Featured Articles

The Sines v. Kessler Lawfare Litigation: A National and Historic Disgrace

/27 Comments/in , /by

The word and concept of “lawfare” — sometimes defined as “law as a weapon of war” — gained popular usage about three decades ago in the context of international military operations. It has, however, apt application to certain types of domestic litigation, which is surely not surprising given the increasingly bellicose and irrepressible culture wars that now beset America.  And there has never been a more paradigmatic example of this type of culture-war lawfare than the Sines v. Kessler case now before a jury in Charlottesville.

It is certainly true that litigation is nearly always adversarial, often malevolently so.  Moreover, the proliferation of state Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statutes attests to the unfortunately frequent abuse of litigation by powerful elites to prevent the less powerful from exercising their First Amendment rights, e.g., on environmental issues.   Yet there is something distinctively sinister about lawfare litigation such as Sines v. Kessler, at least to those of us who cling, with increasing despair, to the idea that the law is an honorable profession.  The factors that set Sines v. Kessler apart include the following:

A Gross Disparity in Legal Resources.  In January 2018, the 10 plaintiffs in Sines v. Kessler filed a 110-page amended complaint against 25 defendants. The plaintiffs’ complaint was based on allegations that although the defendants, who had participated in the Unite the Right rallies in Charlottesville in August 2017, might have appeared to be exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting the destruction of Confederate statues amid the provocations and violent attacks of counter protestors, in reality they had organized and conspired with each other with the intent and result of violently attacking the plaintiffs.  Three large New York City law firms and 38 lawyers, led by Roberta Kaplan, entered appearances for the plaintiffs.  These three law firms comprised over 1300 lawyers altogether and had income in 2020 of approximately $1.9 billion.  Moreover, Ms Kaplan was able to fundraise an amount probably in excess of $25 million to pay for the litigation, a staggering sum by any reckoning but especially so given that many of the plaintiffs’ law firms offered their services pro bono.

The defendants, by stark contrast, have encountered huge obstacles to obtaining adequate representation.  First, given hostile media accounts, antifa threats, and the defendants’ unpopular ideology or perceived ideology, few lawyers would even consider representing them. As this case painfully illustrates, the ethical rule admonishing lawyers to provide legal assistance to unpopular defendants is honored more in the breach than the observance — unless, of course, the defendants are the right kind of unpopular defendants, which these defendants are not.  Second, even if the defendants could find willing counsel, in most cases they could not pay the high legal costs the plaintiffs intended to impose, and did impose, by their scorched earth litigation.  Few defendants had significant wealth and most found their ability to raise money through crowdfunding or other donation paths restricted or cut off by deplatforming, media hostility, and antifa harassment.  As this case has at last, after three years, reached trial, most of the original 25 defendants have defaulted or are representing themselves.

Ideological Motives and Goals. The core purpose of civil litigation should be to compensate a plaintiff, insofar as money can do it, for real, concrete harm, or to prevent such harm though injunctive relief.  But it is hard to see how the plaintiffs in the Sines case suffered any such real, substantial harm, except perhaps for some allegedly injured by James Fields (who had no, or virtually no, connection with any of the defendants). Most of plaintiffs’ claims of injury are for vague and weakly substantiated emotional injury.  Ms. Kaplan has in fact been quite explicit and boastful that her motive in creating this litigation is to “break the back of the violent white nationalist movement” and to “deprive supremacist groups of free speech protections by proving incitement to violence, and deter them with massive financial penalties in a civil suit.” (See this article for more on the lead attorney). An impartial observer could readily conclude that the named plaintiffs in the Sines case are being used as weapons in Ms. Kaplan’s war on the defendants, whom Kaplan sees as her ideological enemies.

Broad Discovery.  One effective means to crush an ideological opponent, especially one for whom confidentiality is critical, is by broad and invasive discovery — i.e., interrogatories, document requests, and depositions.  This technique was definitely in Ms. Kaplan’s playbook.  Such a technique is nearly guaranteed to have at least some success.  Even if the broad discovery requests are limited or denied, simply requesting them will alarm the defendants and others who learn of them and will impose on the defendants the often onerous, frustrating, and expensive burden of litigating discovery disputes.

Here are two examples, among dozens that could be cited, of Kaplan’s expansive discovery requests:

“All Documents and Communications concerning events, meetings, rallies, conferences, or conversations held prior to the [UTR] Events that relate to the Events in any way.”

“All Documents and Communications concerning violence, intimidation, or harassment of Persons on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, including but not limited to, ethnic cleansing, white genocide, a white ethno-state, or any other form of large or small scale violence.”

