Featured Articles

“OK, Boomer”: Are Boomers Solely to Blame for Our National Decline?

As the U.S. continues to decline from its once worldwide recognition of greatness and continues to swirl down the proverbial toilet bowl, many Americans point their fingers at the Boomer generation (born ~1945–~1964) as the source of all our economic and social woes.

Whether it’s all the wars and conflicts after WW2 that America has engaged in, the problems associated with funding social security, the rise and dominance of liberal social policies, rampant crime and homelessness throughout much of the nation, widespread racial discord, the decline of the U.S. dollar, and massive corruption among those in congress, Boomers are often blamed for it all — or at least most of it.

An array of memes mocking and disparaging Boomers has flooded much of social media as a result. TikTok, in 2019, helped to popularize the phrase, “OK, boomer,” a sarcastic dismissal of anyone born in that generation and the outdated ideas they might espouse. This has resulted in a generational conflict between Boomers and those of other generations, such as Generation X (1965–1980), Millennials (1981–1996), and Generation Z (1997–current).

Gen Xer, Bruce Gibney, has gone as far as to describe the Boomer generation as a “generation of sociopaths” in his not-so-subtle book, A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America (Hachette Book Group, 2017). The author argues that America was hijacked by the reckless self-indulgence of Boomers who had little concern for future generations of Americans, leading to the complete erosion of American prosperity. The boomers, according to Gibney, “have committed generational plunder, pillaging the nation’s economy, repeatedly cutting their own taxes, financing two wars with deficits, ignoring climate change, presiding over the death of America’s manufacturing core, and leaving future generations to clean up the mess they created” (Sean Illing, “How the Baby Boomers – Not Millennials – Screwed America,” Vox, 10/26/2019).

Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, has likewise stated that the baby boomers “grew up in an era when there was something close to full employment almost all the time. Wages were going up along with productivity, and productivity was going up very fast. Incomes were growing at the rate of 2 percent a year, something that we haven’t seen since. . . . The baby boom happened to get older at the same time that America adopted an economic model that was actually pretty counter-productive, which did not actually produce rising wages and incomes for people at a very good clip, that enhanced inequality” (Ben White, “How the Baby Boomers Broke America,” Politico, 10/26/2019).

My purpose in this article is not to justify all that the Boomer generation has done — whether for good or for bad — but to show that much of the criticism directed at them is both shortsighted and deeply prejudicial. For many people who blame prior generations for their current problems, it’s a convenient excuse and perhaps even an escape from having to face their own failures. We want to blame and condemn them but have little understanding of the times and unique circumstances that contributed to their outlook and motives.

This is not to say that Boomers have been right about everything because they obviously haven’t been (which generation is?). In fairness to Gibney and other critics, the Boomer generation has indeed been marked by excessive materialism and greed—ironic given that they grew up in the 1960s’ counter-cultural revolution. They have, seemingly, cared little about America’s future generations as they’ve exploited economic markets and resources for their own immediate gain. They have willingly supported a plethora of America’s unjust wars across the globe. Boomers have also been great advocates of the destructive liberal zeitgeist that has driven the nation into a cesspool of moral filth and degeneracy. The narcissism and self-entitlement of today’s Gen-Xers and Millennials is largely attributable to the poor parenting of Boomers.

Whether it’s feminism, gay rights, gay marriage, or Transgender rights, massive numbers of Boomers have backed it all. Boomers have also largely supported non-White immigration to the U.S., racial “equality” laws, including federal policies giving preferences to minorities over Whites. Boomers have, generally, been big supporters of Israel, a country that routinely commits humanitarian crimes against Palestinians and which has a political stranglehold on our nation’s congress. Many of these same Boomers are devout Christians who broadly support Zionism.

More examples could be given, but it does little good to deny that a great number of Boomers have contributed to our national decline, and the serious problems we now face both socially and economically. Despite this, some deeper questions and considerations must be addressed if we’re going to be fair to this subject.

Whatever fingers might be pointed at Boomers, are the Gen-X, Millennial, and Gen-Z generations any better? A whole lot of justifiable criticism could be directed at them too, but what would that really accomplish except pitting White Americans from different generations against one another? Gender confusion and racial self-abasement are far more common among the younger generations than the boomers. Every generation has both good and bad people among them, and the Boomer generation in this regard is no different.

The Boomer years, despite their failings, produced many good and decent people. There were great scientific discoveries and new technologies that were invented as well. A good many of those same Boomers were brave and honorable men and women. Yes, they fought in several unjustifiable wars, but would those of the Gen-X, Millennial or Gen-Z generations — given the same circumstances, influences, and worldview as the Boomers — done any differently? In fact, the Xers, and Millennials have also willingly marched off to fight our neocon-inspired wars.

The assumption by many to think Boomers had it easy is false. Most Boomers, I’m inclined to believe, struggled through life to make something of themselves. They worked long and hard and, thus, were rewarded for their efforts. If any generation of Americans had it easy, it’s probably those born during the Gen-X, Millennials, and Gen-Z eras when the U.S. was at its pinnacle in terms of national wealth and innovative technologies.

It’s also important to note that Gen-X, Millennials, and Gen-Z were born during the era of the Internet and, thus, had access to mountainous amounts of information about their own government and every conceivable subject under the sun by the simple touch of a computer key. None of this information was accessible to those of the Boomer generation until the mid-1990s when, on average, they were much older in age and settled in their beliefs.

Boomers, prior to the Internet, had to really work hard to find the kinds of taboo subjects labeled “conspiratorial” by today’s gatekeepers of information and acceptable beliefs. Many libraries did not carry dissident authors, and truth-seekers were dependent on snail mail to get the books and articles they wanted. Comparably few resources were available to them, and it was the rare person indeed who grasped the kinds of truths that we as dissidents understand today.

Most Boomers, I suspect, had no interest in such matters and probably were completely unaware that there was another side to almost everything they had come to believe about their government, its history, its many wars, and who or what group had come to control its national and foreign policies. This is what made the American champions on behalf our people from “the Greatest Generation” (1901–1927), “the Silent Generation” (1928–1945) and the Boomer generation so great, such as Charles Lindbergh, William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, Wilmot Robertson (pen name of Humphrey Ireland), David Duke, Sam Dickson, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, and many others because they stood against the rising tide of globalism, American imperialism with its warmongering abroad, and “racial equality” dogma that had gripped much of the nation.

Boomers, interestingly, were not as stubbornly obstinate toward racial realities as some claim. A good many of them rightly understood that Blacks and Whites were fundamentally different, and that federal laws enforcing “diversity” would only serve to exacerbate racial divisions throughout the U.S. This was common knowledge among most Americans prior to the 1970s, but that would change as the nation came under the spell of deceptive and revolutionary new ideas about race and “equality.” Republicans often campaigned on tough-on-crime policies, anti-abortion, an opposition to illegal immigration (sadly, not to legal immigration), but once in office they toed the liberal line and didn’t rock the boat.

There were circumstances, no doubt, that contributed to this national naiveté. Boomers grew up in an era when there was a greater trust among the American people toward its own government. It was a time of greater innocence (so to speak). The nation was racially homogenous, and there was generally a Christian consensus among most Americans in terms of right and wrong. Prosperity was increasing, and the living standards among Americans had improved greatly. The materialism, decadence, and degeneracy that was to be the mark of later generations had not fully taken root. White Americans were not yet conditioned to hate themselves, their country, and their race. That would come later in the 1960s toward the end of the Boomer generation.

When boomers were growing up, TV sets could only tune in to the three major networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC—all owned by Jews and spouting the liberal line. Most people got their information about national and world events from the nightly news which was generally skewed to promote only what the powers-that-be wanted Americans to know. The same could be said about America’s most respected newspapers which all adhered to the same liberal narrative. Alternative or dissident history books were a rarity too. Most libraries did not carry controversial dissident books that challenged the prevailing historical and political narrative.

Culture matters, and most boomers were programmed by the hostile, substantially Jewish elite that controlled the media and academic discourse. For the same reason Gen-Zers are much more likely than previous generations to have gender dysphoria and opt for sex-change operations.

Thus, it’s understandable why Boomers, including those of prior generations, were so trusting of their government and were so willing to fight in America’s unjust wars. They really didn’t know any better. Granted, a growing number of Americans were opposed to enriching the military industrial complex, especially during the Vietnam era. Yet most Americans still thought their government was trustworthy and had their best interests at heart. They still believed that what Walter Cronkite on the nightly news told them was reliable and truthful. Everything in their lives, so they thought, buttressed their most basic assumptions, their worldview, and how they interpreted national and world events.

Are we to believe, then, that the generations of Americans that came after the Boomer generation would have fared better had they lived during the same historical period? Would they have really been less materialistic, less greedy, and less self-indulgent as the Boomers? Would they have consciously thought of the plight of future generations of Americans and, thereby, curbed their desire to “pillage the nation’s economy”? I find this highly doubtful.

A sizable number of the older or “leading edge” Boomers (1945–mid-1950s) were supportive of ‘Jim Crow’ (1870s–1965) and ‘Sundown’ (1915–early 1970s) laws, especially in the South—laws that kept Blacks outside of White society. This is often cited as a clear example of where Boomers unjustly and selfishly exploited others for their own good. It was not until the social revolution of the 1960s that such racially discriminatory laws were rejected by most Americans, but over vigorous opposition in the South.

If anything, however, “leading edge” Boomers and especially those of “the Greatest Generation” and “the Silent Generation” were right to bar Blacks from their societies. This not only helped to keep miscegenation at low levels, but it prevented Blacks from destroying and making unsafe the grand metropolises that Whites had built.

This is understandably hard for many people to accept. Most people want to feel as if we are free of racial bias and accepting of all. Yet, when such harsh racial realities as the need for separating Whites from Blacks are ignored, it isn’t long before it leads to the demise of that same society. Isn’t this precisely what we are witnessing today?

Large numbers of Boomers and those of prior generations inevitably caved to relentless public pressure, including from the courts which outlawed all racial discrimination and prevented freedom of association based on race. Many of these same Boomers, consequently, went to the opposite extreme by fully embracing racial diversity, and voting for laws and social policies that ran counter to their own racial interests as Whites (e.g., racial quotas, preferential hiring for minorities, forced busing, unlimited Third-World immigration, etc.).

Yet, by giving Blacks the same freedoms as Whites—- as well as granting them full access to White society — “leading edge” Boomers and those of the “Greatest” and “Silent” generations guaranteed the inevitable ruin of their once grand cities. Today, many American cities that only a decade earlier were considered safe places to live, are now as unsafe and crime-ridden—Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago (especially the South Side), Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Oakland. This is not the result of Amish farmers nor Swedish tourists, but of criminal Blacks who have been weaponized by the powers-that-be against the greater White majority. Blacks in America have been emboldened to commit skyrocketing levels of crime and violence while a weak, politically correct criminal justice system looks the other way.

Those who instituted ‘Jim Crow’ laws knew something about Blacks that the current generation is woefully ignorant of—namely, their inherent criminal proclivities and their dysfunctional families. Spending billions to civilize Blacks as our federal government has sought to do for the past five decades, has proven fruitless and a complete waste of taxpayer resources. IQ gaps and educational achievement levels have remained the same or gotten worse—despite repeated promises by social scientists to end the disparities, a reality that has now resulted in the push for “equity” because equal opportunity simply doesn’t end the gaps. Blacks have largely proven to be unassimilable to White societal expectations in terms of education and general standards of civility. No amount of funding, good will, or collective effort has managed to bring Blacks to parity with Whites in this regard. This is because the two races are fundamentally different, and every effort to make us the same is as futile as trying to place a square peg in a round hole.

It’s also important to note that the level of deception by our government only gradually increased as Jewish power took root. This didn’t occur overnight. Many Americans were unable to discern what was occurring to them and its cultural implications for the nation. The entire program was presented in the loftiest moral terms. Just as today, to dissent was to be a bad person in the eyes of the political, media, and academic establishment.

It’s argued by some that Boomers were guilty of promoting social changes that proved disastrous to Heritage Americans such as the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. The problem with this is that the average Boomer age was two years old, and no Boomer served on the Supreme Court at that time. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is cited as another example, yet the average Boomer was only twelve during that period. The same could be said about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. The median Boomer age was only thirteen.

Thus, many of the societal and economic problems alleged against Boomers should more aptly be ascribed to those of the “Greatest” and “Silent” generations. It was, in fact, those of “the [so-called] Greatest Generation” that fought in WWII and, thereby, consolidated Jewish power which set in motion the creation of the State of Israel. Instead of blaming Boomers, then, perhaps we should blame the “Greatest” and “Silent” generations for all that has gone wrong? Yet what good would this do? Would those of later generations have chosen differently given the same set of circumstances and influences as those living during the era of “the Greatest Generation”? There’s no compelling reason to believe this, especially when one considers that human nature hasn’t changed.

Humans, regardless of what generation they are part of, are still dull-minded, selfish, greedy, intellectually dishonest, and indifferent about social and political matters. Prosperity and comfort are no guarantee that people will choose wisely and embrace the Truth. Quite the opposite, in fact, since wealth often tends to blind us to what’s truly important in life, and well-off people are largely averse to rocking the boat.

Although it’s true that some young people today have come to embrace racial realities that many Boomers have rejected (thanks in large part to the Internet!), there are still an alarming number of younger Americans who adhere to ‘woke’ and radical anarchist beliefs (e.g., Antifa) despite there existing a huge amount of information readily available that discredits such Leftist ideologies. What, then, is their excuse? In fact, young people are more likely to vote for leftist policies than their elders. And Hollywood and the media routinely paint the 1950s—a time of prosperity and intact families—as the epitome of evil.

Millennials and Gen-Z may in fact be more culpable than the Boomers since they’ve had a long span of history to observe the destructive nature of liberal social values implemented during the 1960s. They could easily look back and see all that had gone horribly wrong. More information has been accessible to them from which to learn important social and political lessons than all prior generations. Will the generation after Gen-Z condemn them just as they had condemned the Boomers since they had fallen to a ruinous ‘woke’ agenda, one which has caused so much dissension, confusion and pain to the nation?

If one is looking to condemn prior generations of Americans for their failings, they can find plenty of reasons in the plethora of books and articles denouncing Boomers. Before doing so, however, they might want to first think long and hard about the role their own generation played in bringing about our national demise.

Obscuring the Jewish Issue in Media #3 — PragerU

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, we examined the ways in which Jewish media companies censor and suppress online views of the covid phenomenon and vaccine issue as presented by natural health doctor Joseph Mercola and Children’s Health Defense, and the way in which online journal Global Research managed to hide the fact that seven of the eight banking dynasty families that founded the Federal Reserve were not only Jewish, but also almost thoroughly intermarried into one all-powerful Jewish banking clan

PragerU on Slavery

Now we will look at a video documentary released by PragerU, featuring the Black conservative Republican Party spokeswoman Candace Owens. I was interested to see this bit of what appears to be reverse propaganda, since it was titled “A Short History of Slavery.” This was first released in August 2021 when we had much worse to contend with, as the covid vaccine roll-out accelerated across the nation, to some extent under compulsion. Yet we always have the issue of racism to contend with in our post-Civil Rights era, and Candace was going to set us all straight. Her video currently has 3.3 million views.

Slavery didn’t start in 1492 when Columbus came to the New World. And it didn’t start in 1619 when the first slaves landed in Jamestown. It’s not a White phenomenon. The real story of slavery is long and complex. Candace Owens explains.

