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

Featured Articles

VDARE Facing Mortal Threat

May 31, 2023/5 Comments/in Featured Articles, General/by Peter Brimelow
NY Attorney General Letitia James Mugs Us (As Well As Donald Trump, NRA etc.).
Print Friendly and PDF
President Donald J. Trump’s indictment by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (as with impeachment, it was always obvious that if emoting Democrats didn’t charge Trump with this, they’d charge him with that) had one great redeeming feature for us here at VDARE.com: as with the concurrent Douglass Mackey / Ricky Vaughn lynching, it brings home, to at least the half of America that voted for Trump, that what Anglosphere independent media phenom Mark Steyn has judiciously described in a recent interview with Conrad Black as “America’s Dirty Stinking Rotten Corrupt ‘Justice’ System” is now hopelessly politicized, weaponized, and increasingly subordinated, exactly like Soviet law, to a totalitarian ideological faction.

Which makes it easier for us to explain why VDARE.com’s advocacy of immigration patriotism is now facing the most serious threat in its 24-year existence.

And that’s saying a lot in this era, unparalleled in U.S. history, of intensifying shadow-banning, deplatforming, demonetization, doxing and ongoing Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services.

VDARE.com is the main project of our tax-exempt 501(c)(3) VDARE Foundation. And the VDARE Foundation has been mugged—targeted for lawfare by New York State Attorney General Letitia James , yet another of those childless female Black Supremacists who so much enrich our political life.

[New York AG Letitia James hosts ’Drag Story Hour’ for children: ’Celebration of love, joy and family fun,’ by Lindsay Kornick, Fox News, March 19, 2023]

It has become unmistakably clear that NYAG James aims to suppress our VDARE.com website, seize control of the VDARE Foundation and even expropriate our Berkeley Springs Castle, WV headquarters (which she probably intends to fill with Third World “asylum seekers”).

Of course, we share this badge of honor with more prominent targets of NYAG James—notably Trump, but also the National Rifle Association [New York AG sues to dissolve the NRA, alleging widespread fraud, Politico, August 6, 2020], Project Veritas [N.Y. attorney general warns Project Veritas its fundraising license is at risk, by Shawn Boburg, Washington Post, November 30, 2017] and other patriots unfortunate enough to be technically in reach of her lawless politically motivated rampage.

But President Trump and the NRA (five million members, total assets over $200 million) can, arguably, afford it.

VDARE.com, which is a tiny organization (revenues typically $600k-$800k range, no endowment), absolutely cannot.

Note also that NYAG Letitia James has not yet even accused us of any infraction—much less have we been convicted. We are merely being “investigated”—at deliberately destructive expense.

In other words, we are being battered to death by subpoena.

It really is true that as Mark Steyn has also said, “the process is the punishment.” This is the regulatory version of the prosecutorial abuse epidemic identified more than twenty years ago (to the great dismay of his allies in the naive law-and-order Reagan Era conservative movement) by my old friend Paul Craig Roberts.

It is only because of the extraordinary generosity of our donors that we have been able to finance our defense against NYAG Letitia James’ mugging thus far.

Most tiny organizations like ours would already have been forced to capitulate—which is probably what NYAG Letitia James was counting on.

I am sure she is astounded by our supporters’ loyalty.

But now this effort has brought us to financial crisis. Our general funds have been drained, and we are right at the point of being unable to pay our writers and our technical support staff, with no end in sight to this harassment.

Which is why I must beg you to help us—now.

Trump (Love Him Or Hate Him) Was Right About NYAG Letitia James

As single-issue immigration patriots, we at VDARE.com regarded presidential candidate Donald J. Trump’s historic August 15, 2015 immigration statement as a triumphant vindication of our long struggle to get the immigration issue into politics.

Since then, of course, we have occasionally voiced disappointment with President Trump’s achievements in office (although we did accurately anticipate that a Biden Regime would be infinitely worse).

Nevertheless, let the record show that, in an August 10, 2022 deposition in NYAG Letitia James ’s lawfare attack on Trump (quite separate from Manhattan DA Melvin Bragg’s lawfare attack—there are a lot of them), Trump opened with a statement that was a definitive takedown of her thuggery.

Trump described James as “a renegade and out-of-control prosecutor” engaged in “an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt.”

Bingo.

As Trump pointed out, James ran for New York State Attorney General in 2018 explicitly promising to sue him—before she could have known any of the actual facts. She did the same with the NRA. (Trump also noted that in her campaign she called him “an illegitimate president,” something which, if said about Joe Biden, is now apparently a hanging offense).

Trump then proceeded to refuse to answer any questions on Fifth Amendment grounds (at 12:12 below).

Quite right too.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/p26ZcSAAK3Q” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

(Transcript here.)

Subsequently, Trump wrote on his Truth Social outlet:

I don’t expect that President Trump will Truth Social any time soon about how our tiny VDARE.com should also be supported.

But the fact is that we are, all of us, in the same fight—against a Totalitarian Woke weaponized justice system.

And so is America.

A Point Of Personal Privilege

And I must rise here on a point of personal privilege, as they say in the U.S. Senate.

I began writing about America’s post-1965 immigration disaster with my 1992 National Review cover story that has been credited with starting the modern debate. I did this despite the fact that my then-employer, Steve Forbes, was gearing up for a Presidential run featuring bone-headed Wall Street Journal Editorial Page–type immigration enthusiasm. I kept on writing about the immigration disaster despite the savage Regime Media backlash, my completely unexpected betrayal by National Review founder William F. Buckley and by Conservatism Inc. in general, the increasingly ominous threat to my ability to feed my family even in the obscure briar patch of financial journalism, abandonment by cowardly former friends, unbridled abuse and physical threats.

And now, at the age of 75, I am still working on the immigration issue in my office in the Berkeley Springs Castle every day.

I regret nothing—Non, je ne regrette rien, as the French Foreign Legionnaires famously sang as they were taken prisoner after their attempt to save French Algeria failed in 1961.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/CkZcjkF3Evw” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

Maybe that’s not the most hopeful analogy. But I like it.

Nevertheless, nothing has infuriated me as much as the lying insinuation by NYAG James that I, and my wife Lydia, bought the Castle to benefit ourselves personally.

Exactly the opposite is true. Because Lydia and I knew no commercial bank could be trusted not to cave to political pressure and pull a mortgage in the most inconvenient way—as happened to Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant in Canada [Canadian media outlet says bank denied it a commercial mortgage over conservative political leanings, by Yael Halon, Fox News, December 30, 2021]—we had to gamble on pouring all of an unprecedented and wonderfully generous 2019 gift to the VDARE Foundation into buying the Castle for cash. (The prudent and self-interested course would have been to invest it and live off the proceeds.) We sold our much-loved home in the beautiful Connecticut Berkshires. We uprooted our little daughters and moved to a small rental cottage on the Castle grounds here in Appalachia. We were forced to do this because, in the three years before COVID, our proposed conferences had been canceled because of political pressure more than a dozen times (see e.g., here, here, here, here). We concluded that, for a persecuted organization like ours to hold conferences, it ultimately must own its own venue.

The net effect: The Brimelow family no longer owns a home. But its shelter dollars now go to support the Berkeley Springs Castle complex. What NYAG Letitia James is insinuating here adds insult to injury—in fact, it adds injury (in the form of her deliberately ruinous subpoena harassment) to insult (see above) to the professional injury I have already, I may say unflinchingly, sustained.

Of course, this could never happen if the U.S. were still the Land of the Free. But the fact is that what we all now face is a communist coup. And America’s corrupted legal and regulatory institutions are complicit.

So I say: to hell with NYAG Letitia James!—and to hell with those e.g., the supposedly libertarian Reason commenters cheering her on.

And to hell with everyone else enabling this new Soviet America.

Why was the VDARE.com Foundation registered in New York State, and thus vulnerable to thugs like NYAG Letitia James, anyway?

The VDARE Foundation was set up in 1999 by a heroic volunteer lawyer who at that time did a great deal of pro bono work for the immigration patriot movement. He happened to be admitted to the bar in New York State, so he set it up there.

(However, contrary to NYAG Letitia James’ insinuations in her filings, the foundation was subsequently dormant for several years because we were working through another foundation registered in a different state. This is why we made no further filings: they were not necessary.)

It is perfectly normal for 501(3) charities to be registered in states other than those in which they have a physical presence.

And at the time, of course, with the West’s concurrent victory in the Cold War, no one had any idea of the communist Reign of Terror that was subsequently to sweep through American institutions, above all after the apparently unauthorized election of Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Thus our heroic volunteer lawyer was later forced by his white-shoe law firm, to its great discredit, to abandon his pro bono work for immigration patriots. This an example of the stealth “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style deprivation of professional and commercial services” (see above) that is a key part of America’s ongoing communist coup.

Why didn’t VDARE leave New York State?

New York State has to give its consent for a 501©(3) to leave.

Because our unusually good fundraising year pushed us over a N.Y. regulatory threshold, we initiated an exhaustive financial audit (i.e., a qualified third party had to look over our accounts). Our aim was to be fully compliant before we even considered raising our heads above the parapet with a request to exit.

This audit was very much hampered by the fact that our Connecticut accountants suddenly abandoned us and refused to suggest referrals (see “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional services” above).

The trivial, very common, easily corrected, and anyway generally obviated by the statute of limitations regulatory missteps that NYAG Letitia James is now hyperventilating about (see below) arose in the resulting chaos because we had so much trouble finding a replacement. In fact, at one point we had to turn to VDARE.com accountant reader, who had kindly offered his services.

The audit was completed—triumphantly. But of course NYAG Letitia James has ignored it anyway.

However, once the VDARE Foundation was forced into the real estate business in order to own its conference venue, we had to reorganize legally, at considerable expense, in a way that is more typical of commercial operations, to protect ourselves against predatory lawsuits (whether politically motivated or not), e.g., slip-and-fall. Thus the VDARE Foundation now owns a for-profit LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that holds the property surrounding the Castle and leases it back to VDARE. And the Berkeley Springs Castle itself is now owned by the Berkeley Springs Castle Foundation, a 501(c)(3) supporting organization of the VDARE Foundation that is registered in West Virginia. NYAG Letitia James has made numerous lying references to this reorganization (see below).

What has NYAG Letitia James done?

Last summer, we learned from Facebook that NYAG Letitia James had hit it with two overlapping subpoenas regarding its transactions with us:

  • Meta May 13 2022—PDF
  • June 14 to Facebook Payments Inc PDF

This was a flagrant violation of procedure. The Stored Communications Act, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2703(b)(1)(b), permits a government agency to obtain third-party information from Facebook or other internet services—provided that there is ”prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer” [viz., the third party, here VDARE].

But NYAG Letitia James never provided VDARE.com with that notice. An email from Facebook was the first we heard about it.

She simply disregarded the law.

This has turned out to be a pattern.

Significantly, in both cases, the Facebook subpoenas were issued on NYAG Letitia James’ behalf by someone called Rick Sawyer, who is described as “Special Counsel for Hate Crimes.” (In his email signature, Sawyer advertises his pronouns as “he/him”—for now.)

Needless to say, VDARE.com has not committed, or has even (yet) been accused of, a crime of any kind—let alone a “Hate Crime” (which we have anyway consistently argued is an unconstitutional concept).

But Commissar Sawyer’s role betrays what is really motivating NYAG Letitia James: not some technical issue arising from her role of overseer of charities, but the suppression of political opinion she dislikes (aka “Hate”). She apparently thinks she can do this by claiming that such political opinion results in “Hate Crimes” (unlike, of course, Black Lives Matter rhetoric).

Needless to say, this is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

NYAG’s James’ move against Facebook was especially bizarre because Facebook had, without warning to us, deleted VDARE.com’s page some two years earlier, all too obviously as part of its Woke campaign to defeat President Trump in that fall’s Presidential election [The 2020 Election Wasn’t Stolen, It Was Bought By Mark Zuckerberg, by William Doyle, The Federalist, October 12, 2021].

(With characteristic leftist vindictiveness, Facebook also deleted our own personal pages, which in Lydia’s case was entirely non-political—she had used it, as all student Millennials were encouraged to do, as a diary, family resource and baby book, showing our children’s first steps, etc.—and has refused to return her data, although we understand it is legally her property.)

And we never raised much money through Facebook anyway, or spent much money on promotion there, partly because I had quickly concluded it was shadow-banning us.

So why was NYAG Letitia James targeting Facebook at all? One theory: She or her minions might actually have been crazy enough to think our Social Media Manager really was a Russian agent. (He is an American, albeit a Southerner, i.e., nearly as bad.)

Facebook, not a friend, informed us that it would comply with these subpoenas—no easy task—unless we contested them.

And we did indeed consider contesting James’ subsequent subpoena against the VDARE Foundation, because it was plainly harassment aimed at suppressing our First Amendment rights (see below).

But eventually, very reluctantly, we took the hard decision to comply, without prejudice, with NYAG Letitia James’ demands as much as possible—to demonstrate good faith to the court.

Facebook thereupon apparently met her demands.

At least, we think it did. Typical of the relentlessly hostile environment in which patriots now operate, Facebook will not tell us what data it supplied. And neither will NYAG Letitia James.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Because our relationship with Facebook was so minimal, we believe and hope that none of our readers, or even the commenters on our late lamented Facebook page—and certainly not our donors—are significantly at risk here.

But THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. This whole episode is disgraceful in a supposedly free society.

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James’ targeting of VDARE.com followed her creation of a ”Hate Crimes Unit,” which she claimed would “strengthen oversight, because we see how much hate is being fueled by content on the internet” [’Hate Has Been Unleashed’ | New York’s AG Lays Out Her Plan to Solve the State’s anti-Semitism Crisis, by Amir Tibon and Danielle Ziri, Haaretz, January 8, 2020].

“Hate” is, of course, an offense unknown to the U.S. Constitution. “Hate speech” is in effect simply something with which NYAG Letitia James disagrees.

For example, in August, during the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, NYAG Letitia James joined in a letter to Facebook demanding that it increase censorship against ”hate speech and hate organizations,” aka suppress pro-Trump Facebook pages. [PDF] [AG Racine Leads 20-State Coalition Urging Facebook to Aggressively Combat the Spread of Hate and Disinformation Online, Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, August 20, 2020].

Similarly, in August 2022 James took the extraordinary step of trying to intimidate the tiny Cornerstone Church in Batavia, NY out of hosting an event featuring President Trump’s son Eric and former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn [ReAwaken Tour host feels harassed by NY attorney general , oleantimesherald.com, August 11, 2022].

The Cornerstone Church has (good for them!) now filed an action under the Civil Rights Act against NYAG Letitia James. It points out that the original venue had cancelled the event after pressure from Democrat elected officials, notably Monroe County Legislature President Sabrina LaMar, and also that the Church’s hosting of the ReAwaken Tour was a legitimate exercise of their First Amendment Rights.

Free Speech Foe Sabrina LaMar

Especially significant from VDARE.com’s point of view: The Cornerstone Church has argued that NYAG James’ behavior violated provisions of the New York State Bar Association’s Rules Of Professional Conduct—because she abused her office for political purposes and lied about the nature of their meeting:

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly sought to and did deprive them of their constitutional and civil rights, pursuant to the above-named statutes and causes of action by committing acts to deprive Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York,” the suit states. “Further, Defendant James negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly published multiple false statements to multiple media outlets to mar the reputations of Pastor Doyle and Clay Clark, to provoke objectionable opinions in the minds of members of the community to expose plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion.”