Aggressive Use of Expensive Experts. Litigating attorneys soon learn that an unfair advantage deep-pocketed parties possess lies in their ability to engage highly credentialed, and expensive, experts, many of whom are willing to provide dubious opinions. The well-heeled plaintiffs in Sines certainly availed themselves of this advantage, paying $30,000 for expert testimony that the defendants could not afford to counter with their own experts. Part of this expert testimony was offered to support the proposition that the defendants spoke in secret code, such that seemingly innocuous statements or crass attempts at edgy humor were actually calls to violence.

Misuse of Conspiracy Allegations.  Many distinguished judges and legal commentators have decried the misuse of conspiracy allegations, both in criminal and civil matters. Justice Robert Jackson, in his concurrence in Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949), for example, after observing that the “crime of conspiracy is so vague that it almost defies definition” (a criticism that applies as well to conspiracy allegations in civil matters), further stated:

A co-defendant in a conspiracy trial occupies an uneasy seat. There generally will be evidence of wrongdoing by somebody. It is difficult for the individual to make his own case stand on its own merits in the minds of jurors who are ready to believe that birds of a feather are flocked together. If he is silent, he is taken to admit it and if, as often happens, co-defendants can be prodded into accusing or contradicting each other, they convict each other.

These admonitions apply with full force to the Sines v. Kessler complaint, whose causes of action are essentially glued together, so to speak, by pervasive conspiracy allegations. The many defendants named in that complaint had varied degrees of involvement in the UTR rally and, more to the point, varied degrees of involvement – often none at all – in the actions or statements of some of the other defendants that could be construed as violence or calls to violence.  Their lack of involvement, however, will avail them nothing if the plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations stick, for each defendant will then be liable for all the actions and statements of the others.

To express my view concisely: the Sines v. Kessler case should not have been allowed to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage. Judge Moon, who presides over the case, seems to have been calling balls and strikes fairly at the trial.  But even in the unlikely event the jury finds for the defendants, they and more broadly the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly have been severely damaged by this lawfare litigation. Defendants have incurred crippling costs to their time, vocations, wealth, reputations, and emotional health. They, and others who have observed the litigation, will long hesitate to participate in any future demonstrations that might have even a remote chance of resulting in violence, even if that violence is instigated by antifa and similar groups. The “robust, uninhibited” right to free expression that Supreme Court cases proclaim has increasingly become a dead letter.  This case is a major landmark in its demise.

It might be objected that Judge Moon’s hands were tied and he had no legal grounds to dismiss this case at the motion to dismiss stage. Such an assertion would be a hard sell to those of us who have observed or personally experienced (I was the plaintiff in the Allen v. SPLC litigation) the lengths to which courts will go to dismiss far more meritorious claims where the political alignments are the opposite of those in Sines. Judge Moon’s inability or refusal to see the Sines lawfare for what it is has the regrettable result of enhancing the appearance, if not the reality, that our courts have become guardians of civil liberties only for favored segments of the political spectrum.

If you would like to help us continue our work, please consider making a small tax-deductible donation to the FEF. Every dollar counts in our fight to keep Free Expression free. Click HERE, and thank you!

On Jews and Vampires

/63 Comments/in /by

During the Halloween festivities a few weeks ago it seemed to me a timely opportunity to indulge my interest in the darker, horror-tinged aspects of European folklore concerning Jews. I’ve been intrigued in recent years by a growing literature connecting vampire tales, both early modern and modern, with the history of the European-Jewish interaction.[1] Much of this literature argues that vampires are for the most part proxy figures for European anxieties about Jews, with the vampire figure, and allegories painting Jews as vampires, acting as dehumanizing mechanisms facilitating the alleged oppression of Jewish people. While I tend to agree that vampire allegories have been weaponized against Jews, especially between the years 1880 and 1945, this is hardly interesting in itself. All groups engage in dehumanizing strategies against opposing factions, and these strategies are found as much in the Talmud as they are anywhere else.[2] My interest then, is not in the fact that Europeans may have designed, or tinkered with, the image of the vampire in order to attack the Jews, but what exactly may be said about Jews in the depiction of the vampire, and why.

