrators, and faculty have utterly distorted the traditional strength of academia, and a Jewish-inspired “woke” ideology contaminates all levels.

“We must be able to overcome all opposition by provoking a war with the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose us. Should, however, those neighbors, in turn, decide to unite against us, we must respond by creating a world war” (P7, p. 97). A remarkable anticipation of both World Wars, not to mention the Cold War, Iraq Wars I and II, Afghanistan War, Ukraine-Russia War, and now, the U.S.-Israeli Iran War. Major wars are marvelously beneficial to Jewish interests; they earn wartime profits, they realign global power structures, and they kill lots of Goyim.

“[T]o sum up our system of enslaving the Goy governments of Europe, we will demonstrate our power to them by assassinations and terrorism” (P7, p. 98). Israel is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism globally, and the Israeli Mossad is the leading organization for political assassination—closely followed by the Jewish-influenced U.S. military and CIA.

“As it is not yet safe to give the responsible government posts directly to our brother Jews, we will give them to people whose record and whose character are so terrible that there is a vast gulf between them and the people. Such leaders would face nothing but condemnation and imprisonment, should they disobey our orders. This fact will force them to protect our interests, to their dying day” (P8, p. 99). American Jews directly hold many positions of power (something like 35 current members of Congress, along with cabinet positions and one Supreme Court justice), but the remaining non-Jews are almost uniformly of bad character even as they pander to Jewish-Israeli interests. Jewish blackmail surely keeps many of them in line—likely including President Trump.

“We have already effectively destroyed all governments but our own, even though, nominally, many still remain. At present, if any government protests against us, it is done only as a matter of course, and at our desire, and by our order; this is because their anti-Semitism is necessary to enable us to control our lesser brethren” (P9, p. 100). Most Western governments—and many elsewhere—are currently hopelessly dysfunctional or otherwise “destroyed.” Good governance would be a hinderance to Jewish power, and therefore it will be undermined wherever possible. The specter of ‘anti-Semitism’ is routinely raised in all Western nations, both to rally all Jews and to frighten the masses into yet more protective policies toward Jews.

“We have affected legal procedure, electoral law, the press, personal freedom—and most important of all, education: the cornerstone of free existence. We have misled, corrupted, deceived, and demoralized the Goy youth by education along principles and theories known by us to be false but which we ourselves have inspired” (P9, p. 101). Self-evident.

A Blatant Double-Standard

The second half of the Protocols moves into a more future-oriented mode of discourse, explaining the coming social order when the Jewish Sovereign is in charge. Notably, many of the things that Jews promote today, under Goy rule, will be eliminated under Jewish rule; this is because they desire harmful and disruptive measures now, but will need relative peace and stability once in power. Double-standards are pervasive. Again, the only rule is “Jewry first.”

“When we injected the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed; the states became infected with a mortal disease, namely, the decomposition of the blood. It is only necessary to await the end of their agony” (P10, p. 105). Jews have been leading forces in the push for unrestrained immigration, ‘open borders,’ and lax enforcement of visa rules. This was true in the US under several past presidents (Trump is something of an exception, although his actual success at routing out millions of illegals remains to be seen), and it is true of Europe, which has been flooded by at least 20 million Africans and Middle-Easterners since 2000. Racial mixing (“decomposition”) is good for the Goyim because it weakens their genetic integrity and identity; but it is bad for the Jews, who prohibit it by Jewish law.

“To accomplish our plan, we will engineer the election of presidents whose past record contains some hidden scandal—then they will be faithful executors of our orders, for fear of exposure, and from a natural desire to retain the privileges, advantages, and dignity connected with the position of president” (P10, p. 106). Compare to the Protocol 8 passage cited above.

“We must exhaust everyone by dissension, hostility, struggle, hatred, and even martyrdom, hunger, inoculation of diseases, and misery, so as to make the Goyim see no other solution than an appeal to our money and our total rule” (P10, p. 107). Self-evident.

“[W]e have already managed to subjugate the minds of the Goyim to such an extent that almost all of them see world-events through colored glasses that we put over their eyes…” (P12, p. 111). Thanks to Jewish control of the press, media, educational institutions, and entertainment industries.

“All the periodicals published by us will seem to be of contradictory views and opinions, inviting trust in us, and thus appearing attractive to our unsuspecting enemies; in this way, they will be caught in our trap and made harmless. … [Of special importance] will be our ostensible opposition, which, at least in one of its publications, will represent the opposition to us. Our real enemies will mistake this seeming opposition as belonging to their own group, and thus will show us their cards. … Those fools who believe that they repeat the opinions expressed by ‘their’ newspapers will be repeating our opinions or those that we desire them to have” (P12, p. 112). This is an excellent description of the idea of ‘controlled opposition’ in press and politics. Jewish control extends to all media, and thus all media, ‘left’ and ‘right,’ are compatible with Jewish interests; consumers don’t see this influence and thus believe that ‘their’ media are honest and correct.