[ReAwaken organizers, host fight back on what they call ’intimidation,’ ’libel,’ from AG, by Joanne Beck, The Batavian, January 23, 2023]

More on this interesting idea, as it relates to VDARE.com, below.

Then we learned that NYAG Letitia James had issued a subpoena to the VDARE Foundation itself.

See the Subpoena, PDF

NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena made a staggering 44 separate demands for documents. Most of them were of no possible relevance to any oversight function that the New York Attorney General’s office could conceivably claim to exercise over charities registered in New York State.

For example:

We sued the New York Times because it described me, the Editor of VDARE.com, as an “open white nationalist.” Needless to say, this allegation is lethal in the current political climate. However, it is not an opinion, but a matter of fact—I have repeatedly said I’m a Civic Nationalist, i.e., I’m not “open” about being a white nationalist. The Southern District of New York Court recognized this when it acknowledged the issue was “actionable,” although absurdly claiming I had been made whole by the New York Times’ subsequent guilty stealth-edit of its website, even though correction was unacknowledged in the print edition despite its publicly stated ethics code.

At the time, a prominent First Amendment lawyer told us, “The Supreme Court is going to revisit SULLIVAN”—its disastrous 1964 decision that effectively deprived public figures of Common Law libel protection—”but not for you.”

So much for Equality Before The Law.

To SCOTUS’ great discredit, he turned out to be right.

But what does our New York Times litigation have to do with New York State’s charitable oversight role?

And why not subpoena our Colorado Springs litigation?

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James did not attempt to subpoena any documents regarding our litigation against the city of Colorado Springs for its refusal to protect our proposed 2017 conference there.

We believe this is because our suppression by Colorado Springs was so flagrantly unconstitutional, as even one Reason commenter acknowledged. To quote Judge Harris L. Hartz’ magisterial dissent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision:

A government effort to punish or deter disfavored speech is what VDARE adequately alleges. And the City accomplished its purpose. The complaint plausibly alleges that the Mayor’s statement caused the Resort to cancel the VDARE conference.

This atrocity is simply not something to which our new communist overlords want to draw attention.

Our initial response—WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Looking over all three (3!) subpoenas, to Facebook and to the VDARE Foundation, it appeared to us that, of 68 separate demands, fully 53 were improper, with most violations landing squarely on First Amendment grounds.

For example, Item 4 of NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena to the VDARE Foundation:

Quite apart from the extraordinary, and utterly unnecessary, compliance burden that this demand imposes on the VDARE Foundation, it also aims to expose everyone who has ever been involved with us to doxing and harassment by Antifa thugs.

Above all, it aims to expose our writers, who have careers and families to support, and who therefore now operate under pseudonyms because of the Reign Of Terror.

There is simply no need for NYAG Letitia James to know who they are.

Moreover, 40 gigabytes of email could amount to a million individual items or more. Redacting them is an enormous and obviously very tricky task (because of the risk of accidentally exposing donors and supporters).

And we absolutely do not want to tell NYAG Letitia James who our writers are—because we know that she cannot be trusted with confidential information.

Just look at this MSM story about a leak from NYAG Letitia James’ office last year:

Like other nonprofits, Stand For America files an annual tax return with the IRS. While the agency and the nonprofit must make those filings available to the public, including the amounts of contributions to the group, such nonprofits do not have to disclose the identities of their donors.

However, the organization Documented, which describes itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog that investigates money in politics, obtained an unredacted copy of Stand For America’s 2019 filings, which it then shared with POLITICO. The group did not share the original source of the filing, but it bears a stamp from the charity office of the New York state attorney general. [Emphasis added]

[Document reveals identity of donors who secretly funded Nikki Haley’s political nonprofit, by Alex Isenstadt, Politico, August 26, 2022]

Needless to say, giving money to GOP Establishment catspaw Nikki Haley is not really a hanging offense (except possibly in James’ crazed New York Democrat bubble).

But giving money to, or writing for, VDARE.com most certainly is a hanging offense right now—given the current Reign Of Terror. (Consider the fate of blogger Razib Khan, fired after less than 24 hours as a New York Times contributor just because he had some years earlier written a letter to VDARE.com opposing something we had published.)

So James’ incentive to leak the identities of our writers and donors is exponentially greater.

Six House Republicans from New York State wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding that he launch an investigation into the leak [NY GOPers ask DOJ to probe AG James over leaked Nikki Haley donors list, by Mark Moore, New York Post, October 13, 2022].

But significantly, Gulag Garland appears to have not responded to the GOP demand at all—further evidence that the Regime is now completely lawless.

(I might also note that Nikki Haley’s Stand For America appears effortlessly to have raised some $7 million in 2019. Obviously, this far outmatches any VDARE Foundation fundraising, even though donations to us are tax-deductible, whereas donations to Stand For America are not. It’s simply amazing how much money professional politicians can raise, as opposed to political truth-tellers like us. With that much money, we could cause a Cultural Revolution.)

Of course, in this sort of regulatory situation, courts do typically operate on the assumption that the government is acting in good faith.

But NYAG Letitia James subpoenas’ fail rate—53 out of 68 demands turn out to be First Amendment violations—simply is not the record of a government acting in good faith. Whatever statutory presumption NYAG Letitia James might be accorded, it is rebutted by this pattern.

Initially, we replied to NYAG Letitia James making these points.

See our letter, PDF.

Our subsequent response—an exhaustive (and exhausting) effort to demonstrate good faith.

I must stipulate here that the VDARE Foundation really is a tiny organization— “lean,” in our auditor’s words. And apart from editorial and tech support contractors, VDARE.com generally has only two full-time employees—Lydia and myself, home-schooling parents of three small children. And, importantly, we have no in-house lawyers.

Nevertheless, unlike many of the trusting January 6 martyrs, we knew better than to deal with the government without legal counsel [Why some alleged Capitol rioters are acting as their own attorneys, NPR, October 27, 2021].

But it simply took us time to organize our legal response to James’ massive onslaught.

This was particularly true because we have increasingly serious difficulty procuring any legal services at all—all this stuff about John Adams representing the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre although himself a Patriot, once the pride of the American legal profession, has gone down the toilet in this new Soviet America. (See “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services” above.)

As discussed above, we elected not to fight NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena on First Amendment grounds, despite its flagrant political motivation, but instead to begin more cautiously, by demonstrating good faith and complying with the subpoena as far as was compatible with our contractors’ and donors’ security.

But the cost of this good-faith effort has been enormous—see “the process is the punishment” above. This is how what Paul Gottfried calls “the Managerial State” enforces obedience.

Our legal fees already amount to over $300,000—and, remember, we have not yet even been accused of any wrongdoing at all.

Even worse are the opportunity costs. Lydia and I just don’t have that much bandwidth. We have already been forced to suspend the hard-copy VDARE QUARTERLY. And when did you last see a National Data column?

Moreover, VDARE.com event-planning and fundraising has been completely crippled since the summer of 2022. (We will have our second invitation-only Annual Conference in June—contact Lydia for more details.)

If you’re a donor and you haven’t heard Lydia’s delicious alto on your voicemail thanking you for your donation, this is the reason: She was physically digging through the Foundation’s records, which reside in a cargo container on the Castle grounds.

She’s a tall, strong girl (6’ 1”). But this is still a huge pain.

The VDARE Foundation archives after our chaotic move from Connecticut during COVID, on Berkeley Springs Castle grounds, 2022

By December 2022, the VDARE Foundation had produced over 7,000 pages of documents to AG NYAG Letitia James. We had engaged a third-party custodian to sort through our 40 gigabytes of emails, the equivalent of perhaps millions of pages, because we needed to protect the identities of our vendors, writers, volunteers and donors. And our lawyers’ review of those emails was well under way.

(Significantly, in the course of this production, our lawyers protested NYAG Letitia James’ demand that we produce the names of vendors, e.g., our webmaster, and were told the NRA had been forced to do so. This turned out to be a lie, and another ethical violation. Specifically, it is a violation of Rules 4.1 (”Truthfulness in Statements to Others”) and Rules 8.4 (“Misconduct“) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite all this, in early December, we received a peremptory email from NYAG Letitia James’ office demanding that the VDARE Foundation, within ten days, disclose its constitutionally protected information, reveal previously redacted (because we want to protect donors, writers and correspondents) information in the first 7,000 pages of production; complete review of the 40 gigabytes of emails (ditto); and produce a complete redaction log for the entirety of its production.

Again, the VDARE Foundation is a tiny entity in the world of New York State charities, not at all worthy of this massive regulatory overkill. And in the normal course of events, NYAG Letitia James’ underlings would have simply discussed any concerns about the status of the production with a phone call or a meeting.

But of course her persecution of us is not normal. It is purely political.

So, at this point, with NYAG Letitia James’ bad faith irrefutably evident, we filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief. In other words, we want an official declaration that James has violated the First Amendment, and we want the Court to halt her attempt to enforce the subpoenas.

Complaint as filed, Northern District of New York

NYAG James’ shocking reaction: Ignore protocol, file in state court.

Normally, the fact that we filed first should have meant that our First Amendment argument would have been heard in federal court.

But, in an extremely aggressive move that shocked our lawyers, NYAG Letitia James subsequently filed against us in New York State Court anyway.

See her filing here: PDF.

In doing so, she violated procedural norms yet again—it’s a pattern.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Northern District of New York Federal Court:

Especially revealing is the OAG [Office of the Attorney General]’s unseemly subterfuge in secretly rushing to state court to secure a favorable order before this Court hears and rules on its motion to dismiss.

VDARE filed its complaint in this Court on December 12, 2022, simultaneously emailing a courtesy copy of its papers to the OAG in advance of formal service, which provided the OAG with three weeks (until January 4, 2023) to respond. [Citations omitted] On December 21, 2022, a full two weeks before the OAG’s response was due on January 4, 2023, the OAG requested and secured VDARE’s consent to an extension of its deadline to respond in federal court, from January 4 to 18, 2023. In so doing, the OAG claimed (in an email) that the extension was necessary because of the holidays and an attorney who had taken ill:

Because of the holidays and a member of our team who has COVID, we would appreciate an extension until Jan 18 to respond to VDARE’s complaint in the NDNY. Can you please confirm your consent? [Citation omitted]

Unbeknownst to VDARE when it consented to the extension on December 21, 2022, however, the OAG had already initiated its special proceeding in state court the week before (on December 16, 2022) with a proposed order to show cause. [Citation omitted]

See our Memorandum of Law: PDF.

In other words, NYAG Letitia James lied to us, at least by omission, in order to get her state filing heard first.

Of course, in a just world, even apart from NYAG Letitia James’ obvious malfeasance here, the New York State Court should have stayed or even dismissed NYAG Letitia James’ petition to compel enforcement of the subpoena, pending resolution of our First Amendment case in Federal Court, which would normally have had priority.

But to our lawyers’ shock (again), and with unprecedented speed—as in, the next business day after filings were completed—New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus ruled against us, uncritically accepting NYAG Letitia James’ lying and stupid assertions as to why she had cause to want disclosure.

Kraus even endorsed NYAG James’ demand that we provide the names of writers.

This is particularly telling because NYAG James had ostentatiously eschewed asking for the names of writers in her response to our Federal suit—presumably because of its obvious First Amendment implications.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Federal Court:

…the OAG represented to this Court in its motion to dismiss this case that its subpoena to VDARE does “not seek any information regarding the development or publication of VDARE’s online content.” [Citation omitted]

Simultaneously, the OAG took the contrary and constitutionally offensive position in state court that “the identities of contractors—including writers who contribute to the website—these are precisely the records the OAG must examine in its investigation of VDARE’s organizational misconduct.”

Apart from taking contradictory positions in two different courts, the OAG’s purported rationale for the demanded disclosure does not fit its rationale: a vendor’s provision of services to VDARE and a writer’s provision of content to VDARE’s website have no automatic connection to any legitimate investigative need.

Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, February 22 2023

Arguing contradictory things in different courts is flatly unethical. It violates the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which explicitly precludes litigants from making contradictory claims in different courts.

VDARE.com’s response to NYAG James’ aggression

Of course we appealed Judge Kraus’ ruling—but only because our heroic donors had provided the money to do it. And we were granted a stay of her decision pending a full hearing.

But again, with unprecedented speed, the Appeals Court then rejected our stay pending appeal. Significantly, they even passed the matter on to their clerk for a summary order, indicating that they did not think it worth their time to be bothered with our First Amendment rights. We were granted no relief at all, not even the protection of our writers’ identities, which NYAG Letitia James of course had lyingly assured the Federal court she did not want.

See ruling here.

From our point of view, this nightmare is like watching water cascade uphill—the case should never have been heard in New York State Court; it should not have been rejected; and our stay should never have been rejected on appeal.

But rules just don’t seem to apply to immigration patriots.

Note the net effect of NYAG Letitia James’ aggression: We are now forced to fight this ruinously expensive war on TWO fronts—in Federal Court and in New York State Court.

In fact, THREE fronts—because Lydia is still being forced to prepare production to comply with NYAG Letitia James’ demands in case we lose. See below.

The downside of VDARE Foundation’s good faith effort to comply

The downside of VDARE.com’s good faith effort to comply: NYAG Letitia James was able to find and trump up (excuse the term!) various trivial alleged infractions.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” This principle, supposedly enunciated by Stalin’s secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria, is of course why Americans today are terrified of audits by the Internal Revenue Service.

And it’s why President Trump, in the video we linked to above (at 12:05), forcefully asserted his right to take the Fifth Amendment in his deposition, although specifically pointing out (at 10:36) that he had once thought that innocence was a sufficient defense.

Among alleged VDARE Foundation infractions that NYAG Letitia James is trumping up:

  • Lydia (“Secretary, Treasurer and Publisher”) of VDARE and I (“Director/CEO/Chairman”) did not specify in filings that we are married.

Even if this technicality were true, Lydia and I obviously USE THE SAME LAST NAMES! We file joint taxes with the same IRS where we file our 990s!! And, critically, NO BENEFIT WAS GAINED by the supposed failure to report!!!

And we have repeatedly, perhaps boringly, celebrated on VDARE.com the fact that we are married. For example, here in 2007, announcing our marriage, Another Personal Message From Peter Brimelow:

Manifestly, we had no intent to deceive.

And NYAG Letitia James knows this—because she admits elsewhere that she is stalking VDARE.com: She cites VDARE.com posts in her filings to support her lie that we were living at the Castle rent-free.

So NYAG Letitia James’ lie here is not merely malicious. It is stupid.

  • NYAG Letitia James claims, without evidence, that our Berkeley Springs Castle purchase is suspect

The Berkeley Springs Castle is a beautiful charismatic property and only two hours from the U.S. Capitol. (This is probably what alarms NYAG James—as Southern Poverty Law Center enforcer Michael Edison Hayden quite accurately complained in 2020: “[t]he castle gives them greater proximity to Washington D.C. and a place to hold conferences without fear of being shut down”).