The Uses of the Mainstream

Despite itself, mainstream scholarship is quite useful in answering such questions. One of the primary features of my work at The Occidental Observer over the last nine years has been an attempt to show that our ideas are not disconnected from mainstream scholarship, and that plenty of truth can be found in mainstream texts. No clearer exposition of Jewish hoaxes and lies connected with the so-called Russian Pogroms, for example, can be found outside of John Doyle Klier’s Oxford-published Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–1882. Klier argued that contemporary Jewish accounts of the pogroms should be treated with “extreme caution,” with many of the most popular and influential “flatly contradicted by the archival record.”[3] I have also praised the work of medievalist and folklorist Gillian Bennett, who overturned many years of Jewish portrayals of the so-called Blood Libel as a kind of mass European psychosis by arguing for their rational origin in that “where accusations of ritual murder where made in this period … it is more probable that they were cause célèbres around which anti-Jewish feeling could crystallize, rather than the cause of anti-Semitism in the first place.”[4] My theory that Jewish scholars engage in nepotism to exaggerate the importance of their co-ethnics in forming European culture is based on the work of Dutch Spinoza expert Hubertus G. Hubbeling who wrote that “there are some Jewish writers who emphasize very strongly the importance of Spinoza’s contribution to the development of democratic ideas. … According to the opinion of the present writer Spinoza’s importance is exaggerated here.”[5] Also praised in the course of my work is Hannah Johnson, another talented academic who single-handedly demolished the influential but heavily compromised pro-Jewish work of historian Gavin Langmuir and argued that his theories of anti-Semitism offered nothing more than a “one dimensional model of conflict between an intolerant Christian community and its passive Jewish victims.”[6]

I therefore find it extremely amusing when my work is characterized as anti-Semitic or bigoted, given that my four primary positions and discussion points (Jews have lied to themselves and others about significant aspects of their history; anti-Semitism has a rational basis; Jews behave in a nepotistic fashion in academia and other spheres of influence; and, Jewish historiography is little more than a one-sided story of blameless victimhood) are derived not from “neo-Nazi” pamphlets, but from leading scholars from some of the world’s best universities. You could say I was “red-pilled” by the mainstream, which, we should remember, also once included Kevin MacDonald and his trilogy on the Jews until it was decided to ostracize MacDonald and his work in every way imaginable in order to reassert the lachrymose interpretation of Jewish historical karma.

Unfortunately, mainstream scholarship appears mortally terrified of praise from our supposed “fringe,” no matter how intensively we interact with its work, as evidenced in the recent Palgrave/Springer publication of Jews in Medieval England: Teaching Representations of the Other. In the book’s introduction, a pair of editors refer to my essay on Langmuir, remarking with horror that they discovered “the work of Hannah Johnson, a contributor to this volume, quoted approvingly on an anti-Semitic white supremacist blog.”[7] The terror here is surely rooted in the earth-shattering discovery that supposed “fringe” lunatics and bigots are extremely interested in facts, logic, and research, and they often sit at the very elbow of those who thought themselves so distant and superior. Given the intimate relationship between my work and mainstream scholarship, what use are accusations of anti-Semitism when, given my intensive use of large volumes of mainstream source material (and frequent praise of the same), the charge is dangerously likely to come back, like a boomerang, to these same accusers? At the risk of terrifying more academics, then, I will present here some of the more interesting findings and arguments in mainstream scholarship connecting Jews and vampire imagery over the last century or so.

How Anti-Semitic is Dracula?

One of the clearer explorations of alleged anti-Jewish allegories in Bram Stoker’s Dracula can be found in the work of Sara Libby Robinson, especially her brief essay “Blood will tell: Antisemitism and vampires in British popular culture, 1875–1914.” While I don’t agree with all of Robinson’s conclusions, there are some interesting parallels and relationships in imagery, and I find it interesting in any case to explore Jewish paranoia and sensitivities (Robinson is based at Brandeis and almost certainly Jewish) to certain types of image (that of the gold-seeking dwarf being another that Jews are prone to focus on). For Robinson, Dracula is not like older vampire tales from Eastern Europe because it is fundamentally about a dangerous immigrant arriving in the British Isles:

At the time of publication in 1897, Count Dracula was only one in a long line of fictional vampires. However, Dracula differed from his earlier ancestors in some important ways. As described in Gordon Melton’s encyclopedia of vampires in myth, literature, and film, from Polidori’s Lord Ruthven in 1819, to Rymer’s Varney the Vampire in the 1840s, to Le Fanu’s Carmilla in 1872, whatever their menace, vampires had typically belonged to the social circles they preyed upon; no worse than a local, decadent aristocrat. Varney’s origins in particular are explicitly British. Count Dracula, on the other hand, does not belong to the society he threatens. He is an outsider, specifically an immigrant from Eastern Europe just when large numbers of Eastern European Jews were arriving on England’s shores. … The Jewish population [of Britain] more than doubled in the last quarter of the nineteenth century due to immigration from Eastern Europe. … [I]n taking jobs, money, food, and housing away from native Britons, Jews were not only viewed as competitors, but as parasites, metaphorical vampires who lived by draining away economic opportunities rather than blood.