I found the knowledge (as far as it went) conveyed an excellent counter-point to the “woke” liberal narratives on the complex story of slavery. Such simplistic story-telling as 1619 as the beginning of slavery in America, and Columbus the first White man to enslave Caribbean islanders are thoroughly debunked by Owens, who explains that slavery is many thousands of years older than that—going back to the foundations of civilization 6000 years ago—and that Caribbean islanders were busy enslaving each other long before Columbus arrived. (In a strange development, Owens herself lists her “ethnicity” as Caribbean, as we will see.) Owens does not only extend slavery to all other races beyond Whites, but even praises White people as the only ones who ever officially ended slavery—for moral reasons (here, Chap. 7), and even notes that Whites have been victims of slavers, such as Muslim Arabs.

Jews Were the Slavers

The reason this otherwise honest depiction of slavery is a form of limited hangout (revealing part of the truth in order to forestall a search for further truths) is that it obscures the Jewish Issue. The best honest history of the Jewish role in the Transatlantic slave trade comes from the first volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (using the Yandex search engine, I got a hit for Archive.org, but it said no longer available due to violation of terms of use) by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims in America). In a synchronicity, a subscriber to my Substack site Taboo Truth recently sent me an over four hour video documentary titled You Are Amalek — The Hidden War Against The European Bloodlines. It contains a sermon by Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, referring to the Secret Relationship book he holds in his hand, and then a display of the many advertisements for the sale of Blacks by Jews presented in the book.

Columbus a Jew?

Today we see a surprising (or not) number of mainstream official sources questioning whether Columbus was a Jew. Many of them are Jewish sources, such as The Times of Israel, My Jewish Learning, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency. To the extent that CNN and HuffPo are also Jewish—a large extent—the view that Columbus was Jewish is now official doctrine (but not on Wikipedia, which details other theories). In scanning all these sources, it appears Jews are claiming Columbus for their own in the same way they claim great scientists such as Einstein and Oppenheimer to boost Jewish pride and trick the Goyim into thinking Jews are responsible for great advances in Western culture. Owens does something similar in the documentary “A Short History of Slavery,” without identifying Columbus as Jewish. Essentially she exonerates him as a slaver by indicating that the Caribbean islander tribes were already enslaving each other before Columbus arrived. We can speculate that PragerU was not ready to out Columbus as a Jew as yet, still focused on White-washing him and all other Whites of the exclusive sin of slavery.

The PragerU Story

What of PragerU itself? It defines itself in this way:

We promote American values through the creative use of educational videos that reach millions of people online. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Prager University Foundation (“PragerU”) offers a free alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology in culture, media, and education. Whether you’re searching for a deeper understanding, a new perspective, or a way to get involved, PragerU helps people of all ages think and live better.

To learn “The PragerU Story” and “How It All Started” see the documentary “celebrating PragerU’s first 10 years in the mind-changing business. Don’t miss it!” (emphasis added). I would not dream of missing this informative presentation on the PragerU story, so I watched all sixteen minutes of it. It begins with a brief profile of the narrator, Amala Ekpunobi, a young at least part-Black woman with long Black braids. Yes, then we learn that her father was a “Nigerian immigrant” and her mother a White American. Amala’s mother was in tears of joy when Obama was elected, which taught Amala that “skin color was important.”

After a mercifully brief rap dance by Amala, we come to the actual origins of PragerU in the persons of Dennis Prager and Allen Estrin. After displaying the development of PragerU as a successful online educational platform, we come back to another brief rap dance by Amala, then Estrin says “When people hear the truth, they start to wonder about everything they’ve been told.”  It claims to have all the right enemies, including “big tech” which censors PragerU online. Dennis Prager equates a United States under censorship to the Soviet Union, and we see a headline flash: “Starving Ukraine,” (11:36)  obviously referring to the Holodomor. The video even quotes Stalin saying “Utter destruction to the German invaders!” (11:21) a reference to Operation Barbarossa that began the war in the East.

Then Marissa Streit, the pretty blondish apparently White woman, CEO of PragerU, says “I think the story of Amala Ekpunobi is the story of many Americans.” Depicting the mulatto Ekpunobi as representative of “many Americans” is all part of PragerU’s “mind-changing business.” Since those most engaged in the “mind-changing business” are invariably Jews, I went searching to confirm that at least Dennis Prager and Allen Estrin are Jews. Radio Islam shows a long list under “Who Controls Millenial/Modern News?” and their racial heritage. Under PragerU, all three, including Streit, are listed as Jewish!

Marissa Streit, Prager CEO and Mossad Agent

I doubted that Streit is Jewish and so searched further. Her biography page at PragerU states she “was born in Los Angeles and moved to Israel at a young age, where she completed her primary education and served in military intelligence unit 8200 of the Israel Defense Forces.” Unit 8200 is notorious as the Mossad’s cyber-intelligence department in charge of digital spying, censorship, private tech start-up affiliates, information hacking and other digital warfare, including especially in the U.S. The Israeli  Unit 8200 agent Marissa Streit is CEO of PragerU.

Allen Estrin is Jewish

Estrin is harder to confirm. The only clue on his PragerU biography is that he “directed the highly-praised documentary, ‘Israel in a Time of Terror,’ 2002.” The Wikipedia entry on Estrin provides some more clues.

In 2002, Estrin was denied life insurance because he traveled to Israel, one of the countries subject to U.S. State Department travel advisories. Because of this, he sued 14 insurance companies. This led to some insurers changing such policies, and to a bill in California to outlaw such travel restrictions on policies.

A Jew is most likely to respond to a denial of life insurance with this kind of lawfare, especially if it involved beloved Israel.

Also, Jewish Journal published a brief review of Estrin’s and co-author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin’s 2004 book Heaven’s Witness, a murder mystery that incorporates a theme of the afterlife. What business two Jews have writing a novel referring to heaven is the real mystery, until we read in the Jewish Journal review: “The book… is peppered with talmudic and biblical axioms…” As for Estrin’s co-author, “Rabbi Joseph Telushkin has done his part to keep the Jewish people, well, literate, by publishing such erudite tomes as ‘Biblical Literacy’ (William Morrow, 1997) and ‘Jewish Literacy’  (William Morrow, 1991).” Is there any point in checking if William Morrow is dominated by Jews? We should be willing to confirm Estrin as Jewish given these references.

Dennis Prager So Jewish

Dennis Prager is openly Jewish. He “was raised in an orthodox Jewish home” in Brooklyn, attended a Yeshiva there, where he even befriended Estrin’s future co-author and future Rabbi Telushkin. A short Google entry on Prager (p. 402–3) labels him a “Jewish talk show host and author,” “who has often interpreted Judaism for a wider audience.”

His books The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism (1976) and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism (1983) surely do not deal with issues like whether Jews committed ritual murder of children, or whether Jewish behavior toward Gentiles generates antisemitism. Nine Questions became a best-seller and “popular in all the major American Jewish movements.” Question #3 is “If Judaism is supposed to make people better, how do you account for unethical religious Jews?”. I haven’t read the answer, but I would bet some serious money it is not that Jews have a racial proclivity and cultural training toward unethical behavior. Question #8, “Why shouldn’t I intermarry?” reveals Jewish racial separatism, supremacism and bigotry,  while powerful Jews today promote White race mixing.

Why the Jews? attributes antisemitism to Gentile dislike for the quirky Jewish religion.

The authors find the root of anti-Semitism not in racism, xenophobia, the need for scapegoats, economic depressions, or any other universalizing factor. The occasion for the hatred of Jews they find in Judaism itself.

Prager and co-author Rabbi Telushkin state: “the Jew carries the burden of God in history and for this has never been forgiven.” Definitely a positive spin.

The following account of Prager’s Jewishness is summarized from the Google entry on Prager (p. 402–3): In the same year as his first book publication, Prager became Director of the Brandeis Institute, and brought in Telushkin as education director. “During his tenure [Prager] succeeded in influencing many young Jews.” For ten years Prager hosted a TV talk show on KABC discussing “religion,” and wrote a syndicated column for newspapers nation-wide. By 1986 he divorced his wife, nee Goldstein, and suffered a  mental breakdown. Soon after Jewish-controlled President Reagan appointed Prager as U.S. delegate to the Vienna Review Conference on the Helsinki Accords. His weekly show on religion expanded to five hours every Sunday night. Prager’s Judaism then took form in 1992 in his joining the Steven S. Wise Reform Synagogue, and in his continuing education classes taught before hundreds of students at University of Jerusalem. In 1994 he hosted a nation-wide TV talk show. By 2000 Prager switched his show to KRLA, a “conservative Christian group,” but he “often serves as scholar in residence at synagogues throughout the United States.” The entry concludes: “he is considered one of the leading socially conservative Jewish political spokesmen.”

Prager remains thoroughly Jewish since his founding and operation of PragerU, a main component of Jewish control of current right-wing conservatism in the U.S.

Candace Owens, Acting for Jews

In late July 2021, researcher and author Eric Striker published “Rising Republican Party Influencers Got Their Start At Talent Agency Run By Israeli Pornographer” on the National Justice platform. It is essential reading to begin an understanding of Jewish control of conservative politics in the U.S. Striker identifies eight “household names in the world of Republican Party politics as being actors or models” groomed by the named Israeli pornographer.

Number 1 is Candace Owens, “who began producing professional conservative content months after launching her Explore Talent profile in 2017.” Explore Talent is the talent agency of Israeli-born Amiram Moshe Shafrir, who amassed wealth running a phone sex service and a number of online pornography sites. Later Shafrir’s porn customers were shifted into his new online dating sites to pad their numbers, including the Jewish-only site J-Date. Other Jews brought suit against Shafrir and his now ex-wife Sarit, including accusations of wiretapping, blackmail of military personnel, bribing police, credit card fraud and even trafficking of drugs to minors.

This is the man—Shafrir—who went on to found Explore Talent, where Candace Owens was “discovered” as a conservative spokesperson and wound up narrating the PragerU video on “A Short History of Slavery.” According to a Backstage investigation of Explore Talent:

ExploreTalent.com over has 7 million members and is the Internet’s largest resource for talents, with over 40,000 Roles & castings currently active. That is 10–20 times more than any other competing site.

Candace Owen’s “Acting/Modeling Profile” from Explore Talent is preserved on Archive.org. This is where she lists her ethnicity as “Caribbean.” I wonder if she is descended from Quadroons or Octaroons, mixed-race slaves, many likely part-Irish, descending from  Irish slaves in the Caribbean. She has the look. Irish were particularly enslaved on Barbados working the sugar plantations. Owens lists modeling, dance, film acting, music videos and other performing arts for which she is qualified to be hired. Hosting PragerU’s video on slavery is well within her job description.

Lead With the Money

The Daily Dot features an essay titled “PragerU is conservatism for the youth—brought to you by old billionaires,” updated in 2021. It’s subtitle states: “They’re old, they’re rich, and they want you to think just like them.” This source for knowledge on the funding of PragerU commences: “In one short decade, PragerU has become an indoctrination powerhouse.” It goes on to denounce PragerU from every Progressive “woke” perspective, suggesting it is misogynist, racist, Christian crazy, classist, stupid and above all greedy.

Before we are advised of the funding sources, we are offered a short list of “presenters” who are “fresh-faced millennials,” including non-Jews, presumably because PraegerU is basically a mission unto the gentiles. These are Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, Will Witt, and Charlie Kirk. Shapiro is of course Jewish, and we know the Jewish influence over Owens. Charlie Kirk’s Wikipedia entry states he is “Evangelical Christian,” which means Christian Zionist. The accomplished commentator on Zionism Brandon Martinez claims “Charlie Kirk Basically Admits That He’s a Jew,” and while Kirk comes close, he essentially identifies himself as a zealous Zionist and philo-Semite. Will Witt is Prager U’s “Man on the Street,” and conducts spontaneous interviews with people, asking them questions probing their knowledge of relevant issues. See his “Who Was Anne Frank?” video, interviewing mostly young Blacks on Hollywood Boulevard about “one of the most important historical figures of all time.” One young Black man answered, “An actor, right?” Witt says “No,” but in fact the interviewee was correct. See the review of the recent book on the subject, “Review of Unmasking Anne Frank, Her Famous Diary Exposed as a Literary Fraud,” something Witt and Prager U will never read but we all should.

Finally we come to the “old billionaires” who fund PragerU.

The poorest, Michael Leven, has an estimated net worth of $11 million; Lee Roy Mitchell, the next poorest, is worth a quarter-billion dollars. Three—the late Sheldon Adelson and brothers Dan and Farris Wilks—were/are billionaires.

Leven is featured on Amazing Jews as co-founding a Jewish donation program inspired by “his love of the Jewish people and Israel,” in the report “Michael Leven: Visionary Philanthropist Who Co-Founded the Jewish Future Pledge.”

Amazingly, Lee Roy Mitchell was a kingpin in the ownership of movie theaters, founder and CEO for twenty years of Cinemark, but is not Jewish, in an industry overwhelmingly dominated by Jews.

Dan and Farris Wilks’s parents founded their own church in 1947. “The church is not Christian, believing that Yahweh is the only god and that Jesus (whom they call Yahushua) is a separate entity.” By 1982 the church became

…the Assembly of Yahweh (7th day). Currently the Assembly of Yahweh (7th day) is a conservative Jews for Jesus-type congregation. It teaches that “the true religion is Jewish (not a Gentile religion)” and its members celebrate the Old Testament holidays rather than those related to the New Testament.

Farris Wilks “is the current pastor and bishop of the Assembly of Yahweh (7th day) near Cisco” Texas. He and his brother Dan are the epitome of Christian Zionists who worship Jews as Yahweh’s Chosen People and revere Israel above all nations. Their funding essentially identifies PragerU as the most prominent outlet for Christian Zionism allied with Jewish power. The Wilks brothers also funded Jewish conservative presenter Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire.

Sheldon Adelson was a known Jewish Israel-Firster Zionist and multi-billionaire casino owner who may have connections to organized crime through defrauding his business partners, prostitution at his casinos, and bribery of Chinese officials to establish a casino in Macau. Adelson donated so much money to so many Republican candidates and campaigns, including both Trump campaigns, that he is called “Kingmaker.” He also funded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Milekowsky) campaigns, as “Kingmaker” in Israel. Much more could be explored about Adelson as a devout Zionist and billionaire Jewish media influencer, and in this case as a major funder of PragerU. In 2013 Adelson famously said:

“What I would say is, ‘Listen. You see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ …You pick up your cellphone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever. And then you say, ‘See? The next one is in the middle of Tehran.’ So, we mean business.”

Adelson’s death in early 2021 came long after his financial support and content influence upon PragerU.

Of the five major donors and funders to PragerU, two are Jewish, and two are devout Christian Zionists. Rather than follow the money, we must lead with the money to understand PragerU’s objectives in the “mind-changing business.” They are pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish through influence on right-wing conservative U.S. politics. They also help incite the intense political divide as part of the divide/conflict/conquer strategy which a tiny Jewish minority inflicts on the much larger U.S. population to keep it distracted fighting each other rather than identifying its common enemy, the Jewish Power Elite (on both sides of the engineered mainstream political divide).

Conclusion: PragerU is Obscuring the Jewish Issue Bigtime

PragerU appears to be doing good work in distributing educational material counteracting the Left’s “woke” narratives and promoting American conservative patriotism, as exemplified in its “A Short History of Slavery” with young Black conservative spokesperson Candace Owens. A closer examination reveals that the two founders of PragerU, Dennis Prager and Allen Estrin are devout Israel-Firsters and fully self-identified practicing Jews. The CEO they chose to lead PragerU, Marissa Streit, is not only another Israel-Firster and devout Jew, but was trained by the Israeli Mossad’s Unit 8200, known for conducting the most malevolent surveillance, psychological operations, cyber spying and mind control propaganda in the U.S. This alone makes PragerU a key nexus in this culture war and psy-op Jews have long been inflicting on the U.S. population, both left and right.