“We will be able to persuade or confuse [the masses], sometimes printing the truth, sometimes lies, referring to facts or contradicting them, according to the way they are received by the public, and always carefully testing the ground before stepping on it. We will surely conquer our enemies because they will not have the press at their disposal in which to fully express themselves” (P12, p. 113). It is important for the Jews to have total control over media, otherwise the truth might slip out. No truly dissenting voices shall be allowed. Alternative media shall be sued, defunded, harassed, and ‘cancelled.’

“To prevent [the masses] from reaching any independent decisions, we will divert their minds with amusements, games, hobbies, passions, and public cultural centers. We will soon begin to offer prize contests through the press, and sports of all kinds” (P13, p. 115). The over-hyped and over-commercialized nature of television and professional (and college!) sports is self-evident. Such pastimes serve to vent public anger and dissatisfaction, and distract again from the real problems and control mechanisms of society.

“In the so-called advanced countries, we have created senseless, dirty, and disgusting literature” (P14, p. 118). Jews lead the charge in all aspects of pornography—print, film, and Internet. OnlyFans, Vixen Media, Grindr, Aylo/Pornhub, Vivid, and Gamma Entertainment are all Jewish-led or -owned porn distributors.

“You have no idea how easy it is to bring even the most intelligent Goyim to a state of unconscious gullibility, and, on the other hand, how easy it is to discourage them by the smallest failure—or merely by ceasing to applaud them, thus enslaving them for the sake of achieving new success. To the same extent as our people ignore success for the sake of carrying out their plans, so are the Goyim ready to sacrifice all their plans for the sake of success. Their psychology makes the problem of direction easier for us. Those who appear to be tigers are as stupid as sheep; nonsense filters through their heads” (P15, p. 121). Comment unnecessary.

“Our rule will simulate the God Vishnu, who resembles us physically; each of our hundred hands will hold one of the levers of the social machine” (P17, p. 129). Jews do indeed seem to be everywhere at once. There is scarcely an aspect of government or culture in which they do not have an active hand.

“Through cleverly-compiled historical textbooks, we have indirectly given publicity to [political] martyrdom as though done for the sake of human welfare. Such an advertisement has multiplied the number of liberals and has swollen the ranks of our agents by thousands of Goyim” (P19, p. 133). Political rebels, agitators, ‘antifa,’ and so on—that is, those on the extreme radical left—serve as agents of Jewry. Such people believe themselves to be working for radical equality, radical justice, and radical freedom, but in the end they only further the Jewish cause.

“In order to teach the people obedience, they must be taught modesty. And to accomplish this, the production of luxuries must be limited. [Once in power,] we will thus improve public morality, which has been demoralized by competition resulting from luxury” (P23, p. 143). Once again, rules for thee but not for me. Corrupting luxury abounds today, but will be greatly restrained when it serves the Jewish power structure.

“I say once again that people blindly obey only the hand that is strong and entirely independent of them—the hand that wields a sword of defense against the blows of social misfortune. Why should the Sovereign have an angel’s heart? The people want to see in him the personification of power and might” (P23, p. 143). Present-day Israel, and Netanyahu in particular, fashion themselves as Jewish world-powers. In their actions against innocent and disarmed Palestinians, or against the innocent masses in Lebanon and Iran, Israeli Jews reveal themselves to be ruthless and brutal killers; they evidently believe that this shows “strength.” It rather shows them to be genocidal psychopaths, for which no punishment can be too harsh.

The New Elders

Who, then, are the specific individuals guiding “Israel” to its supposed future glory? Who are the new Elders of Zion?

Netanyahu and his immediate advisors are obvious candidates, and they indeed seem to play the role. Pathologically, they seem to believe that the nations of the world should, and will, bend to their will. They cajole, bully, bribe, and coerce other national leaders to serve their interests, often successfully. Trump in particular seems to be in Netanyahu’s back pocket; with all due bluster and hot air, Trump thrashes around wildly in his policy but, in the end, at least so far, seems to do essentially what the Jews want him to do.

But it is not only Netanyahu, of course. It is the entire Jewish power structure in America that also works on him, just as it worked on all past presidents. So who are these leading individuals, these American ‘power Jews,’ who function to implement the age-old plan of the Protocols?

Some names are obvious: We can start with the wealthiest Jews and those with the highest levels of political power. Above I cited by name the 13 richest Jews in America; they certainly count as modern-day Elders. But it is not merely the richest; there are at least 300 Jewish billionaires in the US, and it depends how active they are in trying to shape American, and global, society. Lesser billionaires can sometimes take a more active social/political role, typically because they are super-donors to the Democrats. Among these, I would include William Ackman, (net worth $9.1 billion), David Geffen ($9 billion), George Soros ($7.5 billion), Paul Singer ($6.7 billion), Stephen Mandel ($5 billion), and Tom Steyer ($2.5 billion).

In addition to the richest, there are those Jews in high positions within the federal government, some of whom are mere multimillionaires. Chuck Schumer, for example, wields significant political power but is worth only some $7 million. Other assertive Jewish senators include Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff (Bernie Sanders also makes this list, though he is, in some ways, an anti-elder). Then we have the most influential representatives: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Lois Frankl, Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, and Brad Sherman. Next, we may include the leading Jews in the Trump administration: Steve Witkoff, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, and Ron Lauder. And of course, we cannot fail to include Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

As a third general group of ‘new Elders,’ I would name those Jews who lead our major technology and media organizations. Above I cited six leading media Jews who certainly make the list. And some of the richest (cited already) are also tech or media leaders. In addition to the above, I would include Adam Mosseri (Instagram), Safra Catz (Oracle), Arthur Levinson (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Alex Karp (Palantir), Gary Cohn (IBM), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and Andy Jassy (Amazon).