But this is in West Virginia, and therefore actually surprisingly cheap—we got the Castle, 55 acres of mountain and three somewhat dilapidated cottages for $1.4 million.

For comparison, that’s less than a two-bedroom apartment in NW Washington DC.)

(WE URGE PATRIOTS TO JOIN US HERE IN AFFORDABLE, D.C.-ADJACENT, WEST VIRGINIA! Its demographics “Look Like America” before the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act, it has no big city to outweigh the rural vote, and it went for Trump 68.62% in 2020.)

But the serious point: It’s obviously a total waste of New York taxpayer money for NYAG Letitia James to spend so much time on this tiny transaction.

Furthermore, it is absolutely standard for 501(c)(3) charities like the VDARE Foundation to own their own headquarters, office space, meeting rooms etc. Here, for example, is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s headquarters in Montgomery AL—the notorious “Poverty Palace”:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Splc.jpg/1024px-Splc.jpg

And here’s the SPLC’s audited financial statement, which says that, combining their operating fund and suspiciously large endowment fund, they have access to $727 million. [SPLC Consolidated Financial Statement, (PDF) October 31, 2022]

And, as outlined above and confirmed by SPLC thug Michael Edison Hayden, we bought the Berkeley Springs Castle only because we discovered we could not rely on the corporate/ Ruling Class complex to defend our right to hold conferences—and the holding of conferences is critical to our role in advancing Patriotic Immigration Reform.

This is a problem that the SPLC and other communist groups absolutely do not have, for reasons that invite analysis, in the current political climate.

FOR THE RECORD: every step of the Berkeley Springs Castle transaction was carefully monitored by expensive lawyers—because we were well aware that we were susceptible to scrutiny by a malicious and unscrupulous politically motivated regulator.

Specifically:

  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that the Castle purchase was illegitimate because VDARE Foundation’s board was “overseen exclusively by the Brimelow family.”

In fact, despite NYAG James’ insinuation, there is absolutely no reason the VDARE Foundation board should not have been made up of Brimelow family members: this is common for small, family-run foundations.

But again, James’ claim is still a lie, and a stupid lie. Our board has always had at least one, and at various times at many as three, non-family members, as is perfectly obvious from our filings.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is similarly lying, and stupidly lying, by claiming that the Brimelow family’s temporary residence in the castle, and subsequently in a refurbished cottage on the castle grounds, was somehow illegitimate.

But in fact at every step, again carefully monitored by our lawyers, we paid independently determined fair market rent.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because we insisted on disclosing it to her at an early point when we were told it was allegedly the matter of concern.

But she refused to meet with our lawyers to discuss this disclosure. And her subpoena harassment rolled on.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that we transferred assets purchased by the VDARE Foundation to a for-profit corporation that Lydia controls.

But this for-profit corporation, part of the aforementioned restructuring after we were forced into the real estate business, is in fact owned by the VDARE Foundation—NOT by Lydia personally.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because it was disclosed, e.g.,on our 2020 Form 990, which we provided (and she has access to anyway).

Again, NYAG Letitia James is simply lying, and stupidly lying.

  • Facebook Expenditures

NYAG Letitia James asserts that Facebook Cancelled VDARE.com in early 2020 because it determined we engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” by creating a botfarm and that “these expenditures could constitute a waste of charitable assets and breach of the Brimelows’ fiduciary duties as VDARE officers and directors.”

But, as she perfectly well knows, we categorically deny that we were involved in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and in fact sued Facebook for libel on this exact point—see “They Want Us In Gulags” (That Includes Trump). Why VDARE.com Is Suing Facebook For Defamation.

Facebook, probably because it has testified before Congress to the contrary, seems not to want to admit that it is engaging in political censorship. But of course it is absolutely obvious to everyone that it is—e.g., completely independent third-party Facebook users who wish to share VDARE.com items are now libelously informed ”this URL goes against our community standards on spam.”

And in any case, VDARE.com is a charitable/educational organization that is in the business of spreading its message.

Paying to promote our message is unimpeachably legitimate.

Furthermore, most of the monies that NYAG Letitia James instances were actually paid, not by the VDARE Foundation, but separately by our Social Media consultant, to promote his own private business, helping us and his other clients.

NYAG Letitia James knows this—because the expenditures appear nowhere in our accounts.

By not acknowledging this she is, again, stupidly lying about material facts.

  • Payments

NYAG Letitia James asserts:

In 2019, VDARE reported a six-fold increase in revenue, from $700,000 in 2018 to approximately $4.3 million in 2019 […] Also in 2019, VDARE doubled the salary of its Chairman, Peter Brimelow, to approximately $345,000,

The VDARE Foundation had a great year in 2019, thanks to our wonderful donors. In previous years, in a way that is typical of small business owners, Lydia and I had often eschewed income to pay bills, depending on financial circumstances. So in 2019, the VDARE Foundation Board formally approved a payment for the year to me of $349,500. (N.b. Lydia was paid some $10,000.)

But in contrast, in 2020, with no major donor, Lydia and I together were paid only some $270,000.

And, for what it’s worth, in 2023 to date, basically because of the cost of NY AG James’ regulatory onslaught, we have not taken any salary at all.

BTW in 2023, NYAG Letitia James is the highest-paid State Attorney General in the U.S. according to Wikipedia, which puts her salary at $210,000 per annum (and she is allowed to get speaking fees, which I am effectively prevented from receiving by the Reign of Terror).

Personally, I think that Lydia and I deserve to earn much more. In 2021, National Cuckview’s Rich Lowry was paid apparently paid $400,000.

Who is doing more for the Historic American Nation?

  • Compliance

NYAG Letitia James asserts about our purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and subsequent reorganization transactions:

[u]nder New York law each required approval and written documentation of that approval by disinterested members of the VDARE Board of Director [CITATION OMITTED] and should have been submitted for review and approval to OAG or to Supreme Court [CITATION OMITTED]. Transfer of charitable assets to a for profit entity without fair consideration to disqualified persons is a violation of both New York and federal law.

But this would only be true if the purchase and transfer were to a non-profit entity independent of, and not controlled by, the VDARE Foundation.

NYAG Letitia James knows that this is not the case with the VDARE Foundation’s purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and its subsequent creation of a for-profit entity that the Foundation controls.

She is again lying to the Court—stupidly, because the facts are readily ascertainable, for example in our lawyers’ briefs.

Why now?

When I’m in an optimistic mood, I think this lying Deep State assault, along with so many others, is happening now because the Ruling Class is panicking. It has simply never recovered from the shock of Trump’s 2016 victory and the realization that the Democrat stealth strategy of Electing A New People could be halted (as it actually was for a time under Trump) and even reversed.

That’s why Biden has risked impeachment by opening the borders to rush in the Great Replacement in a plainly treasonous way, to finish the job as quickly as possible.

Now there are signs that, with the 2024 election coming up, the Regime is getting alarmed by polls showing even Democrats and independents are turning against immigration.

Which means that, now more than ever, the Regime must keep the immigration issue out of public debate—until America’s demographic transformation is complete.

Dissent on immigration must be utterly crushed—even polite dissent from a tiny operation like VDARE.com.

What happens now?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., the senior judge in the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, will rule on two of the competing motions that are pending before him:

  1. On NYAG Letitia James’s motion to dismiss the entire case, which he will either grant or deny and
  2. The VDARE Foundation’s motion to enjoin any attempt to enforce the subpoena by the AG.

We don’t know how long this will take. Federal judges are supposed to rule within six months, but often don’t. However, we are told this is not likely to be the case here.

But a footnote: Lies have consequences—we intend to move to sanction and disbar lying NYAG Letitia James

In journalism, and of course in politics, you get used to opponents lying all the time.

But NYAG Letitia James is not just a journalist and not just a politician: she is also the head of a state agency, and a lawyer.

That means that, as a lawyer, she is what is known as an “Officer of the Court.” As Law.com says

As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth… [Emphasis added]

You can see why this is necessary. The system simply cannot function if all factual assertions have to be checked all the time. Truthfulness “cuts down on transaction costs,” as the great Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once pointed out to me.

NYAG Letitia James, however, has consistently lied in court filings.

And it has worked—until now.

Thus, for example, New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus, in her ruling all too obviously cut-and-pasted from NYAG James’ brief, stated:

Public postings by Respondent Chairman Peter Brimelow and others indicate that he and his family have used the castle as their primary residence since at least March 2020. [A lie. As stated above, we lived only briefly in the Castle before moving to the cottage, AND WE PAID INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED RENT THROUGHOUT. Moreover, Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the Castle was purchased for an unimpeachable purpose: providing a venue for meetings that, because of communist threats that U.S. law enforcement authorities seem unable to counter, we cannot hold elsewhere.] During this same period, Respondent also substantially increased payments to Brimelow and to third-party, for-profit companies he controls… [A (confused, see “payments” above) lie. The West Virginia for-profit company—there’s only one—is OWNED BY THE VDARE FOUNDATION.]

Respondent separately reported spending tens of thousands of dollars on office expenses in 2019 [this is because at that time we operated from a home office in our home in Litchfield CT, a completely standard procedure] as well as paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a third-party LLC controlled by Brimelow that was based at Brimelow’s residential home address. [This was simply an employee leasing company that paid the salaries of all VDARE employees, including Lydia and myself. One of its purposes was to protect our employees from being doxxed.]

In December 2020, Respondent conveyed the entirety of the Berkeley Springs Castle property to two West Virginia corporations incorporated by Lydia Brimelow, Peter’s wife and a Respondent director, five months earlier. Respondent conveyed the castle itself and the land that it sits on to the Berkeley Castle Foundation (BCF), a non-profit corporation. Respondent conveyed the remaining land, consisting of eight parcels, to BBB, LLC, a for-profit corporation. [Misleading at best. Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the West Virginia corporations are ALL controlled by the VDARE Foundation.]

Of course, Judge Kraus could have avoided these stupid errors simply by reading our lawyers’ brief.

But apparently New York State judges don’t have to do that kind of thing.

Nevertheless, and this is a critical distinction: Attorney General NYAG Letitia James absolutely does have to tell the truth to Judge Kraus, and to all courts involved in our lynching.

Instead, she has systematically lied to them.

This implicates several New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

RULE 3.3:

CONDUCT BEFORE A TRIBUNAL

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer…

(3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false…

The official comments, which are designed to elucidate the rule, provide the gloss:

This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process…although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law and may not vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or by evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. [Comment 2 to Rule 3.3]

Further:

…an assertion purporting to be based on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit or declaration by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. [Comment 3 to Rule 3.3]

Comment 5 states:

Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence.

Comment 12 provides:

Lawyers have a special obligation as officers of the court to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.

Accordingly, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Such conduct includes, among other things… unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence related to the proceeding; and failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. For example, under some circumstances a person’s omission of a material fact may constitute a crime or fraud on the tribunal.”

In our case, New York Attorney General NYAG Letitia James has committed every one of these violations.

And these violations can have consequences. Thus Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz, author of the best-selling book Get Trump, has argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could be disbarred for indicting President Trump while knowing that the key witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, is lying [Alan Dershowitz slams Alvin Bragg’s potential Trump arrest: ’One of the most dangerous precedents’, Fox News, March 26, 2023].

And, remember, despite Politically Correct feeding frenzies in this age of the Great Awokening, sanctions have actually been successfully applied to culpable leftist Officers of the Court—for example against Soros Prosecutor Kim Gardner in the McCloskey case, and against Duke Rape Hoax prosecutor Mike Nifong [Judge Sentences Ex-Durham County District Attorney Nifong to Jail for a Day, Fox News, January 13, 2015].

Accordingly, we intend to file a grievance with the Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department asking that Letitia James be sanctioned, and hopefully disbarred.

Needless to say, we don’t have any particular expectation, in the current Unequal Justice environment, that justice will be served.

But we think that President Trump, if he notices us, will agree.

Remember, miracles happen quite often in politics. BUT VDARE.COM NEEDS A MIRACLE RIGHT NOW.

NYAG Letitia James’ regulatory harassment has driven us to the wall.

We are now right at the point where we cannot continue to pay our writers and our technical support staff—let alone defend their pseudonymity.

So, again, we must ask you to help us continue to fight for immigration patriotism—and for America.

We—and all of our posterity—will be profoundly grateful.

Peter Brimelow

Donate to VDARE.com here.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.

Reposted with permission from VDARE.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Peter Brimelow https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Peter Brimelow2023-05-31 06:57:462023-05-31 07:02:28VDARE Facing Mortal Threat

Review of The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront, Part 2

May 27, 2023/10 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Bernard M. Smith

Tony Martin   

Go to Part 1.

Martin’s story is simple enough—in 1993, he assigned The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as one of the texts to his class on American slavery. Someone noticed the book in the Wellesley College bookstore and took note. “Observers” were sent from the College Hillel (or Jewish college organization) to Martin’s class and an intervention by the College Hillel was ordered. Eventually, tremendous local and institutional pressure were brought to bear on Martin to recant his use of the book. He refused. The pressure then moved from within to without as the national media—including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and major television news program personalities such as David Brinkley and Ted Koppel picked up the story to shower abuse and name-calling on Professor Martin. Other Black academics were enlisted (including Henry Louis Gates and a Black colleague from Wellesley) to excoriate Martin. Martin became synonymous with two things: he was an anti-Semite himself and his discipline, Africana Studies, was a worthless academic endeavor. He was likewise amazed at the refusal of the media—the same one tarnishing his name—to entertain fairness in allowing him to tell his side of the story. He was shellshocked by the patent double-standard. The same national papers that afforded his critics ample space to tear him apart refused to allow him to defend himself.

The Jewish Onslaught is three topics in one—first, it is a poignant account of what it means to go from relative anonymity to a national punching bag because one has the temerity to buck the Jews. He titled it correctly when he labeled it an “onslaught”. Tony Martin was a living, breathing human being who was destroyed for the relatively innocuous decision to assign a book to his undergraduate students and then refuse to buckle under when his masters demanded his recantation. The entirety of the book drips with the personal hurt that this human being endured at seeing his name and reputation sullied by very powerful forces. But again, this individual, for whatever reason, refused to “play ball” and apologize for his meager part in rehabilitating The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as a piece of scholarship.

Second, the book is a very concise look at the power dynamics of the people and organizations that were seeking to destroy him in real-time as a critique of Jewish power politics. In that sense, it reads like a book that is quite critical of outsized Jewish power. In short, I sense that if Tony Martin was an anti-Semite, the Jews have only themselves to blame for his views. I am certain that Martin never set out to tangle with the Jews—his academic interests were African-related, and his interest in the Jews was tertiary at best. Only after being set upon like a pack of wild dogs did he connect the dots of Jewish viciousness—and only thereafter did he attempt, in a modest way, to describe it. Third, it is a history of the attack itself—Martin reproduces the correspondence he received (both favorable and negative) as well as the various news accounts, contemporaneous writings, and reporting. In this, his training as a lawyer comes through (he was a U.K. barrister before becoming an academic).