In essence, PragerU is controlled opposition to the Jewish-controlled left-wing educational media promoting “wokeism” and Progressive views. Neither will notice Jewish power, and both will protect Jewish power from scrutiny. PragerU will participate in the incitement and provocation of right vs. left, driving the political divide deeper in the same way Communist propaganda drove a class divide between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and Neo-Communists drove and still drive a race divide in the U.S.

PragerU uses public actress and performer “Caribbean” Candace Owens as its diversity face for “the story of many Americans,” along with its “Story of PragerU” video, featuring mullato Amala Ekpunobi. This is  conservatism that is safe for the Jews. Owens—and many others of the new crop conservative spokespeople—was discovered and groomed by a talent agency owned and operated by a corrupt Jewish Israeli pornographer involved in much greater organized crime, including Blackmailing and bribing police and military personnel and accused of selling drugs to minors.

Verdict: PragerU is convicted of obscuring the Jewish Issue because it is entirely Jewish in its founding and management, largely Jewish and Christian Zionist in its funding, operates from an establishment-friendly right-wing conservative perspective to promote Jewish interests and obliterate any noticing of the Jewish role as the backbone of the woke left in America. Like the Israel Lobby which actively courts support from both Democrats and Republicans, their goal is to ensure that both sides of political debate are safe for Jews.

Ex Cathedra: Language, Truth, and Racism

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express. A J Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1936.

The English language is a lumber-room of odd artefacts from the past. Indo-Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, the Romance languages; all these are jumbled together to produce the language of Shakespeare, Johnson and Orwell. And this of course means the presence of Latin. We still use Latin phrases whole. We defend or attack the status quo, speak of ongoing court cases as sub judice, negotiate with quid pro quo, shorten a list with et caetera. Now, however, we should dust off a lesser-known Latin term; ex cathedra.

The phrase originated with 19th-century Pope Pius IX, after he codified the supremacy of the Pontiff by ecumenical council to end a debate that had raged for centuries in the Catholic Church, and relates to Papal pronouncements. It looks as though it means ‘from the cathedral’, but the word ‘cathedral’ itself comes from cathedra, meaning ‘chair’ and referring to the Pope’s throne. The defining quality of ex cathedra statements was that they were indemnified by Papal infallibility, which meant that they could not be doubted. They were true in and of themselves because of their divine provenance and had no need to be debated or examined intellectually. In fact, to do so would be dangerous to the enquirer. If the Pope decreed the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, then that was the number, no more and no less. If the Pontiff announced that Christ did not own his own clothes, then that became, as we say now, ‘gospel truth’.

This infallibility sets a very dangerous precedent. Post-Enlightenment, Western thought has reason as its core processor, as it were; the arrival at a feasible conclusion by inductive means from the available evidence or argument. Nothing is true until and unless proven to be so. A statement should be analyzed as to its relationship with truth. Pronouncements made ex cathedra from propositions formed ex nihilo  — or, “from nothing” — were quite dangerous for those who questioned them; indeed, they were in danger of being burnt at the stake. But the ex cathedra pronouncement is making a return, and the infallibility may not be Papal, and heretics may not face the flames — at least, not yet — but they do face excommunication.

It has been noted many times that ‘woke’ culture, incorporating as its central gospels Critical Race Theory (CRT), transgenderism, the promotion of homosexuality, miscegenation and other deviations from nature, has analogues in religion. ‘Woke’, and CRT in particular, has its high priests, its heretics, its Inquisition, its scriptures, its own version of High Latin, or a privileged, elitist, non-vulgate language, and so on. It also has its ex cathedra pronouncements, every bit as binding as those uttered by any Pope. Let’s take a famous example:

Only white people can be racist because only they have power.

Non-white people, by this premise, cannot be racist because they lack power (this is, in itself, a de facto absurdity). What has happened is the co-opting of the original meaning of ‘racialism’ to be the definition of ‘racism’, which used to be a straightforward recognition that racial difference exists. This is the equivalent of giving the answer to a mathematics question without giving the workings and without being marked down if the answer is wrong. It has no substantial premise, no historical validity, and is nothing but its own utterance. It is, in effect, ex cathedra. The new Papacy hath spoken.

The Left’s newly imposed lexicon works in exactly the same way as the traditional magic spell of the magician or occultist. Words of power are uttered. What the words are or mean literally is not important; what matters is their power. ‘Systemic racism’, ‘white privilege’, ‘climate change denier’, ‘inclusivity’, ‘unconscious bias’, ‘black lives matter’; these jingles and others like them are now divested of meaning but invested with the power to bind. None of the phrases above has any referent in the real world. Epistemologically, they are not tethered to anything that exists. They are invented abstractions trying to be real things. But Leftist epistemology is such that language does not have to conform to familiar, tried-and-trusted rules, but to politicized regulations structured according to the need for power. And language is the delivery system for power.

There is great power in empty language. It is worth quoting Plato, from the Theaetetus, at length. He is talking of the Sophists, the travelling teachers of rhetorical argument often hired by richer Athenians. We recognize today the profile Plato draws:

If you ask any of them a question, he will produce, as from a quiver, sayings brief and dark, and shoot them at you; and if you inquire the reason of what he has said, you will be hit by some other new-fangled word, and will make no way with any of them, nor they with one another; their great care is not to allow of any settled principle either in their arguments or in their minds, conceiving, as I imagine, that any such principle would be stationary; for they are at war with the stationary, and do what they can to drive it out everywhere.

They are at war with the stationary. Plato has predicted cultural relativism almost two-and-a-half millennia before Lyotard and Foucault began unravelling truth and meaning. Once true meaning ceases to be a fixed point and becomes just a shifting relativity maintained by an engineered and meaningless vocabulary then, epistemologically speaking, all bets are off. Is truth fixed and objective or is it relative and subjective? We must listen again to Pontius Pilate’s question; What is truth?

Truth is the guiding, if not always attainable, principle of all intellectual endeavor. The problem is that it can be mistaken for one standard calibration rather than an operative concept with quite separate functions. When those disparate functions are conflated into a yardstick, like the meter-long lines you can still see on walls in Paris, and against which sellers of linen would measure their wares, there is a problem. As an example of this epistemological multi-tasking, here are four truths concerning the number four:

  1. 2 + 2 = 4.
  2. Japan is composed of four islands.
  3. There are four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
  4. The Chinese word for ‘four’ sounds almost exactly the same as the Chinese word for ‘death’, and is therefore considered unlucky.

All of these statements are true, but I am sure you can see that they are not true in the same way. (Incidentally, Chinese apartment blocks are unlikely to have a number 4, just as there is rarely a number 13 in Western blocks).

The difference between statement 1 and the other three is that 1 is necessarily true, the others contingently true. Put simplistically, you don’t have to check statement 1, but you might feel the need to check the other three if you were a ruthless empiricist. Two and two made four when Plato was alive, and will still be true if or when the earth finally spirals into the sun. Two and two make four whether you are in Manhattan or Iceland. Of course, two plus two having the sum of four doesn’t get you very far, it’s just an unpacking of the simple concept of whole numbers. This is what worried Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica, as well as Poincaré, the French mathematician—that mathematics might just be some endless and pointless extrapolation of the simple function of the copula. The mathematical formula is true prima facie, but the utter integrity of its truth function cannot be replicated in the real world outside of mathematics and logic. Spinoza tried and failed, magnificently, in Ethics.

I am not a mathematician, and my point is not a mathematical one. Rather, there is a dangerous attempt by the ‘woke’ hegemony and their sponsors to impose the order of mathematical truth not just on things the truth of which ought to be debatable, but on things which are patently absurd and untrue. If the enemy takes your castle, you can-retake it. But if the enemy takes not just your truth, but truth itself by way of your language, then the fight will be a good deal harder. And it is your truth we need to consider next.

If you are familiar with the history of Western philosophy, and were asked to pick a key moment in the analysis of truth, you might choose Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum argument, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, and each would be justified. But there has recently been such a moment from a rather different cultural source, and it may be far more incendiary than the texts mentioned.

In 2021, Oprah Winfrey interviewed the British royal Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and his wife, Meghan Markle. A half-caste, Markle’s charge is that Buckingham Palace has been a hotbed of racism since she joined the Royal Family. A famous English chat-show host, Piers Morgan, called her a liar and lost his job over the remarks. Winfrey is noted for her encouragement of interviewees to ‘speak your truth’, with the emphasis on ‘your’, and this is precisely what she urged Markle to do, with an immediate and compliant response. Markle told her truth, that the British Royal Family was inherently racist, and that became the truth, and this due to the requirements of the media rather than those of epistemology. Due to the fascination with the Royal couple, ratings were huge and the Right-of-center media caught hold of Winfrey’s bombshell.

Speak your truth and that will stand as true. This is epistemological anarchy, the equivalent of talking to people who are on hallucinogenics. Rather than transact with the reality of what is or what happened, we stake our belief in what your perception of the truth is. So, instead of having a world on which most of us can agree most of the time, we have millions of morally defective monads in Brownian motion, each with their own truth. Given that each generation in the West is successively less well-educated — largely due to the ‘woke’ distaste for classical education — then the prospect of letting truth off the leash just at the moment doesn’t inspire confidence in civilization’s staggering on much farther.

Truth cannot be expressed without meaning and meaning must be communal. They are two sides of the same coin and you cannot have a one-sided coin. Wittgenstein’s famous language game cannot be solitaire.  Truth can’t be solipsistic or the serial killer is on the same moral plane as the charity worker because they are both speaking their truth. Meaning and truth have an analogous relationship with currency — that is, what economists call M1, or basically notes and coin — and the financial reserve. The former is the practical, transactive category of the latter, while the latter is a guarantor of validity, of tender, for the former. This makes the re-definition of meaning, the genetic modification of semantics and etymology, the epistemological equivalent of printing money.

If this seems like semantic hair-splitting then, firstly, welcome to philosophy. Secondly, don’t be so sure of its triviality. The re-engineering of the relationship between language and truth is central to possibly the most over-referenced — although not over-rated — book of the last decade, Orwell’s 1984, which has taken on a Koranic role for the dissident Right, as it should. When O’Brien holds up four fingers and asks Winston how many he sees, he does not wish for a compliant reply, a self-serving acquiescent falsehood. He doesn’t want Winston to lie and say he sees five fingers to save his own skin. He wants Winston actually to see five fingers. This is the most important observation Orwell made; truth itself is being modified not just within language, in some removed, Derridean way, but in the real world.

If you lose your liberty, you can fight to take it back. But if you lose the ability to assess what is true and what is not — aka meaning — not through insanity but because of what is effectively state-engineered intervention — because ‘woke’ is not an organic phenomenon — then the best of luck.  The most dangerous thing happening to the indigenous white West is not that history is being re-written, it is that dictionaries are.

823 – 2023: 1200 years ago: Agobard’s letter to Louis the Pious about the “insolence of the Jews”

It is remarkable that complaints about Jewish behavior have been so consistent through the centuries, in very different cultural and social eras.

Twelve centuries ago, between 823 and 828, the actual date is not precisely known,  Saint Agobard (769 – 840), bishop of Lyon (France), who contributed to making his episcopal city one of the centers of the Carolingian Renaissance, addressed to Louis the Pious (successor of Charlemagne) a letter in Latin (English translation here) with a startling title:

AD EUMDEM IMPERATOREM, DE INSOLENTIA JUDAEORUM

or

ON THE INSOLENCE OF THE JEWS TO LOUIS  THE PIOUS

See also Andrew Joyce’s article “Agobard and the Origins of the Hostile Elite” on the eventual futility of the letter:

Unfortunately for Agobard, he was summoned to the Court at the instigation of the Jews. Bernard Bachrach comments that “The Jews…were forcefully represented by a powerful advocate. They also had influential friends at court. … The court not only found against Agobard, but the emperor added the personal humiliation of dismissing him from the palace in a preemptory manner. Louis provided the Jews with a diploma bearing the imperial seal that bore witness to their victory.”[15] Persisting in his conviction that the emperor couldn’t possibly side with the Jews over his own people, Agobard continued to deliver sermons against Jews and to write to Louis explaining himself (as seen in the above extracts from one such letter). He insisted that Louis had been misinformed or that the edicts bearing his seal were forgeries.[16] Bachrach writes that Agobard believed Louis and other elites at court “were either pawns of Jewish interests or acting from a misunderstanding of the situation.”[17] What he failed to consider was the possibility these figures were willing accomplices of the Jews, together comprising a hostile elite.

The patience of the hostile eventually wore thin. As the missi dominici [envoy of the ruler] set off for Lyon “with a plethora of pro-Jewish documents and a plentitude of power to enforce government policy, Agobard fled.”[18] Agobard noted from his exile “the Jews were made joyful beyond measure.” He added that many of his associates “fled or hid or were detained.” Priests loyal to him were threatened by Jews and royal agents, and, as a consequence, “did not dare to show their faces.” Subsequent efforts to confront Jewish influence in the Frankish lands were forced into more abstract and indirect forms rather than “opposing imperial policy overtly or by attacking the Jews directly.”[19] Jeffrey Cohen remarks that, in the end, Agobard utterly failed to alter Carolingian Jewish policy, or prevent its further evolution.[20] Despite this failing, Agobard entered the Jewish consciousness as an emblematic hate figure, with the nineteenth-century Jewish activist and historian Heinrich Graetz comparing him to the “villainous Haman” of the Book of Esther.[21] He was only dislodged from the bitter expanse of Jewish memory when the twentieth century provided Jews with a new “Haman,” and a new chapter in their lachrymose self-authored history.

The story outlined here is important in the history of the Jewish Question for a number of reasons. The first is that it is a very early Western European example of non-religious clashes of interest, by which I mean that although we see two religious communities in confrontation the basis for that confrontation is not rooted in the spiritual. As Jeffrey Cohen concedes, Agobard’s “well-known complaints regarding the Jews hardly amounted to a systematic theological exposition.” Rather than theology, his complaints “address an array of specific, practical issues.”[22] These “specific, practical issues” concerned Jewish hostility towards Europeans, the abuse of Europeans by Jews, and the extent of Jewish wealth, privilege, protections, and political influence in European societies.  These issues, more than the putative “prejudices,” “neuroses,” or “religious pathologies” posited by Jewish intellectuals, have been the perennial elements underpinning the Jewish Question for more than a thousand years. They provoked an entirely rational response — European efforts to fight back, or, as it would eventually come to be known, “anti-Semitism.”

Perhaps the most important aspect of Agobard’s tale is that it exposes the origins of one of the most uncomfortable aspects of Jewish influence — its reliance on cooperation with our own elites. Only by engaging in a symbiotic relationship with our own corrupt rulers can Jews gain full access to power and an impunity when wielding it. As such, we should grow in the understanding that answering the Jewish Question will by necessity involve a reckoning with the issue of how we govern ourselves and by what qualifications we select our elites. If Whites possess a weak sense of ethnocentrism and high sense of individualism (certainly when compared with Jews and other non-Whites), then this should provoke a discussion on how to tie the fate of our rulers or governments to our people. In ancient times, both Celtic and Nordic societies took this idea to an extreme, sacrificing their kings in times of famine or hardship (see for example, the Ynglinga Saga). The fate of the king was quite literally tied to the people — if the people suffered, the king would suffer more than anyone. As time progressed, kings became ensconced in their hierarchy, their palaces ever larger and ever more distant. Then came the parliaments and the politicians, they too ever more distant from the needs of the masses and the direction of their interests. Accountability in all instances was reduced to nothing.