Count Dracula himself is a kind of faux aristocrat—a member of a decaying race that can only survive by leeching on the vitality of new peoples. He is an elite of sorts, and has some of the trappings of wealth, but he remains fundamentally vile and befouls his surroundings wherever he goes, literally leaving a stench. For Robinson, Dracula is an amalgam of late twentieth-century British views of the Jews. On the one hand, Britons were confronted with an older generation of prominent Jewish oligarchs that had gradually intermarried with the British aristocracy. Like Dracula, these oligarchs sought to mimic their surroundings (Dracula is especially keen to mask his foreign accent, for example), but were essentially regarded as parasitic shape-shifters. In 1891, one newspaper, the Labor Leader, referred to the Rothschilds, a quintessential example of this Anglo-Jewish elite, as “leeches [that] have for years hung on with distended suckers to the body politic of Europe.” On the other hand, Britons were also confronted with a new generation of lower-class Jewish immigrants who brought with them the white slave trade,[8] grass-roots financial exploitation and criminality[9], mass-produced pornography[10] and moral degradation, and political terrorism (both Anarchist and Communist),[11] seen by many as literally befouling the areas they came to inhabit. Dracula, both fake aristocrat and stinking subversive, is argued by Robinson to have encapsulated both experiences.

An especially interesting argument advanced by Robinson, and which had escaped my attention when recently re-reading the novel, is Stoker’s portrayal of Dracula as having an obsession, or special relationship, with money. Robinson writes.

Count Dracula is a faithful embodiment of the caricature of Jews as greedy and parasitic, placing money above all else. Despite his supernatural abilities, Dracula is an essentially commercial character. His first action of the book (while still disguised as a coachman) is to mark the sites of buried treasure. His next is to go over deeds of purchase and other business matters with Harker, in Transylvania representing Dracula’s solicitors in Britain. While dining at Castle Dracula, Harker notes that “the table service is of gold,” an ostentatious show of wealth similar to those which Jewish bankers and nouveaux riches were accused. When Harker explores the castle, he finds a room filled with “a great heap of gold … of all kinds, Roman, and British, and Austrian, and Hungarian, and Greek[,] and Turkish.” Like the modern Jewish financier, Dracula does business and reaps profit from all over the world. The most significant scene, however, comes towards the end of the novel. In it, the heroes have cornered Dracula, and Harker lunges at him with a knife. Not stabbed, “The [knife’s] point just cut the cloth of [Dracula’s] coat, making a wide gap whence a bundle of bank-notes and a stream of gold fell out. … The next instant, with a sinuous dive he swept under Harker’s arm … , and, grasping a handful of the money from the floor, dashed across the room.” This demonstration of putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life shows that stereotypes regarding Jews and their money were alive and well in the late nineteenth century, and enacted in the fictional character of Dracula, making them seem truly monstrous.

Also interesting are Stoker’s (alleged) insinuations about Jewish loyalties. Robinson points out that Jews have often been accused of seeking after their own tribal interests rather than the interests of the nation they inhabit. She comments,

This nightmare certainly comes true with Stoker’s representation of Dracula as a symbol for supposed Jewish greed and self-interest. Dracula places his loyalty wherever it suits his convenience; speaking both German and English as easily as his native tongue. Dracula has the skills necessary to join forces with Germany, England’s chief rival, if he so wishes. In fact, when fleeing Britain, Dracula enlists the aid of a German Jew named Hildesheim, “a Hebrew of rather the Adelphi Theater type, with a nose like a sheep” who must naturally be bribed in order to aid Stoker’s heroes. Tellingly, the one overtly Jewish character in the novel is neither British nor on the side of the heroes, reinforcing the anti-Semitic charge that Jews cannot be counted upon to give help solely to aid the national interest, regardless of personal and pecuniary gain.

Like Dracula, Hildesheim’s financial transactions move across Europe, with the money leaving its country of origin, and globalizing capital. Stoker writes that Hildesheim “had been paid for his work by an English pound-note, which had been duly cashed for gold at the Danube International Bank.”

In terms of his physical attributes, Dracula has “a very strong … aquiline [nose], with [a] high bridge and peculiarly arched nostrils.” In Robinson’s view, Dracula’s nose is “labeled constantly throughout the book as hooked or ‘beaky’ [and] is [thus] simultaneously stereotypically Jewish and criminal.” Robinson connects the Count’s “bushy eyebrows, pointed ears, sharp teeth, and ugly fingers” as well as his nose to negative physical attributes commonly ascribed to Jews, as well as to the ideas of the Italian founder of criminal anthropology Cesare Lombroso which posited that the criminal face often bore a nose “like the beak of a bird of prey.”