The Jewish Onslaught is a book that Martin never intended to—and did not want to—write. He would have contented himself writing about his areas of academic interest for the rest of his quiet career but for an inconvenient student assignment and the backlash it generated. He, therefore, became an unlikely warrior in the exposition of Jewish power politics and control. But I am glad that he did. His essay on Jewish control, manipulation, and skullduggery reads with sincerity and authenticity partly because he was a reluctant expositor of the problem. As for the writing, he is a first-class writer and logician—and he comes back, incredulously at times, to the simple question that no one should be surprised that Jews took part in the African Atlantic slave trade so why am I being professionally and personally crucified for teaching it?  His answer to that question opened his eyes to the reality that the relationship between the Jews and Blacks has never been one of reciprocity and respect—it has been qualified support for Blacks to do the things that the Jews want—and any deviation from that program requires a public and professional flogging.

What is more, once Martin dug a bit deeper into the Jewish-Black relationship, he discovered much more than merely the outsized Jewish role in African chattel slavery. He discovered that the Hamitic myth (that Africans are associated particularly with the Curse of Noah) was a creation of Talmudic sages more than a thousand years ago. He attributes that myth with softening the ground for later Christian views of African inferiority that itself was used in justifying the slave trade. And the Hamitic myth is overlaid by what he calls the myth of Jewish supremacy. His hate mail, mostly from Jews, demonstrated an almost unhinged and secret hatred by Jews for the “schvartze.” But be that as it may, hate mail comes from the most unhinged members of a community so there is no proof that it represented Jewish attitudes in general. That said, Martin, if he is to be believed, was surprised by the vitriol of anti-Blackness he received for his part in the affair.

*        *        *

There are six themes of The Jewish Onslaught that are worthy of highlighting. Again, I assume that if “they” had left Professor Anthony Martin alone, he never would have been inclined to research and make these claims. First, he observes that “the very least that can be said in the present case is that Jewish ability to influence the major media is very impressive indeed.” Martin witnessed it first-hand, and, because of it, he researched that which should be known to those who have undertaken only a cursory glance at who runs the media in this country. Yes, the Jews have an overwhelming stranglehold over the information in the United States, and this control necessarily has implications on what constitutes “news” and what does not. That, for example, the American public is barraged with information regarding the Iranian nuclear program while not one American presidential candidate has ever been asked their opinion of Israel’s clandestine nuclear program—even though Israel, as the pariah nation that it is, is a recalcitrant non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Or more to the point, why are the American people continuously fed the lie that Israel is our “greatest ally.” Who says? Especially as it pertains to Israel, the American media carries water like a lackey for Israeli misdeeds. But for the Jewish stranglehold on media and information, the American public would undoubtedly have a very different take on our “greatest ally.” Martin simply caught a glimpse of the power of the Jewish media machine to grind down the opposition—even if the opposition itself is of little value or importance. Martin never connected that control to other Jewish initiatives and agendas but the mere fact that he observed it—in a chapter entitled “Major Media”—is enough.

Second, Martin makes the more pained point that some of his Black brethren fomented the attack on him. He uses that reality as a springboard for describing how Jews have co-opted and infiltrated Black leadership and organization for their ends. He recounts how the Jews have insisted, for example, that Louis Farrakhan be excluded from major Black summits or events, or their support (and money) would be withdrawn. As it relates to Farrakhan and his views, the question isn’t whether we agree with him (and, more to the point, as Whites, what business is it of ours to tell the Black community who can or cannot have a voice within their community), the point rather is that Farrakhan is no more beyond the pale in terms of other Black voices save for his lifelong critique of Jewish involvement in what he considers to be “intra-Black” debates. For that reason, and not his vitriol generally, Farrakhan must not only be purged from general American audiences, but he must also, if possible, be purged from Black audiences as well.

The gist of Martin’s critique is that the Jews, wholly supportive of the integrationist wing of Black America, do everything that they can to squelch the normalization and voice of Black separatists. Martin sees, correctly I might add, that Jews have a thumb on the scale of what should be an intra-Black dispute about leadership and direction. Integration serves the needs of the Jews—it makes Blacks vote in a way that mirrors the Jews and in support of politicians chosen by the Jews. It is no small thing that control over Black leadership is of enormous consequence to the Jews—they multiply their power electorally in the United States by adding ten percent of the population to their side. Black intellectuals that would question that relationship—or the Jews generally—must be crushed. Sometimes, one cannot resist the query: who do these people think that they are to manipulate anyone and everything?

Third, Martin offers a chapter entitled “Jewish Racism.” In it, he connects the dots that Jews are generally racist towards Blacks—questioning their abilities and their African Studies Departments. Martin observed first-hand, in the mail he received and the professional criticism he endured, that Jewish toleration of him (as a Black professional) and his discipline (African Studies) was contingent on his ability to leave well enough alone. He was on the receiving end of critics who called him a fraud—that his teaching was a fraud—and probably an affirmative action fraud as well. In addition to the Hamitic myth, discussed above, Martin appeared generally shocked by the bilious language used by his detractors to describe him and the debate.

Fourth, Martin makes an interesting point about the logic of “some Jews.” When Jews are forced to admit some collective failing, they insist that blame cannot be assigned to “the Jews,” but only that “some Jews” did this or that. He also writes how this “some Jews” mantra is shared by, ironically enough, all Jews. He observes:

The campus ultra-Zionist who is usually in a state of war with the campus Jewish power elite, the power elite themselves, the liberals (like the one who for years had regaled me with stories of her civil rights involvement), the former infantile left-wing communist now turned pseudo-liberal Jewish nationalist—all spoke as with one voice on this issue.  “It’s a lie,” they sang in choral unison. “Jews were not an important part of the slave trade. ‘Some Jews,’ maybe, but that’s all. The book is anti-Semitic, and you are hateful for using it.”

To which he replies, cleverly enough, “and I am yet to meet the Jewish historian who will tell you that ‘some Englishmen’ established an empire on which the sun never set.” What the Jews have established, at least in terms of acceptable historiography of the Jews themselves, is that when we speak of laudable characteristics, we may speak of “the Jews”; yet when we speak of not-so-laudable characteristics or activities that are deplorable, we must speak only of “some Jews.” Only the good sticks to all, the bad is relegated to a few bad apples. Ask yourself a question, what other people demands such historiography? Martin’s insight here is alone worth the price of admission.

In a chapter entitled “Black Solidarity,” Martin recounts the overwhelming support he received from the Black community minus a few public Black detractors. But what Martin spends his time deconstructing is the infiltration of Black (and other ethnic groups) by Jewish organizations. He recounts information that was not familiar to me—the Anti-Defamation League ran illegal spying operations across the country in the 1990s—some “12,000 or more individuals and 950 organizations were said to have been the objects of the ADL’s unwelcome attention.” This was a matter of public record and reported, if briefly, in the mainstream news. From this, Martin observes that “ethnic associations” seem to fascinate the ADL, and the ADL sidestepped the controversy of its spying by sanctimoniously claiming it had an obligation to “expose extremist, racist and anti-Semitic organizations and groups.” Martin was therefore lumped into the same category as the Klan for purposes of the ADL’s watchful eye. To which Martin replies, “who will spy on the real bigots while they spy on the alleged bigots?”

The last theme that Martin touches upon is “Afrocentrism,” which he defines as, “assert[ing] that African people must interpret their own reality and see the world from their own perspective. [It] rejects both the claims of the racist and the efforts of friendly but paternalistic representatives of other races to speak for the African.” Again, this language hearkens back to the discussion above about the Black separatist wing of thought that, even if it does not call for political separation, casts a wary eye towards the liberal non-Blacks lining up to “do good” for the Black community. Martin believes that “Afrocentrism,” so defined, is considered by Jews to be their natural enemy. He views this to be so because Jews are now well-ensconced in the upper echelons of White society and wish to protect their privileged position. In this, he notes that the Jews have become “White,” and now serve to protect “Whiteness.” One area of this debate, which is something I knew only a little about, is the question of Greece, Egypt, and the role of Africa. He says that Jews are the academic leaders of the “whitenizing” or “de-Africanizing” of Egypt. He sees that the Jews have been vocal advocates for the ideas that ancient Egyptians—the civilization-builders anyway—were not “Africans” but dark-skinned Greeks or hybrid Greeks. He makes the further point that the Greeks were much closer in culture and geography to the Ethiopians than they were to the peoples of Northern Europe who now claim the ancient Greeks as their own. He offers, in a few pages, why he believes that Greece is indebted to Egypt for its culture, and why Egypt, in turn, must be considered an African power.

This is an interesting side question—it is undoubtedly true that Northern and Western Europeans see themselves in continuity with the Hellenistic world—and that Western Civilization, with ancient Greece being its anchor, is unique. Homer, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are “our” people, and their ideas on philosophy, governance and ethics are “our” collective civilizational idea. Indeed, we see those Greeks as “White” and one needs only a cursory review of ancient Greek art and statuary shows to realize that while Ethiopia may be closer to Helles than Norway, the people of Greece were more racially similar to the people of Norway than they were the people of Ethiopia. For my part, I do take ownership of a meta-culture and people best embodied by “Western Civilization” that includes the Greeks and that is, racially anyway, White. Martin would like to do one of two things: cut ancient Greece down to size as something like a cultural interloper concerning Africa; or cut loose ancient Greece from Europe and “Western Civilization” and reorient it into a North African orbit. From what I have read of ancient Greece and the Hellenistic world, it formed a semi-circumference around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and stretched from Sparta along the coast to Alexandria and even more Western points. Ethiopia, while not directly a part of the Hellenistic world (not unlike Persia), was an impressive culture and civilization, which cannot be denied; but it was not a progenitor of the West.

It seems to me that the reason that Martin and his fellow Afro-centrists are so desperate to untether or delegitimize ancient Greece and tie it, in one way or another, to “Africa” is because the reality of sub-Saharan Africa has been so abysmal and backward. He is right on one point—as a crow flies, the ancient Greeks that I count as “fathers” were further from my people on the West Coast of Ireland than they were from the dark-skinned Ethiopians. But geography and cartography are what they are: Greece is in Europe, so defined, and the peoples of Europe claim her as their own and recent genetic evidence confirms the relationship of Europe with ancient Greece. The reality is that in language, culture, mannerisms, and opinions, Northern and Western Europeans (whether we lived in caves during Homer’s time or not) are the chief inheritors and children of ancient Greece.

*        *        *

To prove that a controversy involving Professor Martin, now dead for ten years, is far from history—consider the following that involves the Biden Administration’s nomination of one Kristin Clark:

Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee to head the civil rights division at the Justice Department, said it was a mistake to have invited the author of an anti-Semitic screed to speak at Harvard when she headed a black student group there. In 1994, Clarke as the leader of a Black Student Association invited Tony Martin, author of a book called “The Jewish Onslaught,” to speak and defended him afterward. Jews on campus at the time were appalled by the invitation.

“Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” she told the Forward on Thursday. Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has worked closely in recent years with Jewish groups in combatting white supremacists. Biden announced his choice of Clarke on Monday, which earned praise from the Anti-Defamation League. The following day Tucker Carlson, a Fox News Channel host, uncovered 1994 stories in the Harvard Crimson about the Martin controversy. Subsequently, statements from liberal Jewish groups backing Clarke were more pointed in rejecting the bid to stigmatize her with actions she took as a student.

“This week, Kristen Clarke acknowledged she made a mistake when, as a student at Harvard, she gave a professor who promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories a platform,” Bend the Arc: Jewish Action said Thursday on Twitter. “She unequivocally denounces anti-Semitism — and acts upon that commitment in fighting religious discrimination.” Also praising Clarke on Thursday for her work combatting anti-Semitism were the National Council of Jewish Women, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Joel Rubin, the American Jewish Congress executive director.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs, who directs T’ruah, a rabbinical human rights group, said in an interview that Clarke’s statement this week was a “model of teshuvah,” or repentance, and derided those on the right who would stigmatize someone for something they said as a teenager. Some of Carlson’s attacks on Clarke include remarks by Clarke, ripped from context, about white supremacy during her Harvard years, when she contrasted it with black supremacy. “It’s not accidental that people on the right are specifically going after women of color and trying to dig up anything from their past even if it’s something that happened when they’re 19,” Jacobs said.

How pathetic indeed is the need for teshnuvah from these people? I suppose that selling Professor Anthony Martin out posthumously—and sacrificing her convictions—was a small price to pay for Ms. Clarke’s sinecure at the Justice Department.

Well, at least the Jews are happy.  Aggressive, manic, paranoid, and neurotic; but happy.

*        *        *

Saint Paul, Pray for Us.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Bernard M. Smith https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Bernard M. Smith2023-05-27 00:01:042023-05-30 05:19:18Review of The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront, Part 2

Review of The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront, Part 1

May 26, 2023/11 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Bernard M. Smith

The fundamental, underlying motif of Jewish racism is an unwarranted assumption of Jewish superiority.

The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront
Tony Martin
The Majority Press, 1993; Black Classic Press, 2022

I recently wrote an article on the very controversial The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: The Jewish Role in the Enslavement of Africans, which was published in 1991 without authorial attribution by the Nation of Islam. That book was a fusillade against the American Jewish community inasmuch as it drew attention to the outsized role that the Jews played in the African Atlantic slave trade. The Jews mounted a ferocious—and largely successful—effort to marginalize the book by characterizing it as antisemitic “pseudo-scholarship.” Indeed, some thirty years later, here is a typical refrain about how the work has been dismissed:

Mainstream scholars have on the whole rejected [The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews]. In addition to the study by Faber cited above, refutations have been published by Davis, the Yale professor mentioned above, and Ralph Austen, an emeritus professor of African history at the University of Chicago. Winthrop D. Jordan, a history professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specialized in slavery, wrote that the book employed shoddy scholarly methods and cherry-picked information, ignoring evidence that modified or countered its pre-ordained conclusion. Henry Louis Gates, director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University called the Nation of Islam’s book “one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled,” and charged that it “massively misrepresents the historical record.”

For my part as a lay historian, I am relatively well-read in the American Civil War, the antebellum South, and American slavery. Like most Americans of my generation, I share their disdain for the institution of slavery. While the history of African chattel slavery in the Americas is as loathsome as it is dehumanizing, the concept of slavery itself is a historically and economically complex practice. Its ubiquity and complexity, however, do not excuse its horror. If there is a maxim that we must live by, it should be that we never subject someone to something that we would not wish to abide by. And, at least for me in applying the Golden Rule, I can think of nothing worse than being subjected to slavery.

To be sure, I am sure that my visceral reaction to slavery is influenced by the historical epoch into which I was born—i.e., we live in an age that elevates maximal individual autonomy to the highest human good and therefore a systematic restraint of individual autonomy (slavery) must be seen, under that principle, as the lowest form of human institutions. In any event, I have studied chattel slavery enough to know it was a terrible and debasing economic and political structure. And even if I take issues with how the United States cured itself of chattel slavery (and I do)—and even if I take a more nuanced view of the war between the states (and I do)—and even if I abhor what the United States has become after it abolished slavery (which I do as well)—none of that flavors my opinion of chattel slavery itself.