This letter is considered by the scholars to be “The first testimony relating to the abduction of children by Jewish merchants active in the trade flowing into Arab Spain,” as it was phrased by Ariel Toaff , professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, who states in his book, Blood Passover (p. 189) that:

The first testimony relating to the abduction of children by Jewish merchants active in the trade flowing into Arab Spain, comes down to us in a letter from Agobard, archbishop of Lyon in the years 816–840. The French prelate describes the appearance at Lyons of a Christian slave, having escaped from Cordoba, who had been abducted from a Leonese Jewish merchant twenty four years before, when he was a child, to be sold to the Moslems of Spain. His companion in flight was another Christian slave having suffered a similar fate after being abducted six years before by Jewish merchants at Arles. The inhabitants of Lyons confirmed these claims, adding that yet another Christian boy had been abducted by Jews to be sold into slavery that same year. Agobard concludes his report with a comment of a general nature; that these were not considered isolated cases, because, in everyday practice, the Jews continued to procure Christian slaves for themselves and furthermore subjecting them to “infamies such that it would be vile in itself to describe them”.

Precisely what kind of abominable “infamies” Agobard is referring to is not clear; but it is possible that he was referring to castration more than to circumcision. Liutprando, bishop of Cremona, in his Antapodosis, said to have been written in approximately 958–962, referred to the city of Verdun as the principal market in which Jews castrated young slaves intended for sale to the Moslems of Spain. During this same period, two Arab sources, Ibn Haukal and Ibrahim al Qarawi, also stressed that the majority of their eunuchs originated from France and were sold to the Iberian peninsula by Jewish merchants. Other Arabic writers mentioned Lucerna, a city with a Jewish majority, halfway between Cordoba and Malaga in southern Spain, as another major market, in which the castration of Christian children after reducing them to slavery was practiced on a large scale by the very same people.

During this period, Jewish merchants from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and, in Germany, from the centers of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague — were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice

Ariel Toaff argues that these abductions are at the origin of the rise of the ritual murder stereotype (and, maybe, of our modern adrenochrome urban legends.)

That Christian Europe of the Middle Ages feared the Jews is an established fact. Perhaps the widespread fear that Jews were scheming to abduct children, subjecting them to cruel rituals, even antedates the appearance of stereotypical ritual murder which seems to have originated in the 12th century. As for myself, I believe that serious consideration should be given to the possibility that this fear was largely related to the slave trade, particularly in the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Jewish role in the slave trade appears to have been preponderant.

Be that as it may, Toaff dare not mention the title of the letter and so we could easily miss the rest of it. It is worth quoting in full, its seething tone not faltering for a moment.

For example, all those who think that “Democracy was always nothing more than the screen for the Jewish dictatorship (Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Bagatelles pour un massacre [1937], éd. Denoël, 1937, p. 51) will have to think twice: the proximity and the connivance of the Jews with power are already denounced as such in Agobard’s letter — at a time that was not particularly democratic.

In a short article on Jeune Nation, 1917: le Rond-point Poincaré, it can be seen, by quoting a few extracts from his memoirs, how easily Raymond Poincaré (President of French Republic, 1913–1920) could contact Rothschild and the members of the consistory while the secularism of the Republic prohibited him from meeting bishops. So, there is nothing new under the sun since Agobard. The sole difference, strictly speaking, is the fact that in the past, every now and then, the kings and the emperors would take steps that would be considered by today’s democratic standards as antisemitic — a burning at the stake during the Inquisition for example.

And last but not least surprise, Kosher slaughter was already a touchy issue at the time of Agobard, the meat considered to be unclean by the Jews being sold to the Christians: the same occurs today, obliging the Gentile to eat meat from a ritual slaughter that they consider does not to meet the standards of Jewish religious law.

So below the letter in its full extent, both in English and in Latin. (The letter can be found in Latin and  French here: Abogard : LETTRE A LOUIS LE PIEUX SUR L’INSOLENCE DES JUIFS (remacle.org) 

In English: Internet History Sourcebooks Project (fordham.edu)

Louis le Pieux 778 – 840 painting by Jean-Joseph Dassy 1791–1865

On the Insolence of the Jews To Louis the Pious

To his most Christian, truly pious, and always august emperor Louis, the most fortunate triumphal victor in Christ, Agobard, the most downcast of all your servants.

When omnipotent God — Who knew before time itself and foreordained that you would be a pious rector in these truly demanding times — raised your prudence and zealous religion over the other mortals of your time, there is no doubt but that you were prepared as a remedy for the dangerous times about which the Apostle speaks: In the last days the dangerous times shall begin, and there shall be men who love themselves, greedy, puffed up, etc.[II Timothy 3:1-2] and who, although they have the appearance of piety, nullify its strength.[II Timothy 3:5] From times such as these nothing more should be expected than what is already seen, except for the release of Satan and the public trampling of the holy City for the forty-two months, which shall occur through the head of all the iniquitous, Antichrist.[cf. Apocalypse 11:2]

Therefore since this is the way things are, I beseech your most tranquil long-sufferingness that you lend your most patient ear to the words with which I, the least of your servants, consider it most necessary to admonish your most holy solicitude concerning such a vital matter, a matter which is either uniquely or especially one to which your governance more than all others should bring aid.

If I could pursue my account of the matter while passing over in silence the names of the responsible parties, I would gladly do so. But because it cannot be done, I commit myself to your goodness and patience as I surrender myself to the dangers and inform you of what is ruinous to pass over in silence. There came Gerric and Frederick who were preceded by Evrard,[1] your agents (missi) in fact yet not doing your will completely but rather acting on behalf of another. They showed themselves to be terrible to the Christians and mild to the Jews, especially in Lyon, where they set up a persecuting faction (pars persecutionis) against the Church and they goaded the church to many groans, sighs, and tears.

Because this persecution was directly principally against me, I should not recount the whole, unless perchance your most clement concern should wish to know. But if your kindness allows, I shall begin to intimate it briefly, insofar as it was injurious to the Church of Christ.

When the Jews first arrived, they gave me a message in your name and another one to the man who rules the district of Lyon in place of the count; [this message] ordered him to offer aid to the Jews against me. We absolutely did not believe that such messages as these issued from your judgment, although they were read out in your sacred name and sealed with your ring. The Jews began to rage with a certain odious insolence, threatening that we would be afflicted with every sort of injury by the agents whom they had obtained to take vengeance upon Christians. After them, Evrard arrived and repeated the same thing and said that your majesty was truly angry with me because of the Jews. Then the aforementioned agents arrived, holding in their hands a tax code(?) (stipendialis tractoria) and a capitulary of sanctions which we do not believe exists by your command.

For these reasons, the Jews were made joyful beyond measure and the Christians saddened — and not only those who fled or hid or were detained, but the rest as well who saw or heard. In particular, it was because the Jews’ opinion received such confirmation that they irreverently began to preach to the Christians what they ought to believe and hold, openly blaspheming the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ. This perversity was strengthened by the words of your agents who whispered in the ears of certain people that the Jews are not abominable, as many think, but are held dear in your eyes and because some of their people were saying that they are considered better than Christians.

I, your unworthy servant, was not in fact in Lyon [at the time] but was far away on the case of the monks of Nantuadensium, who were fighting among themselves because of a certain rivalry. Nonetheless I sent our agents with a short letter to those men [saying] that they should command whatever they wanted and we would obey what they had enjoined. But we received no indulgence from them. Consequently, certain of our priests whom they threatened by name, did not dare to show their faces.

We suffered these things from the Jews’ supporters and for no other reason but that we preached to Christians that they should not sell Christian slaves to them; that they should not allow these Jews to sell Christians to Spain nor to possess them as paid domestics lest Christian women celebrate the Sabbath with them, work on Sundays, eat with them during Lent, and their paid servants eat meat on these days; and that no Christian should buy meats sacrificed and butchered by Jews and sell them to other Christians; and that they should not drink their wine or other things like this. [my emphasis]

For it is the practice of the Jews that when they slaughter an animal to eat and kill it using three cuts so that it is not strangled, if the liver appears to be damaged when the entrails are opened, or if a lung clings to the side or breath inflates it, or bile is not found, and other things like this, the meat is considered to be unclean by the Jews and sold to the Christians and these meats are called by the insulting expression “Christian beasts” (christiana pecora). With regard to the blood which the Jews both consider to be unclean and do not use except to sell it to Christians, if it should happen to flow into the earth anywhere, even into a filthy place, they swiftly draw it out of the ground and put it in a vessel to preserve. And as for how they do other things worthy of reproach concerning the blood, there are not only many Christian witnesses but also many Jews.

That the Jews daily curse Jesus Christ and the Christians in all their prayers under the name “Nazarenes” not only the blessed Jerome attests, who writes that he knew them intimately and was inside their skin,[2] but many of the Jews also bear witness to this. On this matter, for the sake of example, I spoke to the Christians in this way: If there is a man who is faithful and a lover of his elder and lord and he senses that someone is his lord’s enemy, detractor, reviler, and a threat to him, he does not wish to be this man’s friend, table companion, or sharer in his food. But if he should be [this man’s friend, etc.] and his elder and lord learns this, [the lord] would judge that the man was not faithful to him. And therefore, since we know that the Jews are blasphemers and men who curse, so to speak, the Lord God Christ and his Christians, we should not be joined to them through the sharing of food or drink in accordance with the rule (modus) that was given long ago and commanded by the holy fathers in their words and examples. For the rest, because they live among us and we should not be wicked to them nor act contrary to their life, health, or wealth, let us observe the rule (modus) that has been ordained by the Church. The way in which we should be cautious or human towards them, is not at all obscure but has been clearly expounded. [my emphasis)

Most pious lord, I have mentioned only a few out of the many things concerning the faithlessness of the Jews, our admonition, and the wounding of Christianity that is occurring through the supporters of the Jews, since I do not know whether [this news] can even come to your attention. Nonetheless, it is absolutely necessary that your pious solicitude know how the Christian faith is being harmed by the Jews in certain ways. For when they lie to simple Christians and boast that they are dear to you because of the patriarchs; that they enter and leave your sight with honor; that most excellent people desire their prayers and blessings and confess that they wished they had the same author of the law as the Jews; when they say that your counselors are aroused against us for their sake, because we forbid Christians from drinking their wine; when, in trying to claim this, they boast that they have received from Christians many, many pounds of silver from the sale of wine and cannot find out, after running through the canons, why Christians should abstain from their food and drink; when they produce commands signed with golden seals in your name and containing words which, in our opinion, are not true; when they show people women’s clothes as if they were sent to their wives by your kinsmen or matrons of the palaces; when they expound upon the glory of their forefathers; when they are permitted, contrary to the law, to build new synagogues — [when all this occurs] it even reaches the point when naïve Christians say that the Jews preach to them better than our priests. And this was particularly true when the aforementioned agents ordered that the markets that usually occur on Saturdays should be moved lest [the Jews’] Sabbatism be impeded, and they let [the Jews] choose on which days they had to go to market from then on, claiming that this suited the utility of the Christians because of the Sunday vacation. In the end, it proved to be more useless to the Jews since those who are near, because they buy the necessary food on Saturday, spend Sunday more freely at the celebration of the Mass and at preaching, and those who come from a distance on the occasion of the market, attend the evening and morning offices after the celebration of the Mass has been performed and return home with edification.

Now then, if it should please your most benign kindness to listen, let us say what the Churches of the Gauls and their rectors, kings as well as bishops, should hold to regarding the separation of the two religions, namely that of the Church and that of the Jews, and what they should pass down in writing and leave to posterity to be maintained, and how it is consonant with authority, that is the Acts of the Apostles and takes its origin from the Old Testament. From these it is shown how detestable enemies of the truth should be considered and how they are worse than all unbelievers, as divine Scripture teaches, and what unworthy things they think about God and heavenly matters. We have discussed all of these things with our brethren and have sent [these writings] to be presented to your most expansive excellence.

After the preceding note had been dictated, a certain man from Cordoba arrived, fleeing from Spain. He said that he had been stolen as a little boy by a certain Jew of Lyon 24 years before and sold, and that he had fled this year with another boy from Arles who had been likewise stolen by a Jew six years earlier. When we sought out those known to the man who was from Lyon and found them, some said that others had been stolen by this same Jew, others bought and sold, and that this year another boy was stolen and sold by a Jew. At that moment it was discovered that many Christians are sold by Christians and bought by Jews and that many unspeakable things are perpetrated by them which are too foul to write. [my emphsia]


AGOBARDUS: AD EUMDEM IMPERATOREM, DE INSOLENTIA JUDAEORUM.

Christianissimo, et vere piissimo, et in Christo victori ac triumphatori Ludovico imperatori felicissimo, semper Augusto Agobardus abjectissimus omnium servorum vestrorum.

Cum Deus omnipotens, qui vos ante tempora praescivit et praeordinavit rectorem pium futurum temporibus valde necessariis, sublimaverit prudentiam vestram et studium religionis supra caeteros vestri temporis mortales; dubium non est praeparatum vos ad remedium temporibus periculosis, de quibus apostolus loquitur : In novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa, et erunt homines se ipsos amantes, cupidi, elati, et caetera , et habentes quidem speciem pietatis, virtutem autem ejus abnegantes; de quibus nihil est exspectandum quod jam non videatur, nisi solutio Satanae, et publica calcatio sanctae civitatis mensibus quadraginta duobus, quae futura est per caput omnium iniquorum Antichristum. Cum haec igitur ita se habeant, obsecro tranquillissimam longanimitatem vestram, ut praebeatis patientissimam aurem vestram verbis quibus ego infimus servorum vestrorum nimis necessarium puto admonendam sanctissimam sollicitudinem vestram de re tam necessaria, quae aut sola, aut praecipua est, cui prae caeteris succurrere debeat gubernatio vestra; cujus narrationem si prosequi potuissem tacitis nominibus auctorum, vellem omnino. Sed quia fieri non potest, committo me bonitati et patientiae vestrae, dando me periculis, et innotescens vobis quae tacere perniciosum est.

Venerunt Gerricus et Fredericus, quos praecurrit Evrardus missi quidem vestri non tamen per omnia vestra agentes, sed ex parte alterius; et ostenderunt se Christianis terribiles et Judaeis mites, maxime Lugduni, ubi partem persecutionis adversus Ecclesiam depinxerunt, quam multis gemitibus, suspiriis et lacrymis stimulaverunt. Quae persecutio, quia praecipue adversum me acta est, tota a me prodenda non est, nisi forte clementissima sollicitudo vestra scire voluerit. Tamen in quantum Ecclesiae Christi noxia est, si vestra patitur mansuetudo, breviter intimare exordiar.

Venientes itaque primum Judaei, dederunt mihi indiculum ex nomine vestro, et alterum ei qui pagum Lugdunensem vice comitis regit, praecipientem illi ut auxilium ferret Judaeis adversum me.

Quos indiculos, licet ex sacro nomine vestro recitarentur, et vestro annulo essent signati, nullatenus tamen credimus ex judicio vestro tales prodisse. Coeperunt autem efferri quadam odibili insolentia Judaei, comminantes omnibus injuriis nos afficiendos per missos quos adepti fuerant ad exsolvendam vindictam de Christianis.

Post eos venit Evrardus, eadem iterans, et dicens majestatem vestram commotam esse valde adversum me propter Judaeos.

Deinde venerunt et praedicti missi, habentes in manibus tractoriam stipendialem, et capitularia sanctionum, quae non putamus vestra jussione existere talia.

His causis laetificati sunt Judaei ultra modum, et contristati Christiani, non solum illi qui fugerunt, aut qui absconditi sunt, vel qui districti, sed et caeteri qui viderunt, vel audierunt; maxime ideo, quia sententia Judaeorum ita confirmata est, ut auderent irreverenter praedicare Christianis quid potius credendum esset ac tenendum; blasphemantes coram eis Dominum Deum ac Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum.