It’s been pointed out that one of Stoker’s major source materials for Transylvania was Major E.C. Johnson’s travelogue On the Track of the Crescent, with some descriptions and incidents being reproduced so closely as to provoke accusations of plagiarism. Equally interesting, however, are some of Johnson’s descriptions of the physical characteristics of Jews he encountered in his travels, including the following:

Who can mistake them? The oval face; the ‘parroty’ beak, out of all proportion to the other features, the stooping gait and long flowing beard, the furtive glances from under shaggy eyebrows, now cringing, now vindictive. … [A]ll these show unmistakably the Hungarian branch of that race ‘against whom is every man’s hand,’ and who returns the compliment with compound interest.


In Dracula, Bram Stoker appears to have significantly increased the role of Christianity and Christian symbolism as methods of defeating vampires, another cause for Robinson to suspect anti-Semitic subtexts to the novel: “Christian iconography had not been emphasized in vampire fiction earlier in the century. Crucifixes and communion wafers, however, figure prominently in combating Dracula, at a time when a religious community that did not embrace Christianity—the Jews—was on the rise.”

While I find some of these links and allusions quite compelling, or at least entertaining to consider, Robinson stretches too far with her attempt to portray Stoker as a kind of proto-genocidal anti-Semitic eugenicist. The argument goes that Dracula’s opponents are scientifically-minded professionals (two doctors and a lawyer) who are determined to stop Dracula bringing about the degeneration of Britain through the breeding of “a new and ever-widening circle of semi-demons”—in Robinson’s view, a metaphor for miscegenation. From here, in my view, Robinson departs firmly into the deep recesses of Jewish paranoia in which all roads lead to a Spielbergian Auschwitz:

Stoker’s language is very suggestive. His heroes “sterilize” Dracula’s coffins of native soil with communion wafers in order to prevent him from finding refuge during the day. Next, they travel back to Transylvania to destroy Dracula’s castle, the source of the vampire infestation. They do to the Count what Social Darwinists advocated doing to hereditary criminals—sterilization through applied eugenics. All of the evil and danger suggested by fears about alien immigrants, as embodied by Dracula, are chased out of England and destroyed. In the words of one reviewer, Dracula is “exterminated.”

The Breed and The Tribe

Robinson’s theories on vampires as a kind of persecuted pseudo-Jewish population hunted to extinction by Christians or Fascists are echoed in the 2001 movie The Breed, directed by South African Jew Michael Oblowitz. In the film, vampires are a marginalized and persecuted race literally living in former Jewish ghettoes. Jeffrey Weinstock, in The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema, writes:

The film in a variety of ways equates vampires with Jews. The vampires, living in a fascist state that has been working towards a vampire ‘final solution,’ are ghettoised in an encampment ironically named ‘Serenity.’ Subject to anti-vampire sentiments from the bulk of the vampirophobes who know of their existence, they are represented as poor immigrants. … Most tellingly, the innocent vampires are attacked by government troops while attempting to sneak out of the country. The Breed thus enacts a series of generic inversions that clearly correlated vampires with social outsiderdom and then, rather than expelling the other as a threat to social stability, foregrounds the injustice of bigotry.[12]

The approaches of Robinson and Oblowitz, and several other Jewish scholars whose work I’ve read on this matter, are more or less the same since they both involve a kind of empathy with the figure of the vampire. Yes, it’s an uneasy empathy, and Jews are clearly fearful and uncomfortable with the prospect of being linked with the negative traits associated with the myths and fictions involving the creature. And yet it is also a strong affinity, one that accepts certain commonalities and even produces a kind of dual apologetic. This Jewish affinity for the vampire is surely one of the most remarkable and telling sociological quirks of the modern European-Jewish interaction.

Concluding Remarks

How anti-Jewish are vampire tales, and were any of them ever deliberately constructed that way? That’s open for discussion. A more interesting question, perhaps, is why Jews so readily and heavily read themselves and their history into these fictional creatures. And why, also, do they see themselves in Tolkien’s dwarves, in J.K. Rowling’s goblins, and Tim Burton’s Penguin from Batman Returns?

The rich, quasi-aristocratic, stinking, and beak-nosed Penguin

The answer may lie in an acknowledgment, on some level, that anti-Jewish complaints have some basis in fact, and when these complaints (or traits strongly associated with them) are manifested in fiction or other cultural products as sinister characters or plot devices, they are instantly recognized by Jews on a deep level. Because of this recognition, where the character may inspire horror and disgust among the majority of readers, the Jewish response involves a level of sympathy and a sense of shared fate. Such a divergence in perception illustrates, if nothing else, a deep and ongoing gulf in understanding between two peoples, one fearing a deadly nocturnal parasite and the other believing it the victim of mere bigotry.