Despite the modern historic gloss, Europeans neither invented slavery nor were its chief practitioners. Slavery has existed for as long as the stronger group prevailed over the weaker group, which is another way to say that slavery has existed since man was ejected from the Garden. That said, European involvement in the systematic practice of African slavery will forever be a mark of odium for us. That we constructed a multi-generational regime of chattel slavery tied to race is something for which we continue to pay a moral price—and increasingly, a  price in crime and unending programs for uplifting the ancestors of slaves. It is something, pardon the pun, we own as a people and as a civilization. And there is an irony then—in this essay and the subject matter that it covers—that the Jews have self-deputized themselves as our moral lights to remind us of the horrors of what we, as a people, did. True enough, even though I don’t have a lineal ancestor in the United States before the twentieth century, I own it on behalf of my European people. That the Jews, however, should be our ethical guide in this matter is something altogether different and patently objectionable.

So, I approach the topic as neither an apologist for European slaving nor as someone naïve enough to believe that there is something congenital about us in terms of European slaving. It is a lamentable chapter in European history, but it is merely a chapter. All it says of us is that some of us were capable of inflicting collective and unjustified harm on others—and, at least in that, we are no different than any other group of people. The very doctrine of original sin, which posits that human beings (individually and collectively) have damaged moral compasses is validated when something like slavery is analyzed. Only morally damaged people could justify its perpetuation. I, therefore, own the history of my people like anyone else. All we can do—whether we are discussing the failures in our own lives or the collective failures of our people—is repent and resolve to do better. The study of history then is more than the collection of isolated facts but rather an opportunity for the Christian to be exposed to examples—both good and bad—to use them as a means by which personal growth and moral improvement are undertaken. And our failures, which are bound together in humanity’s congenital and spiritual failures, do not make me love my people any less. Like family, they are mine, warts, and all.

I had multiple reasons to read The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. It was an intersection of two of my historical interests: the Jews and the institution of slavery. In my study of the Jews, which has included both positive and negative portrayals, and in my study of slavery, I found The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to be both scholarly and persuasive. The thesis of the work is quite simple: the Jews, from the very beginning of the discovery of the New World, were dominant and instrumental in the Atlantic slave trade. They had no qualms about it or the dehumanization of Africans that accompanied it. The Jews were more involved with slaving, slave-trafficking, and slaveholding, at least on a proportionate basis, than non-Jews. Simply put, the point of the book is to highlight this outsized Jewish role in African slaving. As one might imagine, this enormous role is something that modern Jews would like to remain obscured and hidden. Unlike most guilt-ridden Euro-Americans, the Jews refuse to acknowledge their collective role in slavery. Not only do they not want to apologize for it, but they also evidently wish to deny it. It is the height of historical hypocrisy for the Jews to abuse others for the same moral failings that they enacted with enthusiasm. This is a type of gaslighting of the worst kind.

While the book has its blind spots, I marvel at the publication strategy of the Nation of Islam in three ways. First, it is bereft of authorship—it was merely written by the “Historical Department” of the Nation of Islam. This stratagem prevented the Jews and their minions from attacking the author(s) or his/their relative credentials as opposed to the work itself. In an alternate history, the author or authors, would have been the story—and we would remember this entire episode as the ultimate beatdown of “N” who dared to synthesize all the material that substantiates the outsized role of the Jews in enslaving and continuing the enslavement of Africans.

Second, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is based upon, almost exclusively, the citation and use of past Jewish scholarship (albeit of an older vintage). This is where knowledge of the history of history, as it were, comes in handy. There was a time—before 1960—in which chattel slavery and its dehumanization of Africans was not as acutely detested as it is today. Today, we are horrified by chattel slavery and modern scholarship reflects that axiomatic moral gloss. What this means is that older scholarship—before the age of today’s moral grandstanding—could discuss the phenomenon of chattel slavery in a relatively dispassionate way. In this earlier milieu of slavery’s historiography, the accurate recounting of the role that the Jews—or anyone else—played in it did not subject them to special scorn—it was what it was. Earlier Jewish scholarship, which is always interested in Jewish history, simply laid out what the Jews did regarding slaving and slaveholding. If anything, prior Jewish scholars were impressed by the ability of the Jews to dominate something commercial like the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Moreover, slaveholding itself was a sign of wealth and having “arrived”—that the Jews owned slaves everywhere was a sign of their “arriving” and “arriving” splendidly in the New World. Little did they know that this economic and ethnic pride would later become such a historical liability for future generations of Jews. By relying on this older Jewish scholarship, the authors of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews managed to get a more unvarnished account of Jewish involvement, and they insulated themselves from relying upon “antisemitic” sources—indeed, no one can sensibly argue that Jewish historians from the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries were antisemitic.

Third, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews makes no grand claims regarding the role of the Jews: it merely lays out the various ways in which the Jews were involved and dominated, at least at different periods, the importation and trading of slaves. It does not, for example, claim a special Jewish propensity for slave-trading nor does it assign a special Jewish moral disability for slave-trading either. In other words, it is not a work that makes a special claim of Jewish moral or genetic inferiority concerning their slaving—it simply was what it was. Rather, the whole of the work is a historical recitation of a particular people’s significant role in a commercial venture and system that we all take for granted now is odious. And, at least from a disinterested perspective, this is something that historians do all the time: they make their living, at least today, by splicing and reviewing historical phenomena from various angles and perspectives. Had any historian presented the special role that, for example, the Portuguese, the Spanish, or the Italians played in the African Atlantic slave trade, no one would have cared. Indeed, today, the more specialized the perspective, the more it is valued—so a dissertation, for example, of the role that Austrian candlemakers played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sure to have a ready audience (albeit specialized) and ready approval. Such scholarship would be deemed to be another contribution to the overall historical mix of our collective understanding of slavery. The only issue here is that the Nation of Islam had the temerity to focus upon the Jews, which is unforgivable under current conditions.

The Nation of Islam wanted to publish this work presumably for three reasons. First, it adds to the scholarship of slavery, which is something that all Black nationalists wish to see expanded. Second, they probably wanted to expose the fact that the Jews’ role in African Atlantic slavery has been “airbrushed” by subsequent Jewish historians who now know that such involvement is as toxic as it is unhelpful to current Jewish historiographies. When I say “airbrushing,” I mean that the Jews, as a historical group, have been written out of the narrative of slaving peoples. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews then forces the Jews to account for both the reality of Jewish slaveholding and the airbrushing of Jewish slaveholding—even in dismissing it. Third, the Nation of Islam represents that portion of the Black nationalist spectrum that is hostile to Jewish involvement generally in Black liberation—they have an agenda to weaken the bonds of a partnership that they see as ultimately negative. The Nation of Islam sees the Jews as instrumentalizing Blacks for whatever the Jewish agenda is—and, for that reason alone, they published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to “wake up” Black America to the idea that the Jews are not—and never have been—the friends of Blacks. Thus the Nation of Islam drew upon a strain of Black thought that sees Jews for who they are—patronizing “friends” who do nothing for Blacks, and, worse, “friends” who harm.

While I can understand why the Jews would denounce the third prong (seeking to decouple Jews and Blacks as groups) as “anti-Semitic,” they studiously ignore the reality that the Jewish doctoring of the role of the Jews in slavery is as real as the role of the Jews in slavery itself. And that airbrushing is a much larger indictment of Jewry than their copious involvement in the slaving business hundreds of years ago. The airbrushing demonstrates control over the allowable narrative—really a manipulation of history itself—that bespeaks a concerted application of power to bend reality in a way that benefits and empowers the Jews. The hysterical hostility to The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews thus has more to do with what the Jews are doing now as opposed to what dead Jews did hundreds of years ago. Thus, the whole affair is about Jewish power dynamics today—not Jewish historical sins of yesterday.

Although contemporary Jews have succeeded in branding the work as “antisemitic,” the work itself is no screed or cauldron of conspiratorial thinking about the Jews. By refusing to connect the historical dots—that is, to connect why the Jews were so heavily invested in slaving—the authors remain above the socio-political fray of “antisemitic” theorizing. In that sense, the book is scholarly and not polemical. Little did it matter, however; the Jews were successful in deeming it “anti-Semitic” anyway for the mere fact that the authors had pointed out something that the Jews wished to remain obscured. The reality is that the current Jewish ethos and mantle of victimology cannot tolerate the aspersion (even if true) of the systemic Jewish victimizing of another group. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews represented, at least to Jewish groups, an existential threat to the continued assertions of Jewish moral superiority, which itself is axiomatically tied to Jewish suffering and Jewish victimhood. For these reasons, dragging out the Jewish role in African slaving into the light of day had to be quashed with alacrity and heavy-handedness. The judiciously cultivated rapport between Jewish leadership over the African American community was at stake: if a sizable contingent of Blacks understood the vast role that the Jews played in their ancestors’ capture and enslavement, the edifice of Jewish-led control might collapse.

No one can threaten, as it were, the carefully concocted historical narrative of two sojourning peoples (Blacks and Jews) constantly being victimized by Euro-Americans. No, the Jews cannot be lumped in with the victimizers, or, worse still, identified as chief victimizers themselves. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews then was a double-blow to Jewish “groupthink” sensibilities: it subjected the Jews to collective shame, and it jeopardized their control over African Americans as agents against Euro-American gentiles. Thus, the work had to be smashed and put on the same social plane as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Every time and in every sentence that The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews was mentioned, the phrases, “anti-Semitic” and “pseudo-scholarship” must accompany it so that the work is morally and historically “deemed” discredited. Following the vociferous and manic campaign against The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, no academician would be allowed to use it as if it were serious scholarship. While the Jews could not stop it from being handed out by the Nation of Islam in Harlem or Chicago, they wanted to ensure that it was never assigned to college students studying the African slave trade. If one professor dared to assign it—and remained adamant in continuing to assign it—he would have to be destroyed.

*        *        *

As I have written much recently about race in the aftermath of “Black Lives Matter” and the lawlessness that followed the death of George Floyd, it was refreshing to read something so different from what I had been reading. “Afrocentrism” is not one of my favored topics, but I enjoyed reading something written from an Afrocentric perspective. I have an admittedly strange relationship with my understanding of Black America. I love it and loathe it all the same. I see Black criminality and dysfunction everywhere, yet I cannot help but love Black America from a distance. I deeply respect those voices in Black America that attempt to reorient Black revival and the Black community through the actions of Blacks alone. As someone who has only recently come to terms with my “Whiteness,” as it were, I now appreciate that what certain Black leaders say about self-reliance and self-determination as an intra-Black affair has equal applicability to Whites and White self-reliance and White self-determination. In the increasingly racially polarized world that we live in in the United States, it was nonetheless energizing to read the perspective of “race” from the mind of a strong Black man after spending so much time reading race from the perspective of strong, White men who are seeking to chart a course for White America. Ironically enough, both types of men are despised.

The late Anthony Martin (1942–2013) was a professor at Wellesley College from 1973 until 2007. And we know anything of Tony Martin because he became that faculty member who dared to assign The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to his undergraduate students—his odyssey in the wilderness at the hands of a concerted and vile attempt by the Jews to silence and obliterate him is recounted in vivid detail in his short work, The Jewish Onslaught. Martin was a tenured member of the faculty in the Africana Studies Department at Wellesley, and he was a Marcus Garvey scholar. For the uninitiated, that Professor Martin was a scholar in the work of Marcus Garvey should be taken as a sign that Martin was someone who placed himself on the spectrum of Black nationalism that generally believes that Black liberation must come exclusively from within the Black community and with as little involvement of non-Black people and institutions as possible. Marcus Garvey was, to say the very least, a strong Black leader who had no use for White involvement in Black liberation. From the beginning of Black political engagement in the United States (and elsewhere), two threads within the Black world emerged—a conciliating wing that wishes to engage and incorporate seemingly sympathetic Whites into the fight for broader rights for Blacks (the “integrationist wing”) led by leaders such as Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, and the current leadership of Black civil rights organizations like the NAACP. On the other side, Blacks have more strident leaders who stressed self-reliance and self-empowerment (perhaps we could call them the “separatist” wing) and were led by people like Marcus Garvey, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan.

The tension between the wings has led to recriminations of “Uncle Tom” (the separatist critique of the integrationist) and Black racism (the integrationist critique of the separatist wing). Indeed, President Trump himself was an acid test for the two wings—I suspect that the separatist wing enjoyed praising him on occasion simply to tweak the integrationist wing who viewed him as the devil incarnate, and that distinction is why Black separatists pay next-to-no homage to the Democratic Party while the Black integrationists spend all their energies being “good” Democrats. Black separatists will never be Republicans, but they are useful to Republicans by pointing out the folly of Democratic policies and aims. It is for this reason that Democrats struggle with how to treat Black separatists—they hate them but cannot be too hard on them lest they alienate Black integrationists. Both wings are realities of the Black experience in the United States, and to understand, at least from afar, the dynamics of Black political engagement is to appreciate this tension.

For my part, ironically perhaps, I have always appreciated the Black separatist wing—one of the books that moved me greatly in my late teens was the autobiography of Malcolm X. While I reject aspects of extreme Black nationalism and the lore that Whites (my people) are somehow congenitally evil, I find something more authentic and genuine regarding the advocacy of Black separatists. In any event, I don’t begrudge them their instinct that Black communities ought to be Black—why would I?  I also have always been impressed by good rhetorical skills and no matter what he says, I find Louis Farrakhan, as a speaker and rhetorician, to be incredibly talented. Obviously, I don’t agree with much of what Farrakhan has to say but that disagreement cannot obscure that Farrakhan is one of the most dynamic speakers of his age. If only we had someone like him on our side.

I concur with Black separatists generally on three fronts: first, every community must stand on its own two feet—dependence upon “do-gooders” or worse, a pluralistic state, from the outside only emasculates the necessary work of self-reliance that is necessary for community autonomy. Second, I agree with Black separatists that race is a real and durable concept; ergo, the cult of diversity is not a communitarian strength but a sickness within a broader society. But more to the discrete point, I agree with Black separatists that Blacks—and only Blacks—can fix whatever it is that ails the Black community. And thus, the best way to support Black America is to leave them alone. Coincidentally, I see the same principle at work for White America. Our problems have become magnified and horrendous in the United States. As much as Black separatists argue for autonomous Black communities free from White (or any other) influence, I say three cheers—I’d like the same for my people. Third, Black separatists, unlike their integrationist brethren who are more liberal in policy and outlook, tend to be more noticeably patriarchal in orientation. Not only then does the solution for Blacks come from within, but they see it coming through Black men. As a White man who appreciates that feminism and matriarchy are social cancers, I appreciate the Black separatist insistence on the importance of men as the responsible parties and leaders for their communities. In this, I agree wholeheartedly.

It is important to see Martin within the wing of Black separatist thought because of his very stubborn reaction to the enormous pressure placed upon him demonstrated an intellectual life dedicated to the principle that Blacks should not be told what to do—or think—by non-Black men or institutions. For Martin, equality and respect were things that had deep meaning and purpose. For my part, I don’t think Martin picked The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews for the edification of his students because he was a disciple of Marcus Garvey. Rather, I think it was because he was so obstinate in the face of Jewish pressure to make him capitulate. Stated simply, they picked on the wrong Black man to intimidate.