III. Roboratur quoque haec perversitas ex verbis missorum, quibus susurrabant quorumdam auribus, dicentes quod Judaei non abominabiles, ut plerique putant, sed chari essent in oculis vestris, et hominibus eorum dicentibus ex parte meliores eos habitos quam Christianos.

Et ego quidem indignus servus vester non eram Lugduni; sed aberam longe, causa Nantuadensium monachorum, qui quadam dissimultate inter se laborabant. Tamen direxi missos nostros et litterulas ad illos, ut praeciperent quidquid vellent, aut eis injunctum esset, et nos obediremus. Sed nihil veniae adepti sumus; ita ut etiam aliqui ex sacerdotibus nostris, quibus nominatim minabantur, non auderent praesentiam suam eis exhibere. Haec passi sumus a fautoribus Judaeorum, non ob aliud nisi quia praedicavimus Christianis, ut mancipia eis Christiana non venderent, ut ipsos Judaeos Christianos vendere ad Hispanias non permitterent, nec mercenarios domesticos habere, ne feminae Christianae cum eis sabbatizarent, et ne diebus Dominicis operarentur, ne diebus Quadragesimae cum eis pranderent, et mercenarii eorum iisdem diebus carnes manducarent, ne quilibet Christianus carnes a Judaeis immolatas et deglubatas emeret, et aliis Christianis venderet, ne vinum illorum biberent, et alia hujusmodi. Est enim Judaeorum usus, ut quando quolibet pecus ad esum mactant, ut subactum idem pecus tribus incisionibus non fuerit jugulatum; si apertis interaneis jecur laesum apparuerit, si pulmo lateri adhaeserit, vel eum insufflatio penetraverit, si fel inventum non fuerit, et alia hujusmodi; haec tanquam immunda a Judaeis repudiata, Christianis venduntur, et insultario vocabulo Christiana pecora appellantur.

De vino vero, quod et ipsi immundum fatentur, et non eo utuntur nisi ad vendendum Christianis, si contigerit ut in terram defluat quolibet loco licet sordido, festinantes hauriunt iterum de terra, et ad conservandum in vasa remittunt. Qualiter vero et alia improbanda circa illud agant, non solum de Christianis, sed et de Judaeis multi sunt testes. Quod autem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum et Christianos in omnibus orationibus suis sub Nazarenorum nomine quotidie maledicant, non solum beatus Hieronymus, qui se scribit novisse illos intrinsecus et in cute, testis est, sed et de ipsis Judaeis plerique testantur. In hac re sumens exempli gratiam, dixi Christianis hoc modo: Si aliquis homo seniori suo vel domino fidelis et amator existat, et quempiam hominum senserit illi esse inimicum, detractorem, conviciatorem, et comminatorem, non vult ei esse amicus, nec socius mensae, nec particeps ciborum. Quod si fuerit, et hoc senior ipsius vel dominus deprehenderit, nec fidelem sibi eum esse existimat. Et ideo cum procul dubio noverimus blasphematores et, ut ita dicam, maledictores esse Judaeos Domini Dei Christi et fidelium ejus Christianorum, non debemus eis conjungi participatione ciborum et potuum, juxta modum duntaxat a sanctis Patribus et exemplis datum et verbis praeceptum. Caeterum, quia inter nos vivunt, et maligni eis esse non debemus, nec vitae aut sanitati vel divitiis eorum contrarii; observemus modum ab Ecclesia ordinatum, non utique obscurum, sed manifeste expositum, qualiter erga eos cauti vel humani esse debeamus.

Haec, piissime domine, de multis pauca dixi de perfidia Judaeorum, de admonitione nostra, de laesione Christianitatis, quae fit per fautores Judaeorum, nesciens utrum pervenire possit ad vestram notitiam. Tamen summopere necesse est ut sciat piissima sollicitudo vestra, quomodo nocetur fides Christiana a Judaeis in aliquibus. Dum enim gloriantur, mentientes simplicibus Christianis, quod chari sint vobis propter patriarchas; quod honorabiliter ingrediantur in conspectu vestro, et egrediantur; quod excellentissimae personae cupiant eorum orationes et benedictiones, et fateantur talem se legis auctorem habere velle, qualem ipsi habent; dum dicunt consiliatores vestros commotos adversum nos eorum causa, eo quod prohibeamus Christianos vinum eorum bibere; dum hoc affirmare nitentes, plurimas argenti libras ob emptionem vini se ab eis accepisse jactant; et decursis canonibus non inveniri quare Christiani debeant abstinere a cibis eorum et potibus; dum ostendunt praecepta ex nomine vestro, aureis sigillis signata, et continentia verba, ut putamus, non vera; dum ostendunt vestes muliebres, quasi a consanguineis vestris vel matronis palatinorum uxoribus eorum directas; dum exponunt gloriam parentum suorum; dum eis contra legem permittitur novas synagogas exstruere; ad hoc pervenitur, ut dicant imperiti Christiani melius eis praedicare Judaeos quam presbyteros nostros; maxime cum et supradicti missi, ne sabbatismus eorum impediretur, mercata, quae in sabbatis solebant fieri, transmutari praeceperint, et quibus diebus deinceps frequentari debeant, in illorum opinione posuerint, dicentes hoc Christianorum utilitati propter diei Dominici vacationem congruere; cum Judaeis magis probetur inutile: quia et hi qui prope sunt, sabbato ementes victus necessaria, liberius die Dominico missarum solemnitatibus et praedicationibus vacant; et si qui de longe veniunt, ex occasione mercati tam vespertinis quam matutinis occurrentes officiis, missarum solemnitate peracta, cum aedificatione revertuntur ad propria. Nunc igitur, si placet benignissimae mansuetudini vestrae audire, dicamus quid Ecclesiae Galliarum, et rectores earum, tam reges quam episcopi de discretione utriusque religionis, ecclesiasticae videlicet et Judaicae, tenuerint, tenendumque tradiderint, et scriptum posteris reliquerint, et quomodo consonum sit auctoritati vel actibus apostolicis, et a Veteri Testamento originem trahens. Ex quibus demonstratur quam detestabiles habendi sint inimici veritatis, et quomodo pejores sint omnibus incredulis, Scripturis divinis hoc docentibus, et quam indigniora omnibus infidelibus de Deo sentiant, et rebus coelestibus. Quae omnia cum confratribus contulimus, et amplissimae Eccellentiae vestrae praesentanda direximus.

Et cum praecedens schedula dictata fuisset, supervenit quidam homo fugiens ab Hispaniis de Cordoba, qui se dicebat furatum fuisse a quodam Judaeo Lugduno ante annos viginti quatuor, parvum adhuc puerum, et venditum, fugisse autem anno praesenti cum alio qui similiter furatus fuerat Arelate ab alio Judaeo ante annos sex. Cumque hujus, qui Lugdunensis fuerat, notos quaereremus, et inveniremus, dictum est a quibusdam et alios ab eodem Judaeo furatos, alios vero emptos ac venditos; ab alio quoque Judaeo anno praesenti alium puerum furatum et venditum: qua hora inventum est plures Christianos a Christianis vendi et comparari a Judaeis, perpetrarique ab eis multa infanda quae turpia sunt ad scribendum. 

Matthew Goodwin: A cynical Establishment type, or a future friend of British Nationalism?

This article was posted by Anglo-Celtic.org on Wednesday 12 April 2023.

Matthew Goodwin

Matthew Goodwin 

Matthew Goodwin is not a British Nationalist. He is Professor of Politics at Kent University. He is well in with the likes of Penguin/Pelican Books and the BBC.

He is a respectable figure and he wants to stay that way. Occasionally, he is one of four guests on the BBC2 lunchtime programme, Politics Live, where I learned of his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics.

The hostess there is Jo Coburn, an active member of the Ealing Liberal Synagogue. She is married to Mark Flanagan, former head of strategic communications for both the Labour government and the following Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Coburn’s guests frequently include another Jew of some variety.

I do not know whether Coburn personally chooses her guests, or whether that is done for her from either above or below. But we can tell the kind of company that Matthew Goodwin keeps.

As an academic, Goodwin has to demonstrate a certain amount of objectivity, although a host of Marxist sociology lecturers etc. seem to get by quite nicely without doing that. Just as the BBC is obliged by its charter to be politically impartial. Martin Webster and Philip Gegan have shot down that myth, on the Anglo-Celtic website. “Anglo-Celtic is campaigning to abolish the BBC”.

Matthew Goodwin has co-authored a number of books where British Nationalism is either implied to be, or openly stated to be, “fascist” or “far right”. But Nationalism seems to be a major interest of Goodwin’s. I do not know what first attracted him to his subject.

But as he developed his interest, he also developed an understanding, and an empathy with some modern nationalist ideological positions. He might have developed a sympathy with moderate nationalist positions. But, as he is based at a politically correct university, he dares not say so openly, if in fact that is the case. Many have been driven out of universities for not taking the right line.

In 2018, Goodwin co-wrote with Roger Eatwell, National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. They concentrated on ‘national’ populism, rather than populism in general. In that book they wrote:

One point that has recurred throughout is that people who support national populism are not merely protesting: they are choosing to endorse views that appeal to them. So we need to look more closely at the promises being made by these politicians and examine whether, contrary to the popular claim that it is a new form of fascism, national populism strives towards a new form of democracy in which the interests and voices of ordinary people feature far more prominently.

I enjoyed that book and even wrote a letter to the Hull Daily Mail about it – see the published text below.

Goodwin’s new book

The back cover of Values, Voice and Virtue states:

What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes?

British politics is coming apart. A country once known for its stability has recently experienced a series of shocking upheavals. Matthew Goodwin, acclaimed political scientist and co-author of National Populism, shows that the reason is not economic hardship, personalities or dark money. It is a far wider political realignment that will be with us for years to come. An increasingly liberalised, globalized ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. Now, this new alliance of voters is set to determine Britain’s fate.

In chapters one and two, Goodwin discusses the new political elite and how it accomplished a revolution. He writes in chapter two:

It opened the economy to a new and very disruptive model of hyper-globalization. It opened the country’s borders to a new and unprecedented era of mass immigration. And it opened up and hollowed out its national democracy, handing much greater power, influence and control to supranational institutions.

Nowhere in the book is there any mention of the Jewish role in all of this. Some time ago, I wrote to Matthew Goodwin and asked him if he was aware of the books by Kevin MacDonald. I did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of my letter.

But I am reminded of Ruling the Void – The Hollowing of Western Democracy, by the Irish academic, Peter Mair, and Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s commentary on United States society. Edward Dutton has things to say about some of this in his co-authored book, The Past is a Future Country.

Kevin MacDonald has much to say in his fourth book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, in the last two chapters, eight and nine. This includes comments on another book, by Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, a book describing how Westerners (read White people) do not look after their own, like other peoples in the Third World do, and the way this situation developed.

I think that there is hope for some Establishment academics. Remember, even Kevin MacDonald started out as a leftist, and later became a Reagan-supporting conservative. Only later did he become a racial nationalist.

All of these books, including the two mentioned of Goodwin’s books, are worth reading. Because British Nationalists should be well-read and well-informed.

There is some evidence that Establishment academics, in Britain and America, and elsewhere, are aware of the political situation, and are currently cautiously commenting on it. Of course, most of them will not mention the Jews. MacDonald is the honourable exception.

Some intelligent people know that there is a potentially revolutionary situation developing. The Establishment is trying hard to crush all Nationalist thinking. I have little doubt that people like Charles Murray in the United States, and Matthew Goodwin in the UK, would furiously deny having any sympathy with racial nationalism (at this stage, probably honestly). But they are noticing things that we know about.

All political revolutions start off as an Idea, and then develop slowly at first. Later, when they have gained momentum and more public support, there are always some among the old Establishment who come over to the new regime. Some of those people are braver than others. Some want to see which way the political winds are blowing before they will jump ship. Some are cynical and self-serving, but want to be well in with the new rulers — and they can be used by the new regime.

But I almost think that it is a pre-condition of the success of all revolutions that they win some  sympathisers among the old order that they want to replace. Are we seeing the first tentative signs of that with people like Goodwin and Murray?

If we do not make significant progress, such types will turn their professional interest elsewhere and play down their previous comments.

But a revolutionary situation demands a revolution. Goodwin’s book has five chapters. The first two are, The Rise of the New Elite, and Revolution, by which he means Cultural Marxism’s revolution. He does not call it that, but chooses “Hyper Liberalism” instead. In this he echoes the Tory writer, Nick Timothy, in his book, Remaking One Nation – The Future of Conservatism. Timothy refers to “Ultra Liberalism”.

Chapters three, four and five are about how the political elite are out of touch with the public. He devotes these chapters to the “Values, Voice and Virtue” of his title to the book. But interestingly, the conclusion to the book is called “Counter Revolution”.

Is he advocating that, or warning against it? Read the book and form your own opinion! I hope to comment again on this book, in a future letter.

Best Wishes

Will

© Will Wright 2023

*****

Published in the Hull Daily Mail, on Friday November 30, 2018, as:

Local politicians could learn a lot from this book 

Recently, I read National Populism, the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Although this book is by a couple of academics, it is an easy read and a good buy at £9.99 from Pelican books. Published on 25th October, 2018 it is right up to date and in my opinion, a must read for anyone who is interested in contemporary politics.

But more than that, I think some of our local politicians could benefit from reading it. Colin Inglis and David Nolan might find it useful in understanding why they were on the losing side in the EU referendum. But they are not the only ones.

Stephen Brady, who thought that immigration had been good for Hull, might see things from a different perspective once he has read this book. Regular Mail contributor, Michael Somerton, might realise that not everyone thinks in purely economic terms. Middle class feminists might gain insight into why America rejected Hilary Clinton and embraced Donald Trump.

Most of all I hope lots of Mail readers rush out to buy this book. The writers devote a chapter to each of the four ‘D’s:

• The distrust of the political class.

• The threatened destruction of nation states and indigenous populations by super-states and mass immigration.

• The relative deprivation of ordinary people compared to the global, jet-setting super-class.

• The de-alignment of the old political parties with their traditional voters.

Trump, Brexit and the rise of continental nationalist movements — the new force is populist nationalism.

The writers explain that this is different to fascism. This nationalism threatens the future of ‘centre-right’ parties and ‘centre-left’ parties.

According to the authors, the right’s only answer is to steal nationalist policies. The left hasn’t found an answer and faces terminal decline. The left cannot please both politically correct, middle class liberals and immigrants on the one hand — and their traditional working-class supporters on the other.

Much of Labour’s new recruits are in London, rather than that party’s traditional northern heartlands.

This is a very timely message, let’s see it in a few Christmas stockings!