As a fourth group, I will include Jews who lead powerful organizations within the U.S., by which I refer to Jonathan Greenblatt (ADL), Ted Deutch (American Jewish Committee), and Betsy Korn and William Daroff (Jewish Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations).

Finally, there is a group of miscellaneous Jews who wield power in various other ways. These individuals include political figures such as Rahm Emanuel (former Obama chief of staff), JB Pritzker (governor of Illinois), Josh Shapiro (governor of Pennsylvania), Douglas Emhoff (husband of Kamala Harris), and Josh Stein (governor of North Carolina). Also in this group, I would place film producers Steven Spielberg and (yes) Harvey Weinstein, who, at age 74, is incarcerated and faces ongoing litigation over his 100+ suspected sexual assaults but is still worth some $25 million and still influences events in Hollywood and beyond. I also include here the leading American representative of the infamous Rothschild family, Lynn Forester de Rothschild.[20] Lastly, a mix of various influential figures: Alan Dershowitz (lawyer), Seth Klarman (CEO of Baupost), Arthur Sulzberger (New York Times), David Solomon (Goldman Sachs), Steve Tisch (New York Giants football), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots football), Mark Cuban (minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball and co-founder of 2029 Entertainment), and Josh Kushner (LA Lakers basketball, and brother to Jared). In all, 66 individuals.[21]

Lest the reader lose track of all these names, here they are again, in alphabetical order:

There they are, 66 names: my nominees for the 2026 edition of the new Elders of Zion. Each one guaranteed to work on behalf of Jews and Israel, each guaranteed to put “Jewry first.” I’m sure each reader will have his or her own nominees, perhaps a much larger list; so be it. At least the discussion has begun.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] There are claims that the Protocols were written as early as 1818, but these are not credible. At least in final form, they must date to the late 1800s—though we cannot rule out that some early ‘proto-Protocols’ were drafted much earlier. The final document mentions Friedrich Nietzsche (Protocol 2) who only came to prominence after 1888; it mentions a French prime minister, Leon Bourgeois (Protocol 16), who served from 1895 to 1896; and it has two textual references to Zionism (Protocols 3 and 5), which did not exist in any meaningful sense until 1897. The final composition was certainly after these dates.

[2] The Jewish “homeland” of Israel would not come into being until 1948, thirty years after the Declaration. For the full story of the “contract with Jewry,” see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2025).

[3] A UN General Assembly vote, incidentally, has no force of law; that can only come from a Security Council vote, which did not happen. Technically, therefore, Israel was never legally authorized by the UN.

[4] Note that the “King of Israel” is mentioned four times in the text, but there, ‘Israel’ refers to the Jewish people, not the nation-state.

[5] Anthropology (1798/1978), p. 102.

[6] “The Age of Bronze.”

[7] Cited in Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” The Marx-Engels Reader (1978), p. 49.

[8] “Fate,” in Conduct of Life (1860).

[9] “Jewry in Music,” cited in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (2022), pp. 7-43.

[10] Cited in Classic Essays, p. 64.

[11] Cited in Classic Essays, pp. 95-124.

[12] The Land of Gilead (1880), p. 503.

[13] In The Jew in the Modern World (2011, Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, eds.), p. 315. Chapter One of Drumont’s book is reproduced in Classic Essays, pp. 125-146.

[14] Essays on the Questions of the Day (1894), p. 260.

[15] One man who did act on it was Henry Ford. He became aware of the Protocols around 1919 and was so impressed that it prompted him to initiate his famous “International Jew” series, which began in May 1920; see my published edition The International Jew: The Definitive Edition (2024; two volumes).

[16] See the white paper “The Jewish Vote,” by Gil Troy (2016).

[17] That is, Protocol #1, cited at page 77 of the above-mentioned edition of 2023.

[18] I won’t elaborate here; for details, see my book Eternal Strangers (2025).

[19] According to Louis McFadden, congressman from Pennsylvania, “Paul Warburg…engineered the Great Depression”—as stated in the Congressional Record of 1931. See One Honest Man (2026; Clemens & Blair).

[20] She is apparently a converted Jew, having married prominent Jew Andrew Stein in 1983 before marrying E. Robert de Rothschild in 2000.

[21] Jews attach much symbolic importance to the number six, so this is an appropriate total.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.2026-08-25 08:14:472026-08-25 08:14:47The New Elders of Zion
Page 10 of 526«‹89101112›»
RSS Feed Logo RSS Feed Logo Subscribeto RSS Feed

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

Get Our Daily Post Digest
Our latest posts emailed to you every evening.
By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.

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

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Topics

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

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

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

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

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

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

Essential Website Cookies

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

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

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

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

Other external services

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

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

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

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only