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Bernard M. Smith https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Bernard M. Smith2023-05-26 00:01:372023-05-29 10:56:30Review of The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront, Part 1

In Clown They Trust: The Farce and Foulness of Clown World

May 24, 2023/6 Comments/in European New Right, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

The Jewish genius Hannah Arendt was wrong about “the banality of evil.” Evil is often entertaining and interesting, combining both farce and foulness. That’s why the term “Clown World” was invented. It’s used by thought-criminals like Vox Day to describe governments, corporations, and churches in the modern West. We’re ruled by Jew-designed ideologies – black supremacism, transgenderism, feminism – whose elite enforcers are as evil and arrogant as they are incompetent and inept. In other words, they’re evil clowns. Among much else, the evil elite clowns are determined to tear down the borders that maintain society and civilization. For example, transgenderism is about elite clowns tearing down the border between male and female so that perverted men can indulge their fetishes by pretending to be women.

Elite clowns in America: Joe Biden is a puppet of Jewish power

For an excellent example of that broken border and a trans-clown in action, take a Scottish criminal who has just hit the headlines in Britain. Dressed as a woman, a “transitioning” pedophile called Andrew Miller, also known as Amy George, went cruising for prey and tricked a pre-teen schoolgirl into his car. He then drove her to his home, confined her to his bedroom, and sexually assaulted her over 27 hours. In between sexual assaults, he refreshed his libido by watching porn and fetish videos on TV. He rejected the girl’s repeated pleas for freedom and told her that she was now his “new family.”

Silicone villainy

Then, understandably tired out by his transgender activism, he fell asleep. The girl was able to escape the bedroom, find a phone, and ring the police. When the police arrived, they found Miller still asleep and wearing “a bra, silicone breasts, female pants and tights.” In a subsequent interview, Miller told the police that he had been trying to “help” the girl. She looked “freezing,” he said, and tricking her into his car had been the “motherly thing” to do. And he had “put her in bed with me to warm up.” The transphobic police didn’t believe him. He was charged with abduction, sexual assault, and “intentionally causing a child under the age of 13 to look at a sexual image.” And with possession of “242 indecent images of children.” He later pleaded guilty to all charges.

Trans-clown Amy George, a.k.a Andrew Miller

That’s Clown World at its funniest and foulest. But it’s possible that stories like that help the transgender cause rather than harm it. I’ve argued in the article “Dykes Are Dull!” that leftists’ adolescent desire for novelty and entertainment is a big part of their support for translunacy. Unlike boring lesbians, “transwomen” are very entertaining. Like Jonathan Yaniv in Canada, Andrew Miller in Scotland is one of the many trans-clowns who have invaded female territory to indulge their sexual perversions. However, the left view such trans-clowns not with disgust, but as a misunderstood and marginalized minority. And because the evil of transgenderism is entertaining, it’s even more attractive to the left. Applying their core principle of “Preach Equality, Practice Hierarchy,” leftists have placed trans-clowns far above lesbians, let alone the straight women who don’t want trans-clowns in female toilets and dressing-rooms, or competing in female sports.

Importing non-White psychopaths

So don’t assume Miller’s farcical crimes will harm the transgender cause. They may do the exact opposite. Leftists are drawn to evil and want to be entertained. Trans-clowns like Miller satisfy both leftist needs. But I’m not a leftist and when I read about his crimes, I was reminded of another Scottish schoolchild who suffered even worse things because of Clown World’s war on borders. The schoolgirl abducted by Andrew Miller pleaded with him for freedom. He must have seen her fear and distress, but he rejected her pleas. Luckily for her, she got out alive. The Scottish schoolboy Kriss Donald wasn’t so lucky after he was abducted by a gang of vicious Pakistani criminals in 2004. The Pakistanis were in Scotland because elite clowns had opened Britain’s borders to violent and corrupt non-Whites. Kriss Donald too pleaded for freedom, but his abductors were unmoved by his fear and distress. They had abducted him at random because he was White and they murdered him in horrific fashion because he was White. Kriss Donald was doused in gasoline, set alight, then stabbed repeatedly and left to die in agony.

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, two young white victims of Clown World

The following year, in 2005, a White schoolgirl called Mary-Ann Leneghan was abducted by a Black gang in England, raped and tortured over hours, then stabbed to death as she too pleaded for mercy. Again, the Blacks were here because elite clowns had opened Britain’s borders to non-Whites. But while White schoolchildren are victims of the war being waged on the West by elite clowns, non-White schoolchildren are trainee footsoldiers in that war. Take the great English county of Yorkshire. It’s still famous for the toughness and enterprise of its White natives, the grandeur of its landscapes, and the strength of its devotion to cricket. Now it’s also infamous for its Pakistani rape-gangs. But not as infamous as it should be. Clown World tried but failed to hide the horrors being inflicted on working-class White girls in the small Yorkshire town of Rotherham. Even worse has gone on in bigger places. We got a glimpse of that when more Pakistani rape-gangs preying on White girls were exposed in the Yorkshire town of Huddersfield in 2018, as I described in “Huddersfield Horrorshow.” In April 2023 Huddersfield is back in the news for its vibrancy:

Two stupid, violent and impulsive Blacks who have enriched Yorkshire courtesy of Clown World

Two teenage cousins who stabbed a 15-year-old boy to death as he walked home from school in West Yorkshire have been jailed for life. Jovani Harriott, 17, and Jakele Pusey, 15, murdered Khayri McLean after ambushing him outside North Huddersfield Trust School last year.

The judge, Mrs Justice Farbey, said the cousins had seen Khayri as their “enemy” and may have killed him in “revenge” for sharing a video online about a broken window at Harriott’s mother’s house. Det Supt Marc Bowes, of West Yorkshire Police, said it “will be hard for many of us to comprehend” how a “low-level dispute” ended with two boys “stabbing a fellow student to death at the end of an otherwise ordinary school day”.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford KC said Khayri was killed in a “well-planned” attack on 21 September. Dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, the defendants waited in an alleyway before ambushing him as he walked along Woodhouse Hill with friends after school. Pusey shouted Khayri’s name while “jumping into the air” and stabbing him in the heart with a 30cm blade, the court heard. His cousin, who was 16 at the time of the attack, then knifed Khayri in the leg.

Khayri was pulled to his feet by his friends and tried to run away but collapsed. He died later in hospital. Harriott, who was 16 at the time of the attack, was convicted of murder in March while Pusey pleaded guilty to murder at an earlier hearing.

Mr Sandiford told the court Pusey had admitted murdering Khayri in a recording covertly obtained while he was in detention. During the conversation, the boy said he felt “no remorse” and claimed to have “slept better” since the killing, the prosecutor said. His lawyer Richard Wright KC, in mitigation, said Pusey – who was in a gang called the Fartown Boys – had been exploited and “drawn into a life” in which “he felt he belonged, was protected and accepted”.

The court heard the boy had told probation officers he was shot by masked men in a “gang incident” when he was 12 and had dealt drugs since he was 13. Det Supt Bowes, who led the police investigation into Khayri’s murder, said the “appalling attack” had “rightly shocked people across the country” and “highlighted the dreadful consequences of knife crime and the culture of carrying such weapons”. (Khayri Mclean: Huddersfield teens jailed for life over schoolboy stabbing, BBC News, 18th April 2023)

Note that Detective Superintendant Marc Bowes was playing a role often assigned to police officers in Clown World. They express incredulity about the way stupid, violent, and impulsive non-Whites can’t and won’t conform to White standards of behavior. But they don’t put it like that, of course. Bowes said that it “will be hard for many of us to comprehend” the savagery of the two Black boys in question. He was wrong. It isn’t hard to understand at all. Blacks evolved in the distinct environments of sub-Saharan Africa, where natural selection favored aggression and impulsivity over intelligence and self-control. Clown World favors the same anti-civic behavior in its Black footsoldiers. In America, the Black minority are the chief practitioners and victims of gun-crime. In Britain, the Black minority are the chief practitioners and victims of knife-crime.

Jew-puppet Joe Biden

The weapons differ, but the genetically mediated Black behavior is the same. So is the way that Clown World blames Black pathologies on White racism in both countries. For example, the evil and stupid movement known as Black Lives Matter (BLM) was invented by clowns in America and taken up eagerly by clowns in Britain. As Steve Sailer has tirelessly and irrefutably demonstrated, BLM has been responsible for a big increase in the number of Blacks murdered and maimed by other Blacks. And also in Blacks killed by dangerous Black driving. The evil elite clowns don’t care, because those elite clowns don’t genuinely care about the welfare of Blacks and other non-Whites. No, they genuinely care about only one thing: destroying the White West.

That’s why they wage war on borders, allowing trans-perverts to invade female territory and non-White savages to invade White territory. When the Jew-puppet Joe Biden said that “white supremacy” is “the most dangerous terrorist threat” to America, he meant that Whites are the biggest obstacle to the triumph of Clown World. But only if Whites wake up to how the elite clowns hate them and want to destroy their lives, their future, and their civilization. Fortunately, the arrogance and incompetence of Clown World will ensure that Whites wake up by the million. As the trillion-dollar farce of Afghanistan proved, clowns can easily start wars but they can’t ever win them.

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 Langdon2023-05-24 00:01:072023-05-24 02:06:43In Clown They Trust: The Farce and Foulness of Clown World

Jesus the Jew

May 22, 2023/12 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

It’s hard to believe in the present day, but yes, it’s true, there are still a lot of Christians out there in the world.  According to some estimates, they number around 2.4 billion or about 30% of humanity.  In terms of sheer numbers, the US technically has the most: about 245 million, representing around 75% of the country—although many of these undoubtedly are so weakly religious (“Christmas and Easter Christians”) that they would barely pass any theological litmus test.  The next three largest Christian populations are hardly an honor roll (Brazil, Mexico, and Russia), and the countries that, percentage-wise, are the most Christian, are mostly laughable: East Timor, Armenia, New Guinea, Haiti, and Paraguay, among the Top Ten.

Obviously, there is a huge variety in specific beliefs among these millions of Christians. The World Christian Encyclopedia infamously notes that, globally, there are some 33,000 “distinct denominations” of the Church, including 242 Catholic, 9,000 Protestant, and over 22,000 “independent.”  We can only imagine the variation in beliefs among these groups—and of course, only one (at most!) can be right.  I’d hate to pick the wrong one!  (Do I hear, “Going to hell,” anyone?)

But presumably they all must share at least a few core beliefs, simply in order to call themselves Christian.  We can guess what these might be: (1) there exists a personal, moral God who loves us; (2) believers will prosper in the afterlife and non-believers will suffer; and (3) Jesus is the son of God and humanity’s redeemer and personal savior.  Likely there are others—the Bible (or at least part of it) is the word of God, the Gospels (whichever ones we include) record Jesus’ life and teachings, and so on—but I will set these aside for now).  Here I will focus on “the Man”: Jesus of Nazareth (or is it Jesus of Bethlehem?  Those darn Gospel writers can’t seem to keep their story straight.

First, I should note that there is a high likelihood that no such man ever existed.  We can say this with confidence because there is no—literally, zero—contemporaneous evidence for his existence, either as a miracle-working Son of God, or even as a rather ordinary rabbi.  We can understand the latter case—most ordinary rabbis from 2,000 years ago are lost to history—but not the former.  If Jesus was anything close to the miracle-worker that the Bible describes, there would be a mountain of testifying evidence: documents, carvings, engravings, letters, etc.  And these would exist from his followers, his skeptics, his critics, and the Romans who ruled the region.  There would be a vast and well-documented account of a man who walked on water, raised the dead, healed with a touch, calmed storms, and fed thousands with “five loaves of bread and two fish.”  These testimonies would all date to the time of his alleged ministry, roughly, 27 to 30 AD.  And yet, from that time period, we have… nothing.

In fact, nothing even close.  In fact, nothing for literally decades.  According to conventional dating, the earliest reference of any kind is in the letters of Paul, the earliest of which—Galatians and First Thessalonians—date to around 50 AD, two full decades after our man got crucified.  The rest of Paul’s letters, intermixed with a few fraudulent ones attributed to him, appear between 50 and 70 AD, by which time (a) Paul had died, and (b) the Jews were defeated in Jerusalem by the Romans, and their temple destroyed.

Only then did some other Jews—presumably followers of Paul—decide to write about Jesus’ life and sayings in their “gospels.”  The gospel writers are formally anonymous; we know nothing about who they are, their motives, or the circumstances.  The names attached (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) mean nothing; it would be like saying “Bob’s Novel” or “Joe’s Cookbook.”  But based on textual evidence, scholars can roughly date the Gospel of Mark to around the year 70; Matthew and Luke to 85; and John to 95.  We can only imagine how much veracity they contain, given that they claim to quote Jesus precisely and cite details of his life, 40, 50, or 60 or more years after his death.  The obvious answer is: not much!

The likeliest conclusion to this mess is that the Jew Paul and the anonymous Jewish gospel writers made it all up: that there was no miracle-working Son of God, no virgin birth, and no resurrection.  They did so, not for fame or money, but because they believed that promulgating a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman theology would aid the Jewish cause.  (Pro-Jewish, because the Christians are to worship the Jewish God, the Jewish rabbi Jesus, and the Jewish ‘virgin’ Mary; anti-Roman, because “the worldly powers” of Rome are a manifestation of Satan and must be defeated.[1])  And in the end, it did.  Judeo-Christianity flourished, ideologically defeated Rome, and then took up residence in Rome itself.  “Without doubt, Rome has been conquered,” as Nietzsche said.[2]

But to the point:  Although there is no direct evidence for either a miracle-Jesus or a rabbi-Jesus, I suspect that some such man by that description did live, and die, in Judea.  And the reason is simply this: Since Paul and friends claimed something as true—a miracle-Jesus—that certainly did not exist, and that they knew did not exist, they were liars.  Whether they were ‘noble’ liars or malicious liars, I will leave to another time.  But liars they were.  And any lie works best with a kernel of truth.  Therefore, I consider it likely that an ordinary mortal, the rabbi Jesus, did live, likely did agitate on behalf of the oppressed Jews, and likely did get himself crucified—end of story.

So let’s assume that a mortal Jesus did exist.  What, then, do we know about him?  Virtually nothing for certain.  Apart from a few tidbits from Paul, literally everything that we think we know about him comes from the highly-dubious four Gospels; there simply is no other source.  And in the Gospels, we find a striking claim: Jesus was a Jew.

“Wait a minute!” says the Christian, with alarm.  “Jesus can’t be a Jew!  He’s the original Christian—the ur-Christian, we might say.  He can’t possibly be a Jew!”  Indeed—many Christians, both in the past and today, have attempted to argue that Jesus was a non-Jew, a Gentile, even an Aryan.  They seemingly cannot bear the thought that their beloved Savior might be a Jew, and that therefore they must worship a Jew.  And yet, all the evidence says he was.

In fact, the evidence suggests that Jesus was a double-Jew: ethnically and religiously.[3]  Let’s first see what it says in the Gospels themselves (which Christians must believe!).

Start with his mother, the “virgin” Mary; she clearly was a Jewess.  Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 1:36).  When Jesus was born, she, along with Joseph, “performed everything according to the [Jewish] law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39).  And she and Joseph attended Passover services in Jerusalem “every year” (Luke 2:41).  Since Mary was a Jew, this alone makes Jesus a Jew (on the orthodox reading) because Jewishness is matrilineal, being passed along by the mother; if you are born of a Jewess, you are a Jew.