Will Wright

Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada — PART 3 of 3

Jacques Derrida

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

Dada and Deconstruction as Jewish Attack Vectors

A final destructive legacy of Dada, and one which merits more attention, is how its anti-rationalism prefigured Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction as a Jewish intellectual movement arrayed against Western civilization. The parallels between Dada and Deconstruction have been noted by numerous scholars. Robert Wicks observes how strongly Dada resonates “with the definitively poststructuralist conception of deconstruction advanced by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s.”[i] Pegrum likewise notes the “strong link between Dada and postmodern artistic theory, the most obvious point of contact being with the work of Derrida.”[ii] The literary critic Frank Kermode also traces deconstruction back to Dada influences, while Richard Sheppard regards the poststructuralists “as more introverted, less politicized [a dubious assertion], and less carnivalesque descendants of their Dada daddies.”[iii]

For the Dadaists, European civilization consisted of “an alienation-generating amalgam of rationalistic thinking, science, and technology that adhered to the preservation of order, systematicity, and methodicality.” They believed firmly that “European cultural values were not worth preserving.”[iv] Tzara once stated that “logic is always false,” and a core concept in his thought was “as long as we do things the way we think we once did them, we will be unable to achieve any kind of livable society.”[v] The Dadaists famously “spat in the eye of the world,” replacing logic and sense with absurdity and defiance.[vi] Even the word ‘Dada’ itself, suggesting basic drives and childlike behavior, was self-consciously absurd, even self-mocking, and a subversive anthem of resistance to more fully instrumentalized speech and disciplined rationality. It ridiculed Western confidence in the “autonomy of the rational ego and the efficacy of reason.” Dadaists denounced the post-Renaissance Western conception of reality which “assumed that the world was organized according to humanly intelligible laws,” and “condemned ‘bourgeois cultures’ deadening determination to stabilize and categorize all phenomena.”[vii]

The Dadaists even criticized the “rationality and excessive formalism” of Cubism, particularly during its analytic period.[viii] In May 1922, at a mock funeral for Dada, Tzara proclaimed: “Dada is a virgin microbe which penetrates with the insistence of air into all those spaces that reason has failed to fill with words and conventions.”[ix] Dickerman notes how: “Resistance to fixed meaning” remained a key feature of Dada.[x] Godfrey likewise observes that: “At the heart of Dada was an implicit critique of language as supposedly transparent.”[xi] Dada acted as a bridge between the modern and the postmodern in anticipating Derrida’s deconstruction and Michel Foucault’s analysis of power, which, like Dada, attacked the notion of objective truth which had been the cornerstone of Western thinking and knowledge production since the Enlightenment.

In order to deconstruct Western culture, Derrida had to identify a fundamental fault with it — which he decided was its “logocentrism.” By this he meant Western culture privileged speech over the written word (a dubious assertion), and that it is founded on the false belief that the world really is as our concepts describe it (i.e., in accordance with philosophical realism). Like Barthes and Foucault, Derrida used nominalism (the view that concepts are nothing more than human artifacts that have no relation to the real world) to deconstruct and subvert Western realism. In doing so, he mimicked the approach of the Dadaists:

It followed from their rejection of the belief in progress, in tamable nature and rational man, that the Dadas should cast doubt on the power of language, literature and art to represent reality. The information which the senses communicated to men was misleading, even the ideas of the individual “personality” and the external world were elusive and incoherent. How then could language, by definition an instrument of public communication, do other than deform and betray life’s authentic character as a discontinuous sequence of immediate experiences? The Dadas answered that words were mere fictions and that there was no correspondence between the structures of language and those of reality. Thus the belief in order which the power of a common, inherited language inculcated was illusory.[xii]

In order to attack Western realism Derrida and the Dadaists borrowed from the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure the notion of “différence” — which Saussure used to denote the arbitrary nature of language signs. It does not matter what signs we use to mean “night” and “day;” what matters is that we use signs to signal a certain difference, and this structural property was, for Saussure, the true carrier of meaning. The French différer also means to defer, in the sense of put off, and on this coincidental etymological basis Derrida decided that that Saussure had definitively proven that meaning is always deferred by the text.

The consequence is that the process of meaning is something that never gets started: or rather, if and when meaning starts is an arbitrary human decision. Texts do not have a single authoritative meaning: rather, there is a “free play of meaning” and anything goes. Consequently, we are liberated from meaning. Moreover, the text is “emancipated from authorship.” Once written, the author disappears and a text becomes a public artifact. It is for us to decide what the text means, and we are free to decide as we please, and since “all interpretation is misinterpretation” no particular reading is privileged.[xiii] Sheppard notes that: “Derrida, dynamizing Saussure’s model of the sign, sees humanity caught in an endless flow of textuality where signifieds and signifiers perpetually fracture and recombine anew. Consequently, he concludes that there is nothing outside the text.”[xiv] Under Derrida’s deconstruction “a new text thus gradually begins to emerge, but this text too is at subtle variance with itself, and the deconstruction continues in what could be an infinite regress of dialectical readings.”[xv]

While Derrida posed as a leftist Parisian intellectual, a secularist and an atheist, he descended from a long line of crypto-Jews, and explicitly identified himself as such: “I am one of those marranes who no longer say they are Jews even in the secret of their own hearts.”[xvi] Derrida was born into a Sephardic Jewish family that immigrated to Algeria from Spain in the nineteenth century. His family were crypto-Jews who retained their Jewish identity for 400 years in Spain during the period of the Inquisition. Derrida changed his first name to the French Christian sounding ‘Jacques’ in order better blend into the French scene. Furthermore, he took his crypto-Judaism to the grave:

When Derrida was buried, his elder brother, René, wore a tallit at the suburban French cemetery and recited the Kaddish to himself inwardly, since Jacques had asked for no public prayers. This discreet, highly personal, yet emotionally and spiritually meaningful approach to recognizing Derrida’s Judaism seems emblematic of this complex, imperfect, yet valuably nuanced thinker.[xvii]

Derrida was a crypto-Jew until the end, even instructing his family to participate in the charade. Kevin MacDonald notes the obvious reason: “Intellectually one wonders how one could be a postmodernist and a committed Jew at the same time. Intellectual consistency would seem to require that all personal identifications be subjected to the same deconstructing logic, unless, of course, personal identity itself involves deep ambiguities, deception, and self-deception.”[xviii]

In his notebooks, Derrida underscores the centrality of Jewish issues in his writing: “Circumcision, that’s all I’ve ever talked about.” His experience of anti-Semitism during World War II in Algeria was traumatic and resulted in a deep consciousness of his own Jewishness. He was expelled from school at age 13 under the Vichy government because of official caps on the number of Jewish students, describing himself as a “little black and very Arab Jew who understood nothing about it, to whom no one ever gave the slightest reason, neither his parents nor his friends.”[xix] Later, in France, his “suffering subsided. I naively thought that anti-Semitism had disappeared. … But during adolescence, it was the tragedy, it was present in everything else.” These experiences led Derrida to develop “an exhausting aptitude to detect signs of racism, in its most discreet configurations or its noisiest disavowals.”[xx] Caputo notes how Jewish ethnic activism underpins Derrida’s deconstruction:

The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue. … The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants, … all of whom… are wholly other. Contrary to the claims of Derrida’s more careless critics, the passion of deconstruction is deeply political, for deconstruction is a relentless, if sometimes indirect, discourse on democracy, on a democracy to come. Derrida’s democracy is a radically pluralistic polity that resists the terror of an organic, ethnic, spiritual unity, of the natural, native bonds of the nation (natus, natio), which grind to dust everything that is not a kin of the ruling kind and genus (Geschlecht). He dreams of a nation without nationalist or nativist closure, of a community without identity, of a non-identical community that cannot say I or we, for, after all, the very idea of a community is to fortify (munis, muneris) ourselves in common against the other. His work is driven by a sense of the consummate danger of an identitarian community, of the spirit of the “we” of “Christian Europe,” or of a “Christian politics,” lethal compounds that spell death of Arabs and Jews, for Africans and Asians, for anything other. The heaving and sighing of this Christian European spirit is a lethal air for Jews and Arabs, for all les juifs [i.e., Jews as prototypical others], even if they go back to father Abraham, a way of gassing them according to both the letter and the spirit.[xxi]

Derrida’s sociological preoccupations (and suggested solutions) replicated those of Tristan Tzara. Sandqvist links Tzara’s profound revolt against European social constraints directly to his Jewish identity, and his anger at the persistence of anti-Semitism. For Sandqvist, the treatment of Jews in Romania fueled the Dada leader’s revolt against Western civilization. Bodenheimer notes that:

As a Jew, Tzara had many reasons to call into question the so-called disastrous truths and rationalizations of European thinking, one result of which was the First World War — with the discrimination of Jews for centuries being another. … He came from a background in which jingoistic and anti-Semitic arguments had long reproached Jews for using impure, falsified language, from early examples in the sixteenth century… all the way to the arguments of the Romanian intellectuals in Tzara’s time, who attacked Jews as “foreigners” importing “diseased ideas” into Romanian literature and culture.

[Tzara consequently] seeks to unmask language itself as a construction that draws its value, and sometimes its claim to superiority, from an equally constructed concept of identities and values. In themselves, all languages are equal, but equal in their differences. This claim to the right of equality while upholding difference is the basic Jewish claim to a secular society. But the European peoples, be it first for religious or later for nationalist reasons, have never managed to actually understand this right, let alone grant it to minority societies.[xxii]

One of the catalysts for the dissolution of Dada in Paris was Surrealist leader André Breton’s concern that Dada’s nihilism posed a threat to the “process of intellectual sanitation” that became necessary with the rise of fascism.[xxiii] Obviously, one needs a criterion of truth grounded in realism to combat fascist ideas.  Boime likewise claims the Dadaists in their “assault on the Enlightenment and bourgeois liberalism in Zurich and then in Berlin eventually played into the hands of the Fascists and right-wing nationalists. Although these latter groups condemned Dadaist spectacle and modernist thinking, Dada’s rejection of parliamentary politics and democratic institutions helped pave the way for Nazism’s direct assault on humanitarian ideals.”[xxiv]

Derrida has been similarly criticized by some Jews because his writings “lead to ‘nihilism,’ which threatens, in their denial of the notion of objective truth, to ‘efface many of the essential differences between Nazism and non-Nazism.’”[xxv] However, Derrida’s writings have certainly not had any effect on the power of the Holocaust Industry, and indeed, some of Derrida’s biggest backers were intellectual Holocaust activists. This strange state of affairs may be explained by the fact that for some Jews, like Derrida, acknowledging the possibility of objective truth is dangerous because of the possibility that truth could be arrayed against the “other.” Similarly, for the Dadaists, the principles of Western rationality “were held to be highly problematic, because of its instrumental connections to social repressions and domination.”[xxvi] Consequently, a world where truth had been deconstructed is very much a desirable world. As Kevin MacDonald points out in Culture of Critique:

Such a world is safe for Judaism, the prototypical other, and provides no warrant for the universalizing tendencies of Western civilization — what one might term deconstruction as de-Hellenization or de-Westernization. Minority group consciousness is thus validated not in the sense that it is known to be based on some sort of psychological truth, but in the sense that it can’t be proved untrue. On the other hand, the cultural and ethnic interests of majorities are ‘hermeneuticized’ and thus rendered impotent — impotent because they cannot serve as the basis for a mass ethnic movement that would conflict with the interests of other groups.[xxvii]

When the Frankfurt School established itself in the United States, it made a conscious effort to give its Jewish intellectual activism a “scientific” veneer by gathering “empirical data” (such as that which formed the basis for The Authoritarian Personality) in order to challenge existing scientific theories seen as inimical to Jewish interests (such as Darwinian anthropology). Derrida and the poststructuralists instead sought (like the Jews within Dada) to discredit threatening concepts by undermining the notion of objective truth underpinning all Western thought. Like the Dadaists, the poststructuralists decided, if you dislike the prevailing power, then strive to ruin its concepts. Dada used nonsense and absurdity to achieve this goal, while Derrida developed his methodology of deconstruction.

The cover of a 2005 Jewish hagiography of Derrida

Fostering subjective individualism

Despite the tactical differences, a Jewish ethno-political thread runs through Tzara’s Dada, Derrida’s deconstruction, and the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. Each attempted to foster subjective individualism to disconnect the non-Jewish masses from their familial, religious and ethnic bonds — thereby reducing the salience of the Jews as the prototypical outgroup, and thus weakening the anti-Semitic status quo within Western societies.

This attempt to foster radical individualism (at least among Europeans) through critiquing the logical basis of language was an explicitly stated goal of Dada, with the early leader of the movement Hugo Ball declaring that: “The destruction of the speech organs can be a means of self-discipline. When communications are broken, when all contact ceases, then estrangement and loneliness occur, and people sink back into themselves.”[xxviii] Dickerman notes how the Dadaists’ use of abstraction in the visual arts and language “work against structures of authority communicated through language” and that the Dadaist “assault on ‘language as a social order’ would counter sociality itself, producing instead a productive form of solipsism.” The Jewish Dadaist Hans Richter declared the abstract language of the Dadaists “beyond all national language frontiers,” and saw in Dadaist abstraction a new kind of communication “free from all kinds of nationalistic alliances.”[xxix]

The Jewish Dadaist painter Arthur Segal expressed a similar view, contending that “the compositional principle of equivalence is an attempt to abolish hierarchies so that dominant and subordinate forces would no longer exist.” Hockensmith points out that: “Abstraction thus provided Segal with a means of theorizing a world without authoritative force, one in which people and things would stand in free relation to one another.”[xxx] Tristan Tzara similarly affirmed that: “Dada proposed to liberate man from all servitude, whatever the origin, intellectual, moral, or religious.”[xxxi] This is precisely what Derrida attempted to do with deconstruction, where “All that remains thereafter is the subject who can choose what to think, what to feel and what to do, released from external constraints, and answerable to nothing and to no one.”[xxxii]

Walter Serner (Seligmann)

In his book The Jewish Derrida, Israeli academic Gideon Ofrat relates how in 1990 Derrida took part in a symposium in Turin, Italy, on the theme of “European Cultural Identity.”

Having imbibed into his very being the European culture in which he had been raised, the Algerian Jew now set about defining “Europeanism” by reference to the horrors of World War II and Nazism, and to a survey of the present day, with its “crimes of xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious or national fanaticism.” It was probably this archive that prompted Derrida to come up with his somewhat paradoxical definition of European cultural identity: “The characteristic of a culture is not to be identical with itself;” in other words, one’s cultural identity lies in separation from oneself. Moreover, a knowledge of your own cultural identity is contingent upon knowledge of the culture of the Other. … [Derrida is] simultaneously proposing a fundamental alteration in thinking about Europe, in terms of non-European Otherness. Europe will know itself as Europe if it advances toward that which it is not. … Here your identity lies in your own self-denial, in your death (in identity). Moreover, Derrida points out a basic contradiction between the pursuit of universality by European culture, and, by implication, the sense of exemplariness: an individual national arrogance, setting itself apart from the rest of the world. It is the contradiction between the message of values designated for the whole world, and one society’s claim to a monopoly of that gospel. Derrida puts forward a different concept: opening up Europe to Otherness, to the other, the aliens, as recognition of the Other culture and its adoption into society overall — possibly a proposal for the deconstruction of Europe, that is, a study of the Other root of the European essence, and its substitution by a pluralism of heterogeneity[xxxiii]

Clearly, deconstruction was a Jewish intellectual movement that was a post-Enlightenment (indeed postmodern) manifestation of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Inevitably, as with the other Jewish intellectual movements discussed in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, the solution to all social problems lies in convincing Europeans to commit racial, national and cultural suicide by embracing the Other through acceptance of racial and cultural diversity. All Jewish intellectual roads lead to mass third-world immigration and multiculturalism.

Also inevitably, as with the Frankfurt School, Derrida’s deconstructive scalpel is never turned on the Jews themselves, or Israel, who are always outside the culturally critical frame of reference. Thus the “pluralism of heterogeneity” is never recommended as a way of opening Israel to Otherness and thereby helping Jews to better understand their identity “by advancing to what they are not.” Why? Because the whole point of this intellectual exercise is to cook up specious, morally universalistic rationales of enough persuasive force to convince White people to become complicit in their own racial and cultural self-destruction — thereby furthering the unstated goal of eliminating European anti-Semitism and making the entire Western world safe for Jews.