[1] See, for example, Reed, Clare. “Vampires and Gentiles: Jews, Mormons and Embracing the Other.” In The Modern Vampire and Human Identity, pp. 128-145. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013; Gardenour, Brenda. “The Biology of Blood-Lust: Medieval Medicine, Theology, and the Vampire Jew.” Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies 41, no. 2 (2011): 51-63; Zanger, Jules. “A sympathetic Vibration: Dracula and the Jews.” English literature in transition, 1880-1920 34, no. 1 (1991): 33-44; Dan, Peter. “How Vampires Became Jewish.” Studia Hebraica 9-10 (2009): 417-429; Harrison, Lori B. “Bloodsucking Bloom: Vampirism as a Representation of Jewishness in” Ulysses”.” James Joyce Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1999): 781-797; Bacon, Simon. “The Vampiric Diaspora: The Complications of Victimhood and Post-memory as Configured in the Jewish Migrant Vampire.” In The Modern Vampire and Human Identity, pp. 111-127. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013; Davison, Carol. Anti-semitism and British gothic literature. Springer, 2004.

[2] See also the Jewish folk creation the ‘Golem,’ which serves oftentimes to fulfil revenge fantasies against Europeans.

[3] J. D. Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, 401

[4] G. Bennett, “William of Norwich and the Expulsion of the Jews”, Folklore 116:3, 311-314, 313.

[5] H.G. Hubbeling (ed) Spinoza’s Methodology (Royal Van Gorcum, Netherlands), 103.

[6] H. Johnson, Blood Libel: The Ritual Murder Accusation at the Limit of Jewish History (Detroit: University of Michigan Press, 2012), 61.

[7] Krummel & Pugh (eds) Jews in Medieval England: Teaching Representations of the Other. (Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2018), ix.

[8] Gartner, L. P. (1982). Anglo-Jewry and the Jewish International Traffic in Prostitution, 1885-1914. AJS Review, 7/8, 129–178.

[9] Jaffe, A. J., and Saul D. Alinsky. “A comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish convicts.” Jewish Social Studies (1939): 359-366.

[10] Hearne, S. (2021). An Erotic Revolution? Pornography in the Russian Empire, 1905–1914. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 30(2), 195-224.

[11] Knepper, P. (2008). The other invisible hand: Jews and anarchists in London before the First World War. Jewish History, 22(3), 295-315.

[12] J. Weinstock, The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 120

The University of Austin Is Not a Solution to Wokeness: It May Create a New Echo Chamber

/12 Comments/in /by
Overwhelmed by the procrustean atmosphere of the contemporary university, self-styled contrarians led by Bari Weiss have decided to launch a new university in Texas called the University of Austin. The decision is widely heralded as an antidote to the virulent conformity engendered by major universities. As the mobbing of Kathleen Stock, Dorian Abbott, and Charles Negy demonstrates, universities are becoming inhospitable to free thought.

Due to the fragility of students and administrations, academics can be sacked for mundane declarations. British philosopher Kathleen Stock voluntarily ejected herself from the University of Sussex in response to militant protests orchestrated by students who condemned her for arguing that one’s biological sex is immutable. Currently, Professor Stock is being lionized for uttering an obvious observation by supposedly dissident thinkers and this is exactly why the University of Austin will be unable to combat political correctness.

Bari Weiss is best known as an advertiser of the Intellectual Dark Web and for resigning from the New York Times, at least partly because some at the Times were critical of her emphasis on writing about “the Jews.” For those unfamiliar with the IDW designation, it entails academics unwilling to comply with the tenets of identity politics. However, criticizing wokeness does not make one a renegade intellectual. Sensible people agree that students ought to be judged on merit, so by no account can we consider Dorian Abbott as a radical for rejecting diversity as a measure to evaluate students. Likewise, Charles Negy submitting that the plight of Black Americans is not a consequence of systemic racism should not make him controversial.

The banality of the Intellectual Dark Web is only deemed to be heretical because we are living in an age of hypersensitivity. If students are infuriated by the anodyne assertions of mainstream scholars, then establishing a school to counter this insipid outlook cannot be construed as revolutionary. Bari Weiss and Company are basically the heirs of classical liberalism: they express beliefs that are still palatable in mainstream conservative circles—the sort you’d see on Fox News—but have been eradicated from other universities.

Not even the revered Jordan Peterson should be depicted as a radical. Jordan Peterson was catapulted into the limelight after renouncing a controversial Canadian law promoting gender confusion. Peterson’s narrative abrades the prevailing orthodoxy, but at a time when mainstream culture is intellectually bankrupt and overwhelmingly on the left, his views are more common-sense than insight. Influential outlets flood the internet with criticisms of the Intellectual Dark Web since doing so enables gatekeepers to establish Jordan Peterson and his ilk as deplorable characters thereby diverting attention from truly contentious thinkers like Paul Gottfried, Ricardo Duchesne, Edward Dutton, Jared Taylor, and Kevin Macdonald.