What about Jesus’ father?  Let’s set aside the nonsense about God being his father, which is nothing more than regurgitated Homeric mythology about demi-gods on Earth.  Joseph was of the “House of David,” as Luke (1:27) informs us.  And as noted above, Joseph rigorously followed Jewish law and attended Passover annually.  He was clearly an observant Jew, and (presumably) the biological father of Jesus.

Paul obviously thought Jesus was a Jew.  In the early Galatians (4:4) he says that Jesus was “born under the [Jewish] law,” and in Romans (9:5), he declares his own Jewishness (“my kinsmen by race…are Israelites”), adding that “of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.”

Likewise, the Gospel writers clearly viewed their Savior as a Jew.  Jesus is repeatedly called ‘rabbi’.[4]  He was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and celebrated Passover (John 2:13).  The Gospel of Matthew opens with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.”  Even the non-gospel Hebrews remarks that “it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah” (7:14).  Jesus regularly attended the local synagogue (Luke 4:16).  He himself told the people that he came “to fulfill the [Jewish] law and the [Jewish] prophets” (Matt 5:17).  And of course, everyone thought of him as “king of the Jews” (Matt 2:2; John 19:3).

It could hardly be clearer: both by genetic heritage and according to his evident beliefs and practices, Jesus was a Jew.  He was a biological Jew—surely embodying all those wonderful Jewish phenotypical characteristics—and he was a religious Jew.

The few Christians willing to engage with this issue and to defend a non-Jewish Jesus typically offer one of two responses.  First, “Jesus was from Galilee, and Galilee was a Gentile stronghold.”  But this is a persistent myth, propagated by those averse to the notion of a Jewish Jesus.  Over 100 years ago, E. W. Masterson wrote of a “Jewish Galilee,” one that was “hemmed in on all sides by hostile [Gentile] neighbors”.[5]  More recently, we now have such works as The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (2002) by Mark Chancey, who acknowledges the stubborn idea but notes “how little data there is to support such a claim [of a Gentile Galilee].”  Archeological evidence from Nazareth is scarce, but what we do have shows “evidence for Jewish inhabitants at several sites, [but] very little evidence for Gentiles.”  Of the major, nearby town of Sepphoris, evidence of Gentiles is “extremely limited” during Jesus’ life; by contrast, says Chancey, there is “ample evidence” of Jews there at that time.  In sum, while not denying that some Gentiles lived there, evidence for them is “practically invisible”; and as a confirmation, Chancey notes that Gentiles “are not prominent in literary discussions of Galilee either”.[6]

Despite all this, some on the dissident-right, such as Internet bad-boy Andrew Anglin, who, despite his trenchant and humorous critiques of Jews, periodically displays his (apparently sincere) Christianity, occasionally railing against those who dare assert that Jesus was a Jew.  Nick Fuentes dodges the question when put to him, saying “Jesus fulfills the law” and that the Jews “who remain” held on to “old sacrifices and old ways of doing things,” ultimately becoming “Talmudic Jews.”  Obviously Jesus had no chance to become a Talmudic Jew, given that the Jerusalem Talmud was not written until the 300s (in Galilee!) and the Babylonian Talmud not until the year 500.  Thus, despite the evidence, both men cling to their myth of a Gentile Jesus even as they (rightly) condemn Jewish domination and corruption in present-day society.

The second defense one occasionally sees is both contorted and confused:  that the teachings of the Old Testament represent “true” religion and that the Hebrews deviated from this true path, degenerating into a rabbinical and ultimately Talmudic Judaism.  But Jesus, they say, adhered to the true, original teachings, to the Law and the prophets—later to be called “Christianity”—thus putting him into conflict with the fallen and erroneous Jews.  This essentially admits that Jesus was an ethnic Jew, but that, implicitly, it is irrelevant.  Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that the Talmud, and later documents like the Shulchan Aruch, are elaborations on Old Testament teachings, not deviations from it.[7]  But the main point is that simply because Jesus (the Jew) had (alleged) conflicts with other elite Jews, this does not mean that he wasn’t an ethnic Jew, and it doesn’t mean that he adhered to any “true” religion distinct from Judaism.

The Consequences

The implications of this short exposé are devastating for Christians and Christianity.  Given the total lack of corroborating evidence, we can say with certainty that the miracle-man Jesus did not exist; therefore, Christianity is a farce and the Gospels are at least half fiction.   If they contain even a shred of truth, then Jesus was an ordinary Jew whose life mission was to validate Old Testament prophecies and “fulfill the Law,” thus saving his fellow Jews from the evil Romans.  In this case, Christians need to admit that they are worshipping a long-dead ordinary Jew who has no ability whatsoever to “save their souls.”  Finally, in the case that there was no Jesus character at all, then Paul and the Gospel Jews are flat-out liars and need to be viewed with total contempt.

Any way we look at it, it’s bad news for Christians.  Under any plausible scenario, they have been duped into believing in a long-dead Jewish rabbi and his fake sayings—all constructed, years after the fact, by a handful of Jews interested in undermining the hated Romans, and indeed all Gentiles.

“But what would we do without Jesus?” cry the believers.  How about this: Build your life and your worldview around basic, universal, and age-old ethical ideals; defend and protect the Earth, which sustains all life; defend human dignity against corrupters, liars, and deceivers; work toward a transparent, human-scale society; spend time with your children and grandchildren; and celebrate the accomplishments of human creativity and the human spirit without yielding to Judaic nonsense.

Just for starters.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National Socialism.  His latest works include Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Steep Climb, and a new translation of For My Legionnaires.  He has also recently published the definitive critique Unmasking Anne Frank, and a new edition of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!  All these books are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] Yes, there are two or three references to “render unto Caesar” and “pay your taxes” and “love thy enemy”, but these few are far outnumbered, numerically and in theological importance, by rebellious and anti-Roman passages.

[2] On the Genealogy of Morals I.16.

[3] Recall that these are two distinct categories: one can be ethnically (genetically) Jewish yet not adhere to Judaism, or one can be a non-Jewish (Gentile) follower of the Jewish religion.

[4] Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; Matt 26:25; John 1:38, 1:49; 3:2.

[5] “Galilee in the time of Christ,” Biblical World 32(6).

[6] Such as by Josephus.

[7] For a good assessment of both the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, see E. Bischoff, The Book of the Shulchan Aruch (2023; Clemens & Blair).

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.2023-05-22 06:25:462023-05-22 06:25:46Jesus the Jew

Twenty statements about transgenderism

May 20, 2023/2 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Richard Knight

Introduction

Here are twenty statements about transgenderism as a social phenomenon or an ideology. The first twelve are probably fairly obvious; the others concern the aims and methods of transgenderism as a political project, looking especially at its use of a single word.

Factual assertions

    1. No one can change their sex. A person’s sex, like a woodpecker’s or a giraffe’s, is theirs for life.
    2. It is no more possible to be born in the wrong body than it is to be born in the wrong century.
    3. To think that there is any one explanation of transgenderism, such as that those affected have a mental illness, is mistaken. If a girl of twelve decides that she is “trans” after attending five hours of lessons from an activist, one each day for a week, at a school where such children receive special attention, and two of her friends decide that they are going to be “trans” as well, they do not have a mental illness, at least not yet. They are simply impressionable girls who have been persuaded that being “trans” will solve their problems, make them fashionable and entitle them to certain privileges. The trouble is not mental illness on their part but viciousness on the part of the activist and folly on the part of the school. Then, some transgenders are simply exhibitionists. Some are trouble-makers. Some appear to take cross-sex hormones almost as recreational drugs.[1] Many transgenders are mentally ill, but there are many types who are not.
    4. Transgender activists could not have created the havoc they have created without the support of the mainstream media, who have consistently promoted their ideology at least since 2015, when Bruce Jenner made a dramatic appearance in a dress. Headlines read: “Call her Caitlyn!”, “A brave Olympian, transformed!” and “Quite inspiring!”. Others read: “Caitlyn is hot!” and “She looks like Rita Hayworth, so glamorous!” No headline read: “What does this man think he is doing?” or simply “Yuck!”                                                   
    5. As a doctrine, transgenderism is unconvincing. We are expected to regard the assumed sex of a transgender person as authentic: this is the real them; we mustn’t mention the fact that they once appeared to belong to the other sex, and so on. Yet then someone is hailed as transgender who appears as a woman one day and a man the next. Then, how can someone who believes that they belong to the opposite sex think of “transitioning” when according to them they are already at the destination?
    6. The term “biological sex” is a tautology. Sex is by definition biological. Equally tautological is a term like “biologically male”. If one is male, one is male biologically. To say that one might be male but not biologically is like saying that one might be six feet tall but not physically.
    7. Even when the mainstream media appear to question transgender ideology, they do not challenge the idea at the heart of it, that a person can change their sex. They still communicate the idea by speaking the ideology’s language. Thus when someone like Piers Morgan ridicules the ideology for saying that a man might call himself a woman and expect to be taken seriously by asking what stops him from calling himself a two-spirit penguin and expecting to be taken seriously, he still defers to the ideology by talking about “biological males”, “trans women” and so forth. He will never cease to imply that a woman might in some way be a man or say to a man presenting himself as a woman: “Let’s be honest, you’re a man”.
    8. The controversy over transgenders in sport is unnecessary. It only started when sports officials gave in to transgender activists by acting as if a man might be a woman if he called himself one. The rule that had applied before this was sufficient: men’s sports are for men; women’s sports are for women. There was no need to let the fact that the occasional female athlete has a disorder of sexual development undermine this rule, still less was there any need to let the rule be discarded because of an ideology. It is the same with prisons, changing rooms and bathrooms. Transgender activists, with the aid of their converts in officialdom, have made a mess out of a simple system that was perfectly viable.
    9. Hurting a transgender person’s feelings matters no more than hurting anyone else’s feelings. Moreover, when a transgender person says that such and such a thing would hurt his feelings and so must not be done, how do we know that it really would hurt his feelings? Perhaps he is only saying it to enjoy the power someone gave him by telling him he belonged to an especially important class of people. Perhaps he is only revelling in the chance he has been given to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
    10. The good nature of transgender activists is open to question. One of their favourite tactics is to confront those who challenge them with statistics showing that transgenders attempt suicide at a higher rate than others.[2]  “If you don’t agree with me, I might kill myself, and the blood will be on your hands”, they suggest. What a low trick! If they cite these statistics to curry sympathy for transgenders in general, it is hardly any better. Why must sympathy be wrenched out of us in this way when we could be left to feel however much sympathy we would feel naturally?
    11. By disseminating transgender ideology, the media have spread strange ideas about people’s rights. The BBC quoted a woman calling herself Luke Anderson as saying: “No one has the right to tell you who you are”, meaning to tell you what sex you are.[3] Why not? Why should one be any less entitled to tell someone what sex they are, should the need arise, than to tell them what day of the week it is? But no: for transgender activists, free speech is anathema lest the truth be spoken.
    12. Most male transgenders make unconvincing women. The young ones only tend to illustrate a faintly pornographic view of women held by certain men, while the older ones or those taking part in sport make little attempt to hide their maleness. None display such female characteristics as an interest in babies, a desire to be agreeable or a preference for indirect communicative strategies. Quite the opposite in the case of the last two points, especially where activists are concerned. When defending their “identities” they tend to be as confrontational and pugnacious as any other confrontational or pugnacious man.

The Politics

13. The reason transgenderism exploded in the media in 2015, having been prefigured by Time magazine the year before, is that this was when the US Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. With that accomplished, the progressive agenda could proceed to its next item.[4]

14. By this time much of the establishment had already embraced the ideology. A British county council adopted a “Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit” in 2014.[5] “Trans awareness training” was being provided in British schools the year before,[6] when the Home Office already had a transgender “staff support network”.[7] Also by 2013 American schools were being forced to allow boys to attend school as girls, use the girls’ bathroom and compete in girls’ sports.[8] Activists were already trying to get therapy that encouraged troubled children to accept their sex being criminalised. Also in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) responded to lobbying from transgender activists by dropping “gender identity disorder” from the new edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) in favour of “gender dysphoria”, which, thanks to a modified definition of a disorder that also resulted from lobbying by transgender activists, only qualified as a disorder if it caused distress to those affected.[9] As it turned out, those affected mainly felt distress when other people did not do as they wished or when they needed a psychiatric diagnosis to support a claim for the cost of “treatment” from their health insurance.[10]

15. Transgender activists use language strategically to confuse, especially the word “gender”, which is commonly believed to have two senses. One is a psycho-social sense denoting the attitudes and behaviours generally associated with the sexes, which anyone might exhibit regardless of their sex. It was with this sense that feminists adopted the word in the 1970s, the word having previously been limited to the classification of the nouns of certain languages.[11] In the other sense, “gender” can mean sex itself, and the word has been used in this sense so persistently by the media, on official forms and elsewhere for more than twenty years that it is now barely acceptable to call sex “sex”; we must call it “gender”.

Activists exploit the potential for confusion created by this ambiguity by using the word so that it will be understood in one sense, only for it to turn out that they mean it in the other. Thus when we first heard them say that there were many genders, we assumed that they could not mean that there were many sexes because it was so obvious that there are only two. Nor did the new genders sound like plausible alternatives to being male or female; they sounded more like moods, personality types or jokes, as in “aethergender”, which is defined as feeling commanding, or “anongender”, a gender unknown to both oneself and others. But the activists went on to attack anyone who asserted that there were just two sexes. When they said that one could change one’s gender, we again thought that they must mean one’s psycho-social gender since it is obvious that no one can change their sex, but then they insisted that a man who has changed his “gender” has become a woman. Such equivocation was mentioned by George Orwell when he pointed out that words conducive to producing a desired response were “often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”[12]

16. On analysis, however, the psycho-social sense of the word “gender” is a phantom. Feminists never used the word in this sense. If a couple decided that she would go out to work while he stayed at home to look after the children, feminists didn’t say that they were swapping genders but that they were swapping gender roles, by which they meant sex roles, showing that for them gender was the same as sex.[13] When transgender activists use the word “gender”, they too mean sex. “Gender” is just a euphemism for it.

17. As well as using the word “gender” to equivocate, transgender activists use it to make what they are talking about sound more mysterious and dignified than it really is. They speak of “gender identity”, defining this as a person’s deep, inner sense of their “gender” as though one’s gender identity were an intimate personal possession. All they mean is a person’s idea of what sex they are.[14] But to say that someone is trying to work out what sex they are might provoke a derisive laugh, whereas describing them as struggling with their gender identity might elicit respectful sympathy.

18. So determined are transgender activists to retain the capacity of the word “gender” to confuse and obfuscate that they will not say what they mean by it. The International Journal of Transgenderism does not define the word even in a paper about language.[15] The Gender Identity Research and Education Society does not define it even in a document about terminology.[16] Nor is it defined in an official report called “Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions”.[17] The British government is in no more of a hurry to define it. Put “What does the UK government mean by ‘gender’?” into a search engine and you will get a reference to a document entitled “What is the difference between sex and gender?”,[18] which instead of answering the question links to another document, which links to a third, which says that defining sex and gender is not within its scope.[19] This third document states that it supersedes an earlier version that explained the differences between sex and gender but says that the explanation does not appear in this updated version because it does not reflect the government’s current position. It doesn’t say what the government’s current position is, but only that sex and gender are “evolving topics”.