Derrida’s exercise in Jewish ethno-politics was, of course, primarily concerned with deconstructing Western culture and the belief systems that had sustained European civilization in the past (e.g., Christianity, nationalism) and those which could be deployed to save it now and in the future, such as race realism and evolutionary theories of the ethnic basis of cultural conflict in the West. By contrast, the chauvinistic Jewish beliefs that have sustained Jewish societies and culture for millennia escaped Derrida’s deconstructive attack.

Regarding poststructuralism generally, Scruton notes that, from Foucault’s analysis of knowledge as ideology of power to the “deconstructive virus” released into the academic air by Derrida, “this culture of repudiation may present itself as ‘theory,’ in the manner of the critical theory of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas, developing ponderous ‘methodologies’ with which to root out the secret meanings of cultural works, to expose their ideological pretensions, and to send them packing into the past.” Nevertheless, the aim of the poststructuralists “is not knowledge in the post-Enlightenment sense, but the destruction of the vessel in which unwanted knowledge has been contained.”[xxxiv]

Poststructuralism and deconstruction rapidly infested Western academia during the seventies and eighties, becoming stock approaches in literary criticism, the humanities and social sciences. This critical approach was presaged by the Dadaists who, in response to the First World War and the persistence of anti-Semitism, gradually morphed their movement into a disgust at rationalism as a defining feature of post-Enlightenment European culture. The Dadaists were keenly aware of the paradoxical nature of their revolt against logic and reason. Robert Wick notes how “self-contradictory phrases sprinkle themselves across the Dada manifestos — phrases which proclaim that everything is false, that Dada is nothing, that there is no ultimate truth, that everything is absurd, that everything is incoherent and that there is no logic. They are phrases that present themselves in the manifestos as being true, meaningful, coherent, and logical, while they deny all truth, meaning, coherence, and logic.”[xxxv] The Dadaists recognized that they were trapped inside a “double hermeneutic” in that they were compelled to use the forms of bourgeois society to mount a critique of that society. In an analogous way, Foucault and Derrida attempted to develop an “ontology of the present” that would enable them to “abstract” themselves from their cultural surroundings.

The paradoxical and self-invalidating nature of this endeavor did not, however, limit the immense influence that poststructuralism and deconstruction exerted. The logical flaw at the heart of the entire poststructuralist intellectual edifice is simply ignored—this being that same logical fallacy perpetrated by Nietzsche when he expressed the view that there are no truths, only interpretations. Either Nietzsche’s position is true—in which case it is not true, since there are no truths, or it is false. Derrida’s and Foucault’s central arguments amount to the same point made less brusquely, and while they presented their arguments in opaque pseudo-profound language to conceal the paradox, it nevertheless remains.

Foucault and Derrida owe their inflated intellectual reputations to their role in giving authority to the rejection of authority, and their absolute commitment to the impossibility of absolute commitments. Those who point out the obvious flaw in Foucault’s poststructuralist analysis of power and Derrida’s deconstructionist analysis of language — namely, that a rational critique assumes precisely what they put in question — are simply accused of aligning themselves with the oppressive, hegemonic forces of the Eurocentric bourgeois patriarchy through assuming the frame of reference that this group has normalized. Indeed, they are told that the very belief in neutral enquiries is not a neutral belief, but rather the expression of the hegemonic worldview most in need of deconstruction. There is, therefore, no position from which deconstruction can be critiqued. If there were such a vantage point, it would be founded on rational argument; but rationality itself has been deconstructed.

Deconstruction is therefore self-vindicating, and provides the culture of repudiation with its spiritual credentials, the proof that it is “not of this world” and comes in judgment upon it. Of course that subversive intention in no way forbids deconstruction from becoming an orthodoxy, the pillar of the new establishment, and the badge of conformity that the literary apparatchik must now wear. But in this it is no different from other subversive doctrines: Marxism, for example, Leninism and Maoism. Just as pop is rapidly becoming the official culture of the post-modern state, so is the culture of repudiation becoming the official culture of the post-modern university.[xxxvi]

In poststructuralism and deconstruction, the spirit of Dada extended far beyond what had been hoped for by its most messianic propagandists like Tristan Tzara and Walter Serner. For the British historian Paul Johnson: “Dada was pretentious, contemptuous, destructive, very chic, publicity-seeking and ultimately pointless.”[xxxvii] Johnson is wrong on the last score. Dada had far-reaching intellectual and cultural consequences — in revolutionizing art, undermining trust in the notion of objective truth, and in pioneering a vector of attack on Western civilization subsequently taken up by Jewish intellectual activists like Derrida.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.


[i] Robert J. Wicks, Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 11.

[ii] Mark A. Pegrum, Challenging Modernity: Dada between Modern and Postmodern (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000), 269.

[iii] Richard Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism (Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1999), 365.

[iv] Wicks, Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism, 9-10.

[v] Beitchman, I Am a Process with No Subject, 29.

[vi] Irwin Unger & Debi Unger, The Guggenheims — A Family History (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006), 354.

[vii] Short, Dada and Surrealism, 12.

[viii] Loredana Parmesani, Art of the Twentieth Century — Movements, Theories, Schools and Tendencies 1900-2000 (Milan: Skira, 1998), 36.

[ix] Richter, Dada. Art and Anti-art, 191.

[x] Dickerman, “Introduction & Zurich,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 33.

[xi] Godfrey, Conceptual Art, 44.

[xii] Short, Dada and Surrealism, 17.

[xiii] Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy (London: Penguin, 1994), 478-9.

[xiv] Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism, 363.

[xv] Roger Poole, “Deconstruction,” Alan Bullock & Peter Trombley (Eds.) The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (London: HarperCollins, 2000), 203.

[xvi] Jacques Derrida, “Circumfession,” In Jacques Derrida, Ed. G. Bennington & Jacques Derrida, Trans. G. Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 170.

[xvii] Benjamin Ivry, “Sovereign or Beast?” Forward, December 1, 2010. https://forward.com/culture/133536/sovereign-or-beast/

[xviii] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library, 2001), 198.

[xix] Derrida, “Circumfession,” op. cit., 58)

[xx] Jacques Derrida, Points… Interviews, 1974-1994, Trans. P. Kamuf et al (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 120—21.

[xxi] J.D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1997), 231—2.

[xxii] Alfred Bodenheimer, “Dada Judaism: The Avant-Garde in First World War Zurich,” In: Gelber, Mark H. and Sjöberg, Sami. Jewish Aspects in Avant-Garde: Between Rebellion and Revelation, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110454956

[xxiii] Malcolm Haslam, The Real World of the Surrealists (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1978), 93.

[xxiv] Boime, ‘Dada’s Dark Secret,’ Washton-Long, Baigel & Heyd (Eds.) Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation, 102.

[xxv] Benjamin Ivry, “Sovereign or Beast? Jacques Derrida and his Place in Modern Philosophy” (The Jewish Daily Forward, December 1, 2010.  http://www.forward.com/articles/133536/

[xxvi] Matthew Biro, The Dada Cyborg: Visions of the New Human in Weimar Berlin, (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), 154.

[xxvii] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library, 2001), 205.

[xxviii] Dickerman, “Introduction & Zurich,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 29.

[xxix] Hockensmith, “Artists’ Biographies,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 482.

[xxx] Ibid., 486.

[xxxi] Codrescu, The Posthuman Dada Guide: tzara and lenin play chess, 176.

[xxxii] Scruton, Modern Philosophy, 479.

[xxxiii] Gideon Ofrat, The Jewish Derrida (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2001), 30-1.

[xxxiv] Roger Scruton, Culture Counts — Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged (New York: Encounter Books, 2007), 70.

[xxxv] Wicks, Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism, 10.

[xxxvi] Scruton, Modern Culture, 138.

[xxxvii] Paul Johnson, Art — A New History (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 669.

 

Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada — Part 2 of 3

Tristan Tzara depicted in a contemporary painting

Go to Part 1.

Dada in Paris

By 1919, when Tzara left Switzerland to join the poet André Breton in Paris, he was, according to Richter, regarded as an “Anti-Messiah” and a “prophet”.[1] His 1918 Dada Manifesto had appeared in Paris, and, according to Breton, had “lit the touch paper. Tzara’s 1918 Manifesto was violently explosive. It proclaimed a rupture between art and logic, the necessity of the great negative task to accomplish; it praised spontaneity to the skies.”[2] The editors of the avant-garde literary review Littérature felt that Tzara could fill the gap left by the deaths of Guillaume Apollinaire and Jacques Vaché. Gale notes that “Tzara immediately became the most extreme contributor to Littérature,” and by the end of 1919, “the Littérature editors had to defend his work from nationalistic attacks in the Nouvelle Revue Française.”[3] A coordinated Dada insurgency was not, however, achieved until Tzara’s arrival in Paris in 1920.

In addition to his messianic zeal, Tzara brought to Paris Dada a skill in managing events and audiences, which transformed literary gatherings into public performances that generated enormous publicity. In the five months from January 1920 he helped organize six group performances, two art exhibitions and more than a dozen publications. Dempsey notes how “the popularity of these events with the public soon turned these revolutionary ‘anti-artists’ into celebrities. The cumulative effect of this first ‘Dada season’ as it became known, was to mark the movement as a nihilistic collective force leveled at the noblest ideals of advanced society.”[4] The performances with which Dadaists tested their Parisian audiences were consistently aggressive in nature, and psychological aggression characterized many of their artworks and journals. As one source notes: “Like the plays and stage appearances, individual works produced within Dada emanate a violent humor, ranging from vulgar to sacrilegious language to images of weapons and wounds, or references to taboos great and small: suicide, cannibalism, masturbation, vomiting.”[5]

Tzara (bottom left) with other Dada artists in Paris 1920

It was widely observed at the time that the output of Paris Dada exhibited a “profound violence: physical hurt, damage to language, a wounding of pride or moral spirit,” that to native observers seemed wholly “uncharacteristic of French sensibility.”[6] Comoedia, a Parisian arts daily focused on theatre and cinema, soon became the central forum for debates over Dada and its effects on French audiences. Charges of enemy subversion, lunacy and charlatanism regularly appeared — just as it did in many German newspapers — pretexts to isolate what seemed to many a traitorous insurgency against bedrock national values.[7] Attacks on Dada in Paris soon took on an openly anti-Semitic tone when the French writer Jean Giraudoux, in explaining his rejection of Dada, pointed out: “I write in French, as I am neither Swiss nor Jewish and because I have all requisite honors and degrees.”[8]

The French cultural establishment looked askance at Dada from its arrival in Paris at the beginning of 1920. It was common knowledge that the Dadaists were avowed partisans of revolution and supported the communist uprisings in Berlin and Munich that had barely been put down. Trotsky’s red legions were, at that time, cutting a swathe of death and destruction in Poland, and many perceived a conjoined ethnic agenda behind Trotsky’s Bolshevism and Tzara’s Dada — especially given Dada’s appearance at socialist and anarchist venues throughout Paris. The connection was unambiguous in the mind of the Romanian nationalist Nicolae Rosu who noted that “Dadaism and French Surrealism exploit the moral and spiritual exhaustion of a war-torn society: the aggressive revolutionary currents in art seem to be an explosion of primal instincts detached from reason; post-war German socialism, largely developed by Jews, uses the opportunity of defeat to dictate the Weimar constitution (written by a Jew), and then through Spartakism, to install Bolshevism. Russian Bolshevism is the work of Jewish activists.”[9]

In October 1920, the messianic Jewish Dadaist Walter Serner arrived in Paris and reconvened with Tristan Tzara, who had just returned from his first visit to Romania since 1915. Serner’s campaign of shameless self-promotion, which included placing an advertisement in a Berlin newspaper describing himself as the world leader of Dada, was resented by Tzara, who was eager to establish his own priority as leader. By 1921, many of the original Dadaists had converged on Paris, and arguments among them created difficulties. By 1922, internal fighting between Tzara, Francis Picabia, and André Breton led to the dissolution of Dada.[10] Dada was officially ended in 1924 when Breton issued the first Surrealist Manifesto. Hans Richter claimed that “Surrealism devoured and digested Dada.”[11] Tzara distanced himself from Surrealism, disagreeing with its dream-centered Freudian dynamic, despite its anti-rationalism. Robert Short notes that

for Tzara, automatism [literary and artistic free association] was a visceral spasm, an explosion of the senses and the instinct that expressed the primitive and chaotic intensity in man and Nature. Where Surrealist automatism was introverted and sought to reveal patterns in the human unconscious, Dada art mimicked an objective chaos. … Surrealism was to prospect and exploit a vast substratum of mental resources which the Western cultural and economic tradition had deliberately tried to seal off. In place of science and reason, Surrealism was to cultivate the image and the analogy. In its efforts to restimulate the associative faculties of the mind, it turned its attention with respect and enthusiasm toward the thought processes of children and primitive peoples, towards the lyrical manifestations of lunacy and the synthesizing notions of occultism.[12] 

Tzara also increasingly disagreed with the political orientation of Surrealism which evolved from the near-nihilist anarchism of the Dadaists to a strict adherence to the Communist Party line by the late 1920s, and then to Trotskyism following Breton’s personal meeting with Trotsky in Mexico in 1938.[13] Nonetheless, Tzara willingly reunited with Breton in 1934 to organize a mock trial of the Surrealist Salvador Dalí, who, at the time, was a confessed admirer of Hitler.[14]

Left: Adolf the Superman: Swallows Gold and Spouts Junk by John Heartfield (Herzfeld) (1923). Right: ABCD by Raoul Hausmann (1923—24)

Tzara’s own politics were profoundly radical, and with Hitler’s ascension to power in 1933 effectively marking the end of Germany’s avant-garde, Tzara threw his support behind the French Communist Party (the PCF). Codrescu notes that the secular Jews of Tzara’s parents’ generation “were capitalists whose practical materialism horrified Samuel. The French resistance to the Nazis was, of course, the reason he later joined the Communist Party, but there was also an oedipal reason for his joining the communists: as a mystic, he was viscerally opposed to capitalism. He had to kill his father.”[15] The allegiance of the great majority of Dadaists to Marxism was paradoxical given that Marxist dialectical materialism and forecast of the historical inevitability of communist revolution was based on a kind of mathematical rationalism that ran directly counter to the Dada spirit.

Tzara’s allegiance to Marxism-Leninism was reportedly questioned by the PCF and the Soviet authorities. This was because Tzara’s irregular vision of utopia made use of particularly violent imagery — shocking even by Stalinist standards.[16] Tzara backed Stalinism and rejected Trotskyism (at least publically), and unlike some of the leading Surrealists, even submitted to PCF demands for the adoption of socialist realism during the writers’ congress of 1935. Tzara nevertheless interpreted Dada and Surrealism as revolutionary currents, and presented them as such to the public.[17]

During World War II, Tzara took refuge from the German occupation forces by moving to the southern areas controlled by the Vichy regime. Back in Romania, he was stripped of Romanian citizenship, and his writings were banned by the Antonescu regime, along with 44 other Jewish-Romanian authors. In France, the pro-German publication Je Suis Partout made his whereabouts known to the Gestapo. In late 1940 or early 1941, he joined a group of anti-Nazi and Jewish refugees in Marseille who were seeking to flee Europe. Unable to escape occupied France, he joined the French Resistance and contributed to their published magazines, and managed the cultural broadcast for the Free French Forces clandestine radio station.