Obviously, I don’t subscribe to all the ideas espoused by these figures, but they are willing to interrogate divisive issues. Gottfried has analyzed the infamous Carl Schmitt at length and a slew of other thinkers seen as unsavory by polite society. Ricardo Duchesne has emerged as the most eloquent and passionate defender of Western civilization, since the demise of Samuel Huntington and David Landes. Moreover, unlike his predecessors, Duchesne has expanded the debate by defending the Whiteness of Western civilization. Similarly, Edward Dutton is a prolific author whose research probes a wide spectrum of issues. Dutton tackles everything from racial differences in ethnocentrism to why Finland is not more innovative, despite its high national IQ.

The infamous Jared Taylor requires no introduction. Taylor is the founder of American Renaissance, an organization dedicated to advancing the interests of White people. Taylor has written on racial differences in the distribution of personality traits and opines that the founding fathers imbued a strong sense of white consciousness. Perhaps the most despised of the group is Kevin Macdonald, a distinguished evolutionary psychologist regarded for his work on monogamy and denigrated for conceptualizing Judaism as an evolutionary strategy aimed at disrupting Western civilization.

Whether one endorses the arguments spouted by these personalities is irrelevant. The point is that an institution truly committed to intellectual diversity would employ them as professors or guest lecturers. Unfortunately, the ideas articulated by this crew are too subversive for polite quarters, and it is unlikely that such thinkers will be courted by the University of Austin. Although the philosophy of Cornel West is distinct from this circle, a serious university would also engage him as a radical man of the left. Employing polar opposites like Edward Dutton and Cornel West would position the University of Austin as a stellar example of intellectual diversity.

Contrary to media stories, the IDW still reflects the spirit of polite society. A case in point is that The Root and Next Shark advocate the interests of Blacks and Asians respectively, but they are never perceived as contemptible publications like Amren and CounterCurrents. Though tribalism is a biological reality, all groups are allowed to express racial pride with the exception of Whites. Like the left, acolytes of the IDW oppose White consciousness. Jordan Peterson, for instance publicly ridiculed Ricardo Duchesne for suggesting that Westerners ought to cherish the uniqueness of Western culture. According to Peterson’s reasoning, the accolades achieved by our intellectual predecessors occurred without our input, so there is no reason for Westerners to extol pride.

Yet, Blacks are encouraged to claim the achievements of African empires like Mali and Songhay as part of a broader cultural legacy. Intriguingly, books like Stolen Legacy (1954) and They Came Before Columbus (1976) inculcate false pride in blacks by cultivating the propaganda that blacks were the true progenitors of Greek philosophy and the Olmec civilization. The double standard is remarkably jarring. Whites are precluded from celebrating concrete achievements, but Afrocentrists can pollute the internet with dubious theories and even acquire positions at prestigious institutions when their qualifications are questionable—people like the late Yosef Ben Jochannan.

The denizens of the University of Austin are braver than some of their peers in academia. But in relation to exploring issues that are actually controversial, they are quite tepid. Without a doubt, the University of Austin will be a safe space for right-leaning, mainstream conservative thinkers and not an oasis for revolutionary thought.

America Must Die—So That the People Can Live

/59 Comments/in , /by

When you live in a 200-year-old house, you would do well to give it a thorough inspection every few years.  Rap on the walls, pull down some old wallpaper, climb into the attic, and get down into the crawl space.  Check the roofing, check the exterior walls, check the foundation.  You are looking for signs of rot:  decay, mold, insects, rodents, or just plain aging.  With luck, you find one or two small problems, you patch them up, and all is well.  Unfortunately, sometimes all is not well.  Sometimes, you find signs of major and irreparable decay.  In those cases, and as painful as it may be, you must be prepared to tear the house down and start anew.  Anything less would be a lost cause, an act of utter futility.

America today is a 245-year-old house—a grand mansion with many rooms, situated on a wonderfully vast and glorious estate.  From the outside, from a distance, it still looks nice: glitzy, glamorous, wealthy, powerful, exciting.  It still carries much from its well-intentioned (if flawed) beginnings.  But our inspection proves otherwise.  When we rap on the walls, or get up in the ceiling, or crawl down to the foundations, we are shocked to find signs of widespread and irreparable decay.  The main timbers supporting the building are rife with termites; the roof is leaking; the foundation is cracked, the sands beneath are eroding, and all manner of vermin are running wild, both above and below.  In short, it is a horrible mess.  We try to plaster over holes here and there, and slap on some new paint once in a while, but the rot inevitably shows through.  By any reasonable accounting, the building is on the verge of collapse.  It may come down on its own, or we can be proactive and take it down, but down it will come.