19.  We do, however, know what the APA means by “gender”, because the introduction to DSM-5 states that it now uses this word instead of “sex”, and sure enough, whereas DSM-4 spoke of “the other sex”, “assigned sex”, and “cross-sex roles”,[20] DSM-5 talks about “the other gender”, “assigned gender” and “cross-gender roles”.[21] So for the APA the two words are synonymous. It explains its change of terminology by saying that the concept of sex “is inadequate when referring to individuals with a disorder of sex development”,[22] which makes about as much sense as it would do for the American Ophthalmological Society to say that it no longer uses the word “eye” because the concept is inadequate when talking about people with eye problems. Obviously the APA’s stated rationale was bogus, given to cover its real reason for the change, which happened to be that the change had been lobbied for by transgender activists.[23] This shows how much these activists value the word “gender”, with its capacity to confuse and obfuscate, as opposed to “sex”, which everyone understands.

20. It was feminism that paved the way for transgenderism, for it was feminists who came up with the idea of essential sexual equality, meaning that the sexes are in themselves the same. Anything a man can do, a woman can, and so on. The only reason the sexes appear to differ, say feminists, is that women are oppressed by society, the patriarchy or in short by men. Without this, we would see that they only differed in such trivial respects as that women have wider hips than men, potentially milk-producing breasts and can bear children. In any way that matters, the sexes are interchangeable, and if they are interchangeable, how hard can it be to “transition” from one to the other?

Conclusion

Transgenderism is the latest phase of a wider project aimed at breaking down all distinctions between human groups, in this case between the sexes. It is a profoundly subversive project since the sex distinction, as well as being sublimely simple, is the deepest that exists in any society and the one around which it is mainly organised.

Transgenderism has wrecked the lives of countless people and brought untold misery to thousands of families when children have been affected by transgender activism coming at them from the mainstream media, social media, their schools and the medical profession. It has made enemies of all those who believe that Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and that a person’s sex is immutable, yet it still expects our sympathy and support. The untruth of its basic tenet, that a person can change their sex, makes the rest of it untrue, nor does it even cohere as a system of false beliefs. Transgenders themselves are little to blame, for they are pawns in a game being played by their activists, who are presumably in turn pawns in a game being played by our hostile elites.

The ideology’s power and reach, gained through lobbying and infiltrating our institutions, is at first astounding, but is less so when we remember that transgenderism is a component ideology of political correctness, now called “wokeness”, which tends to the destruction of Western civilisation, and what institution does not want to be “woke” or politically correct?


[1] A man posting to a transgender message board reported on his experiences when “messing around with various forms of estrogen delivery”. Another wondered whether although he didn’t “identify as transgender” he could get female hormones from a clinic. See The Transgender Boards, posts dated Jan. 6th 2015 and Aug. 6th 2016 respectively, https://thetransgendertimes.forumotion.com.

[2] In fact, while there is a mainstream consensus that trans people attempt suicide more often than others [presumably for a variety of reasons, including the results of “gender affirming care”],  there are no statistics on actual suicides among transgenders. Newsweek (March 30, 2023). https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-transgender-attempted-suicide-rate-1791504

[3] BBC News, Nov. 20th 2015, “Is a gender recognition certificate crucial or cruel?”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34832811.

[4] This observation was made somewhere by Millennial Woes. It is also implied by Helen Joyce, 2022, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, London: Oneworld, Chapter 10.

[5] East Sussex County Council Children’s Services, Oct. 2014, “Trans* Inclusion Schools Toolkit”, https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2480/trans-toolkit.pdf. The Council appears to have been given this document, which appears no longer to be online, by an LGBT group called Allsorts Youth Project: https://www.allsortsyouth.org.uk/about/our-journey.

[6] Allsorts Youth Project, op. cit..

[7] Home Office, 2013, “Diversity Strategy 2013-2016: Making the Most of Our Diversity”, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226459/E_D_Strategy_report_v3.PDF.

[8] National Catholic Register, Aug. 22nd 2013, “Gender Identity Debate: When Reality Causes Distress”, http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gender-identity-debate-when-reality-causes-distress.

[9] Efforts to get the APA to stop calling Gender Identity Disorder a disorder were led by an activist named Kelley Winters, who argued that the diagnosis imposed the “harmful stigma of mental illness and sexual disorder on gender-variant and nonconforming children”. See National Catholic Register, Aug. 22nd 2013, op. cit.

[10] See (1) MassResistance, Jan. 14th 2018, “The terrible fraud of ‘transgender medicine’”, a talk by Quentin Van Meter given in Nov. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c; (2) Human Life International, Feb. 25th 2022, “Gender Dysphoria in the DSM-5: The Change in Terminology”, https://www.hli.org/resources/dsm-5-gender-dysphoria/; (3) National Catholic Register, Aug. 22nd 2013, op. cit.

The activist organisation World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) had lobbied the APA saying that “being a transgender person does not in itself constitute mental illness” (from a letter from WPATH, Aug 15th 2017, https://www.wpath.org/policies), yet it also described procedures such as facial hair removal as “mental health treatments” which were “medically necessary for many transgender patients”, and had disputed the opinion of some insurance companies that this was not the case (see a letter from WPATH dated July 15th 2016, which also referred to WPATH’s Medical Necessity Statement, which described facial hair removal as a “medically necessary sex reassignment procedure” (https://s3.amazonaws.com/amo_hub_content/Association140/files/Letter%20Re_Medical%20Necessity%20of%20Electrolysis_7-15-15.pdf).

See also Clinical Advisor, Nov. 14th 2013, “Understanding the changes in DSM-5”, https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/features/understanding-the-changes-in-dsm-5/article/321035/2/, which states: “Gender dysphoria was included in the [APA] manual to facilitate clinical care and allow access to insurance coverage that supports mental health”.

[11] To be more precise, feminists picked the word “gender” up from the “sexologist” John Money, who had first applied it to human beings by coining the term “gender role” in 1955 to refer to how a person disclosed himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman (David Haig, 2004, “The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001”, Archives of Sexual Behavior 33 (2), pp. 87-96, quoted in “Gender, Theories of”, Encyclopedia.com, http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gender-theories, p. 91). Presumably John Money just wanted to be different. He might just as well have used the term “sex role”. Money was also the psychologist who advocated that David Reimer, whose penis was cut off accidentally during circumcision, to be raised as a girl. With disastrous results—a textbook case of biology over environment. And he argued that “affectional paedophilia” was not pathological.

[12] George Orwell, “Politics and the English language”, in Orwell 1970 (1968), The Collected Essays: Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Vol. 4: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950, Harmondsworth: Penguin, p. 162 (essay first published 1946).

[13] Today’s feminists have given up their old definition of “gender” but have yet to agree on a new one. Possible definitions currently circulating include: (a) a designator of cultural representations and significations, (b) the structure of consciousness, internalised ideology or performative practice, (c) the discursive means by which sexed nature or natural sex is produced and established as prediscursive, namely the process that constructs the internal coherence of sex or the causal force of sex, (d) a feature of subjectivity as a social variable, (e) an obligatory masquerade, (f) an effect of power structures organised in institutions, practices and discourses that regulates and establishes its various shapes and meanings, (g) a hierarchical system that maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force.  Sources: (1) Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: “Theories of Gender”, 2007, http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gender-theories; (2) The Other McCain, Feb. 8th 2017, “Transgender Social Contagion”, http://theothermccain.com/2017/02/08/transgender-social-contagion/. These definitions show how clever and sophisticated feminists are, but also how slow in coming to see that “sex and all that goes with it” would suffice as a definition of “gender”.

[14] “Gender identity” is usually defined as a “sense”, often given an air of profundity, as in (1) “one’s deeply held core sense of being male, female, some of both or neither, [which] does not always correspond to biological sex”; (2) “the personal sense of one’s own gender”; (3) “your internal sense of self (male, female, neither, or both)”; and (4) “our deeply held sense of ourselves”; (5) “A person’s internal sense of their own gender”. Sources: (1) American Psychiatric Association, Aug. 2022, “What is Gender Dysphoria?”, https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria; (2) Wikipedia, accessed approx. 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity); (3) East Sussex County Council Children’s Services, Oct. 2014, op. cit.; (4) Guardian, May 23rd 2018, “‘A woman on Wednesdays’? That’s just not how trans self-declaration works”, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/23/woman-wednesdays-transphobic-labour-trans; (5) GOV.UK  (presented to parliament by Penny Mordaunt MP, Minister for Women and Equalities), July 2018, “Reform of the Gender Recognition Act — Government Consultation”, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721725/GRA-Consultation-document.pdf#page=12.

[15] International Journal of Transgenderism, Dec. 15th 2016, “Language and trans health”, https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Ethics%20and%20Standards/Language%20Policy.pdf.

[16] Gender Identity Research and Education Society, no date, “Terminology”, http://www.gires.org.uk/resources/terminology/.

[17] Hazel Reeves and Sally Baden, Department for International Development, University of Sussex, Feb. 2000, “Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions”, Report No 55, https://courseware.cutm.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Gender-and-Development-Concepts-and-Definitions.pdf.

[18] GOV.UK, Feb. 21st 2019, “What is the difference between sex and gender?”, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/what-is-the-difference-between-sex-and-gender.

[19] Office for National Statistics, April 21st 2023, “Sex and gender within the context of data collected for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”, https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21.

[20] DSM-4, 1994: http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm.

[21] DSM-5, 2013: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria.

[22] National Catholic Register, Aug. 22nd 2013, op. cit.

[23] Especially from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Richard Knight https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Richard Knight2023-05-20 00:01:382023-05-22 14:10:39Twenty statements about transgenderism

Biden to Illegals: Stop, or We’ll Give You More Money!

May 18, 2023/3 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ann Coulter
BIDEN TO ILLEGALS: STOP, OR WE’LL GIVE YOU MORE MONEY!

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart our current immigration debate. We keep hearing about needing an “orderly process” to get the migrants into our country, “building lawful pathways,” and helping the migrants bypass coyotes.

      The two missing points are:

1) They have no right to come to our country; and

2) We don’t want them here.

Amid the hectoring from the mainstream media, it can be hard to remember, but we are a country, not a battered women’s shelter. We have a right to decide who moves here, becomes our fellow citizen and shapes the kind of country we are.

And we’re getting a little sick of reading headlines like these:

“What Americans’ declining height has to say about the economy” — PBS

“Why are Americans getting dumber?” — UnHerd

“The U.S. economy is in its fourth decade of rising inequality” — Equitable Growth

“Why are Americans’ lives getting shorter?” — The Economist

Which is why most Americans think the ideal number of immigrants is about zero.

But the media act as if every desperate, poverty-stricken foreigner has a God-given right to come here. No, they don’t. (Again, “country,” not “battered women’s shelter.”)

Liberals expect us to be moved by the horrible conditions they’re fleeing. Thus, The New York Times tells us: “Many migrants are coming from places like Venezuela, which was suffering one of the worst economic crises in the world before the pandemic.”

The Times acts as if “the economy” is some sort of supernatural force raining down on hapless innocents, perhaps brought on by witchcraft — or maybe Martian death rays! No, an economy is created by people. In dinosaur times, for example, there was no “economy” because there were no humans.

Why is it a good idea to bring in people with a track record of creating economic catastrophes?

It’s not as if they’re coming from places where it’s pitch-black in December and the average temperature is freezing — like Finland. Oh no, they’re coming from some of the most beautiful, tropical, resource-heavy nations on the globe.

Let’s take a few of the migrants’ home countries:

— Venezuela has 1,700 miles of coastline and larger proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, a medieval society that refuses the labor contributions of half the population (women). Yet Venezuela is completely destitute, and its people can’t find medicine or toilet paper.

— Guatemala has black sand beaches, surfing beaches and abundant natural resources, including uranium, sand and gravel, nickel, limestone, petroleum, coal, gold, silver, copper, iron ore and cobalt.

— Nicaragua has beachfront on both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, freshwater lakes and wildly fertile soil enriched by volcanic ash.

— Cuba has beaches, rolling plains and the Sierra Maestra mountains. The average temperature in January is 70 degrees, and its resources include nickel, cobalt, petroleum, sugar, tobacco, fish, citrus fruits and coffee.

— Colombia has white sand beaches, is a major petroleum nation, and is bursting with emeralds, gold, platinum and silver.

      How do you screw that up?

But for some reason, now that they have screwed it up, it becomes our job to take them all in.

Thus, the Times cites the brilliant plan of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (surely, we can trust a guy named “Alejandro” to put the U.S.’s interests first): “The Biden administration’s new policy, combining the carrot of new legal pathways with the stick of more punitive measures for unlawful crossings, was working, Mr. Mayorkas said in television interviews.”

Why does the administration imagine it has to negotiate with illegal immigrants? We’re not obliged to negotiate with foreigners who have no right to make any demands on us — and, by the way, who have no negotiating power.

Here are some examples of possible negotiating partners: terrorists, who offer not to kill hostages; North Koreans, who offer not to drop a nuclear bomb; Arab countries, who offer to sell us oil and to leave Israel alone.

What on Earth are foreigners on our border offering?

The situation is more like a complete stranger walking up to you on the street and demanding you give him $5,000.

Biden: OK, I’ll give you $6,000 (carrot), but I warn you, this is the last time! (stick).

He’s a genius!

The Times also reports that “migrants now must prove that they were first denied asylum in a country they passed through en route to the United States.” Are you grasping this? That’s how you get in — not a reason for us to laugh in your face.

We’re crowd-sourcing asylum claims — but then doing the opposite of what the crowd-sourced information tells us. Fantastic — everyone else has looked at your claims of persecution and called B.S. on them. Please, come right in!

But the Times blithers on: “Economic, political and environmental forces driving people to the United States are unlikely to subside in the coming months …”

I’ve got news for you, New York Times: Those “forces” are never going to subside. Have they ever subsided? In 200 years, has any Latin American country been crushing it?

Nope! Any brief periods of peace and prosperity were immediately replaced by a military junta and/or one-party rule. As Paul Johnson describes the history of the region in the 20th century: “In the years 1920–66, for instance, there were eighty successful military coups in eighteen Latin-American countries, Ecuador and Bolivia leading with nine each, Paraguay and Argentina following with seven each.”

Completely by accident, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes described the only way this will ever end. (Your guess is as good as his about what the hell he was actually trying to say.)

Hayes: “I mean — if you’re thinking about the scales, right? On one side of the scale it’s like the current situation in Venezuela, which is quite dire, as it is in Cuba, right? Like what would we do to even the scales, to get to a point where what we were doing produced an equal amount of desperation?”

Yes, exactly. That’s how it ends, when we “even the scales” by wrecking our own country so that we’re as miserable as they are. Then, finally, there will be no reason for anyone to ever move from one country to another, because we’ll all be living in hellholes.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2023-05-18 06:46:022023-05-18 06:51:15Biden to Illegals: Stop, or We’ll Give You More Money!
Page 115 of 492«‹113114115116117›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

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

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

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

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

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

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

Blogroll

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

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

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

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

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

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

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

Essential Website Cookies

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

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

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

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

Other external services

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

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

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

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only