During 1945, he served under the Provisional Government of the French Republic as a representative to the National Assembly, and two years later received French citizenship. Tzara remained a spokesman for Dada, and in 1950 delivered a series of radio addresses discussing the topic of “the avant-garde revues in the origin of the new poetry.”[18] Towards the end of his life Tzara returned to his Jewish mystical roots, with Codrescu noting that “after the Second World War, after the Holocaust, after membership of the French Communist Party, Tzara returned to the Kabbalah.”[19]

In 1956, Tzara visited Hungary just as the hated government of Imre Nagy faced a popular revolt (with strong undercurrents of anti-Semitism), and while receptive of the Hungarians’ demand for political liberalization, did not support their emancipation from Soviet control, describing the independence demanded by local writers as “an abstract notion.” He returned to France just as the revolution broke out, triggering a brutal Soviet military response. Ordered by the PCF to be silent on these events, Tzara withdrew from public life, and dedicated himself to promoting the African art he had been collecting for years. He died in 1963 and was buried in the Montparnasse cemetery in Paris.

Dada in New York and Germany

According to the account of Marcel Duchamp, in late 1916 or early 1917 he and Francis Picabia received a book sent by an unknown author, one Tristan Tzara. The book was called The First Adventure of Mr. Antipyrine which had just been published in Zurich. In this work, Tzara declared Dada to be “irrevocably opposed to all accepted ideas promoted by the ‘zoo’ of art and literature, whose hallowed walls of tradition he wanted to adorn with multicolored shit.”[20] Duchamp later recalled: “We were intrigued but I didn’t know who Dada was, or even that the word existed.”[21] Tzara’s scatological message was the catalyst for the establishment of the antipatriotic and anti-rationalist Dada message in New York, and it may well have informed Duchamp’s decision to submit his infamous Fountain to the Society of Independent Artists in New York.

In 1917, Duchamp famously sent the Independent an upside-down urinal entitled Fountain, signing it R. Mutt (famously photographed by Alfred Stieglitz). By doing so, Duchamp directed attention away from the work of art as a material object, and instead presented it as an idea — shifting the emphasis from making to thinking. He later did the same with a bottle rack and other items. Through subversive gestures like these, Duchamp parodied the Futurist machine aesthetic by exhibiting untreated objets trouvés or readymade objects. To his great surprise, these readymades became accepted by the mainstream art world.

Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917)

Alongside the Frenchman Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) and the French-born Cuban Francis Picabia (1879-1953) were the American Jews Morton Schamberg (1881-1918) and Man Ray (1890-1977). The work of the New York Dadaists was focused around the gallery of the Jewish photographer Alfred Stieglitz and his publication 291, and the art collectors Walter and Louise Arensberg. Picabia later described this group as “a motley international band which turned night into day, conscientious objectors of all nationalities and walks of life into an inconceivable orgy of sexuality, jazz and alcohol.”[22] They hotly debated such topics as art, literature, sex, politics and psychoanalysis. Dada in New York stayed in contact with Dada in Zurich, though it ultimately failed to take hold, and in 1921 Man Ray wrote to Tzara, complaining that “Dada cannot live in New York. All New York is Dada and will not tolerate a rival, will not notice Dada.”[23]

Most of the artists of New York Dada left for Paris. Man Ray arrived there in July 1921, shortly after Duchamp, and remained there until 1940, becoming the youngest member of the Paris Dada group, and later of the Surrealists, even though this did not reflect any real modification of his art. With the arrival of Duchamp and Man Ray in Paris, New York Dada, which had not engaged in the kind of militant cultural protest seen in the European centers of Dada, came to an end. Their experiences were not dissimilar to those of other Dadaists “who were swept along, as they were, by the vehemence of André Breton into the coils of the new Surrealist movement which was, in many ways, an offspring of Dada.”[24]

Early in 1917, Richard Huelsenbeck, a twenty-four-year-old German medical student and poet, returned to Berlin from Zurich, where he had spent the preceding year in the company of the Zurich Dadaists under the leadership of Tristan Tzara. After the war ended, Dada activity in Germany increased as Dadaists dispersed to various sites throughout the country including, most prominently, Berlin, Cologne and Hanover. In Germany, alongside George Grosz, Walter Mehring, Johannes Baader, Hannah Höch and Kurt Schwitters were Jews like Johannes Baargeld (1876–1955), Raoul Hausmann (1886–1971), and Eli Lissitzky (1890–1941).

The political radicalism of the Berlin Dadaists was even more pronounced than that of the Zurich or Paris Dadaists, with most belonging to the League of Spartacus, a radical socialist group that became the German Communist Party in 1919. German Dada was also closer to the Eastern European avant-garde led by Jewish artists like Eli Lissitzky and László Moholy-Nagy. The new Soviet state that emerged after the Bolshevik Revolution initially adopted a policy in favor of radical experimentation. In Berlin, more than anywhere outside the Soviet Union, “a direct equation could be made between political reform and artistic radicalism. Despite the seeming absurdity of some of their activities, the Dadas’ reinvention of poetic language and artistic form could be seen as a prelude to reforming the whole of the decayed social system.”[25] A Dada Manifesto by Huelsenbeck and Hausmann, published in a Cologne newspaper, declared that Dada “is German Bolshevism”[26] and that “Dadaism demands: the international revolutionary union of all creative and intellectual men and women on the basis of radical Communism.” [27]

The Berlin Dadaists even condemned the Weimar Republic as representing a renaissance of “Teutonic barbarity,” and held Communism to be the best hope for freedom.[28] Robert Short notes that, among the German Dadaists, were those for whom “Dada was a political weapon and those for whom communism was a Dadaistical weapon. There was a faction which saw anarchy and anti-art as a sufficient programme in itself, and a second faction which saw anarchy as a provisional precondition for the introduction of new values.”[29]

Falling into the latter category was Johannes Baargeld. Born Alfred Emanuel Ferdinand Gruenwald to a prosperous Romanian-Jewish insurance director, “Baargeld” was the ironic, leftist pseudonym he adopted (Baargeld being the German word for cash or ready money). Growing up in Cologne in a wealthy home, he was exposed from a young age to contemporary art and culture, beginning with his parents’ collection of modernist paintings. He joined the Independent Socialist Party of Germany (USPD) — the radical left wing of the Socialist Party — and in the process “turned his back on his wealthy bourgeois upbringing and became actively involved in the leadership of the Rhineland Marxists.”[30]

Baargeld (also called “Zentrodada”) and Max Ernst cofounded Dada in Cologne in the summer of 1919. Baargeld’s father was anxious about his son’s political leanings and sought Ernst’s help. Robert Short notes that: “They succeeded in convincing him that Dada went further than Communism and that its combination of new-found inner freedom and powerful external expression could do more to set the whole world free. In return, Grunewald senior financed the publication of a new international Dada magazine Die Schammade.”[31]

In April 1920, Cologne Dada staged one of the most memorable of German Dada’s exhibitions. Entered by way of a public lavatory, it included “exhibits” like a young girl in communion dress reciting obscene verses, and a bizarre object by Baargeld consisting of an aquarium filled with red fluid from which protruded a polished wooden arm and on whose surface floated a head of woman’s hair.[32] The First International Dada Fair was held in Berlin in June 1920, and was the most significant Dadaist event organized in the Berlin milieu. The radical political orientation of the organizers was illustrated by a mannequin of a German officer with the head of a pig hanging from the ceiling with a notice “Hanged by the revolution,” which triggered fierce debate about its subversive and anti-military character.[33]

The First International Dada Fair in Berlin in 1920

Given such provocative gestures and the extensive Jewish participation in Dada, it was not surprising that, between the two world wars, German nationalists linked Dada (and avant-gardism generally) to Jews, claiming these modern trends aimed to destroy the principles of classical beauty and eradicate national traditions. The Dadaists were said to express the “nihilistic Jewish spirit” (a common phrase at the time), if they were not actually mad. In response to the activities of Jewish Dadaists, “calls for ‘degenerate’ art to be banned were widely published in pre-Nazi and later in Nazi Germany, as well as in France.”[34]

Interestingly, Mein Kampf was composed by Hitler at the time of Paris Dada’s existence, and his comments about Jewish influence on Western art need be understood in this context. He mentions the “artistic aberrations which are classified under the names of Cubism and Dadaism,” and clearly has the Dadaists in mind when he observes that “Culturally, his [the Jew’s] activity consists in bowdlerizing art, literature and the theatre, holding the expressions of national sentiment up to scorn, overturning all concepts of the sublime and the beautiful, the worthy and the good, finally dragging the people to the level of his own low mentality.”[35] Likewise, when he recalls how he once asked himself whether “there was any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate?,” he subsequently discovered that “On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”[36]

In 1933, Hitler’s new government announced that: “The custodians of all public and private museums are busily removing the most atrocious creations of a degenerate humanity and of a pathological generation of ‘artists.’ This purge of all works marked by the same western Asiatic stamp has been set in motion in literature as well with the symbolic burning of the most evil products of Jewish scribblers.”[37] At the exhibition of degenerate art held in Munich in 1937 the Dadaist works were considered the most degenerate of all — the epitome of Kulturbolschewismus. In that year the Ministry for Education and Science published a pamphlet in which Dr. Reinhold Krause, a leading educator, wrote that “Dadaism, Futurism, Cubism, and other isms are the poisonous flower of a Jewish parasitical plant.”[38]

Hitler and Goebbels at the Degenerate Art Exhibition of 1937

British historian Paul Johnson points out that: “Hitler always referred to degenerate art as ‘Cubism and Dadaism’, maintaining that it started in 1910, and the ‘Degenerate Art’ exhibition bore a curious resemblance to the big Dada shows of 1920-22, with a lot of writing on the walls and paintings hung without frames.”[39] He also notes that the Nazi campaign against “degenerate art” was “the best thing that could possibly have happened, in the long term, to the Modernist Movement.” This is because since the Nazis, universally reviled by all governments and cultural establishments since 1945, tried to destroy and suppress such art completely, then its merits were self-evident morally, and anything the Nazis opposed was assumed to have merit — on the illogical basis that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. “These factors,” notes Johnson, “so potent in the second half of the twentieth century, will fade during the twenty-first, but they are still determinant today.”[40]

The Legacy of Dada

Dada’s destructive influence has been seminal and long-lasting. As Dempsey points out, Dada’s notion that: “The presentation of art as idea, its assertion that art could be made from anything and its questioning of societal and artistic mores, irrevocably changed the course of art.”[41] The movement represented “an assertive debunking of the ideas of technical skill, virtuoso technique, and the expression of individual subjectivity. … Dada’s cohesion around these procedures points to one of its primary revolutions — the reconceptualization of artistic practice as a form of tactics.”[42] These tactics consisting, variously, of “intervention into governability, that is, subversions of cultural forms of social authority — breaking down language, working against various modern economies, willfully transgressing boundaries, mixing idioms, celebrating the grotesque body as that which resists discipline and control.”[43]

Dada’s iconoclastic force had enormous influence on later twentieth-century conceptual art. Godfrey notes that: “Dada can be seen as the first wave of conceptual art” which exercised an enormous influence on subsequent art movements. [44] In the late 1950s and 1960s, in opposition to the then dominant Abstract Expressionism and Post-Painterly Abstraction, Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns resurrected the Dadaist tradition, describing the works they produced as “Neo-Dada” — a movement that, together with the “pre-emptive kitsch” of Pop Art, effectively relaunched the conceptual art of the original Dadaists, and which has plagued Western art ever since. The Neo-Dadaists themselves left a deeply influential Cultural Marxist legacy insofar as their

visual vocabulary, techniques, and above all, their determination to be heard, were adopted by later artists in their protest against the Vietnam War, racism, sexism, and government policies. The emphasis they laid on participation and performance was reflected in the activism that marked the politics and performance art of the late 1960s; their concept of belonging to a world community anticipated sit-ins, anti-war protests, environmental protests, student protests and civil rights protests that followed later.[45]

Another pernicious influence of Dada stemmed from its rejection of the identity between art and beauty. Crepaldi notes that “many artists before Dada had called into question the aesthetic canons of their contemporaries and had proposed other canons, destined to meet varying degrees of success.” The Dadaists went beyond this, and called into question “the notion according to which the goal of art is the expression of a value called ‘beauty.’”[46]

The Dadaists thus legitimized the idea that the artist has a right (nay a duty) to produce ugly works, and instituted a cult of ugliness in the arts that has since eroded the cultural self-confidence of the West.

Go to Part 3.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.


[1] Richter, Dada. Art and Anti-art, 168.

[2] Fiona Bradley, Movements in Modern Art — Surrealism (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2001), 18-19.

[3] Gale, Dada & Surrealism, 180.

[4] Janine Mileaf & Matthew Witkovsky, “Paris,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 349.

[5] Ibid., 358.

[6] Ibid., 350.

[7] Ibid., 352.

[8] Ibid., 366.

[9] Codrescu, The Posthuman Dada Guide: tzara and lenin play chess, 174.

[10] Dempsey, Styles, Schools and Movements — An Encyclopaedic Guide to Modern Art, 119.

[11] Richter, Dada — Art and Anti-art, 119.

[12] Robert Short, Dada and Surrealism (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1994), 69; 83.

[13] Patrick Waldberg, Surrealism (London: Thames & Hudson, 1997), 18.

[14] Carlos Rojas, Salvador Dalí, or the Art of Spitting on Your Mother’s Portrait (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1993), 98.

[15] Codrescu, The Posthuman Dada Guide: tzara and lenin play chess, 215.

[16] Beitchman, I Am a Process with No Subject, 48-9.

[17] Irina Livezeanu, “From Dada to Gaga: The Peripatetic Romanian Avant-Garde Confronts Communism,” Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu & Lucia Dragomir (Eds.), Littératures et pouvoir symbolique (Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2005), 245-6.

[18] Hockensmith, “Artists’ Biographies,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 489.

[19] Codrescu, The Posthuman Dada Guide: tzara and lenin play chess, 211.

[20] Michael Taylor, “New York,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 287.

[21] Pierre Cabanne, Duchamp & Co., (Paris: Finest SA/Editions Pierre Terrail, 1997), 115.

[22] Taylor, “New York,” 278.

[23] Hockensmith, “Artists’ Biographies,” 479.

[24] Schnapp, Art of the Twentieth Century — 1900-1919 — The Avant-garde Movements, 412.

[25] Gale, Dada & Surrealism, 120.

[26] Bernard Blisténe, A History of Twentieth Century Art (Paris: Fammarion, 2001), 62.

[27] Dawn Ades, “Dada and Surrealism,” David Britt (Ed.) Modern Art — Impressionism to Post-Modernism, (London, Thames & Hudson, 1974), 222.

[28] Edina Bernard, Modern Art — 1905-1945 (Paris: Chambers, 2004), 86.

[29] Robert Short, Dada and Surrealism (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1994), 42.

[30] Doherty, “Berlin,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 220.

[31] Short, Dada and Surrealism, 42.

[32] Robert Short, Dada and Surrealism (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1994), 50.

[33] Schnapp, Art of the Twentieth Century — 1900-1919 — The Avant-garde Movements, 399.

[34] Philippe Dagen, “From Dada to Surrealism — Review” (The Guardian, July 19, 2011). http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jul/19/dada-to-surrealism-dagen-review

[35] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (trans. By James Murphy), (London: Imperial Collegiate Publishing, 2010), 281.

[36] Ibid., 58.

[37] Peter Adam, Arts of the Third Reich (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1992), 55.

[38] Ibid., 12-15.

[39] Paul Johnson, Art — A New History (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 707.

[40] Ibid., 709.

[41] Dempsey, Styles, Schools and Movements — An Encylopaedic Guide to Modern Art, 119.

[42] Dickerman, “Introduction & Zurich,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada, 8.

[43] Ibid., 11.

[44] Godfrey, Conceptual Art, 37.

[45] Dempsey, Styles, Schools and Movements — An Encyclopedic Guide to Modern Art, 204.

[46] Gabriel Crepaldi, Modern Art 1900-1945 — The Age of the Avant-Gardes (London: HarperCollins, 2007) 195.