Any viable nation is not only an edifice; it is a living entity.  It lives and breathes with the people in it.  Our house is a living house; but sadly, it is terminally ill.  A combination of old age, disease, neglect, and poor hygiene have put it in a terrible state, one that is evidently beyond any hope of recovery or repair.  The house must come down; America must die—in order for a new house, a new nation, to arise.  Such is life.

It is worthwhile, then, to review my brief ‘inspection report’ of the American nation, and to diagnose the ailments that we are currently enduring.  If I am able to get down to root causes, this will naturally lead to some prescribed courses of action that we can take, both near-term and for the longer haul.  No one wants to live in a rotting house.  No one wants to live in a decaying nation.  No one wants their children and grandchildren to grow up in such conditions.  We have better options.

At the highest level, my inspection report finds two major, and related, areas of concern: (1) a false notion of human equality, and (2) misplaced faith in the doctrine of democracy.  Further analysis shows that these two aspects have been ruthlessly and malevolently exploited by a potent Jewish lobby to maximize benefit to themselves.  In what follows, I will attempt to outline the nature of this far-reaching and deep-rooted crisis, and to suggest some ways forward.

The False and Destructive Concept of Equality

In 1927, and four years before he penned Brave New World, famed writer, thinker, and “casual anti-Semite” Aldous Huxley published a compelling little book called Proper Studies.  It opens with an essay titled “The Idea of Equality.”  The very first line reads as follows:

That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane human being has ever given his assent.  (p. 1)

Doctors, editors, bureaucrats—any person, in any walk of life, displays evident and obvious inequalities, says Huxley.  People are different in every way imaginable: skills, abilities, interests, intelligence, appearance, character.  Everyone acknowledges this, and yet at the same time they also want to insist on the essential and intrinsic equality of humans.  Hence does Huxley write of the human mind’s “almost infinite capacity for being inconsistent.”  He then describes the basic axiom at work:

Politicians and political philosophers have often talked about the equality of man as though it were a necessary and unavoidable idea, an idea which human beings must believe in, just as they must, from the very nature of their physical and mental constitution, believe in such notions as weight, heat, and light.  Man is “by nature free, equal, and independent,” says Locke,[1] with the calm assurance of one who knows he cannot be contradicted.  It would be possible to quote literally thousands of similar pronouncements.  (p. 2)

He identifies the original source of this fallacy in Aristotle, whose metaphysical assumption of a human essence (as “the rational animal”; Nicomachean Ethics I.8, 13) implies a sort of equality among the human species.  Against Huxley, we can argue that this does not quite follow; the existence of a common and distinctive quality of all humans need not imply their social, political, or existential equality, any more than the fact that all material objects have mass imply that they all have the same weight.[2]  Huxley also fixes some blame on Descartes, but again, this is perhaps an exaggerated claim.  In Discourse on Method (1637), Descartes writes:

Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world. …  It indicates that the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false—which is what we properly call ‘good sense’ or ‘reason’—is naturally equal in all men. …  [A]s regards reason or sense, since it is the only thing that makes us men and distinguishes us from the beasts, I am inclined to believe that it exists whole and complete in each of us.[3]

Even if we allow that reason is equal in all—a highly dubious assertion, to say the least—it still does not imply political, social, or moral equality.

More to the point, Huxley cites Christian doctrine and the position of the Church.  Even granting a “brotherhood of men” under Christ, “the brotherhood of men does not imply their equality.”  He continues: “Neither does men’s equality before God imply their equality as among themselves.”  Even if God, from his divine and lofty standpoint, views us all as equals, any putative inter-human equality “is entirely irrelevant”.[4]  It is rather like us viewing all ants or mice as identical when in fact they all recognize and acknowledge vast differences among themselves.

All this bodes ill for the “religion of democracy,” says Huxley (and as I will elaborate).  Its “primary assumption” is that “all men are substantially equal.”  If the equality falls, so too falls democracy.  He summarizes concisely:

The historical and psychological researches of the past century have rendered the theory which lies behind the practice of modern democracy entirely untenable.  Reason is not the same in all men; human beings belong to a variety of psychological types separated from one another by irreducible differences.  (p. 12)

Science, anthropology, philosophy, and common sense all come to the same conclusion: human equality is a fallacy, and any political ideology based on that notion is doomed to failure.

Huxley, of course, was hardly alone in his condemnation of a claimed human equality.  Nietzsche viewed the idea with greater contempt and wrote in more scathing terms.  We find, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, a stunning repudiation of the concept.  His elaborations on the “order of rank” among men, the “instinct for rank,” the “noble soul,” and the necessity for human greatness, pervade the work.  A few examples will have to suffice:

Men, not noble enough to see the abysmally different order of rank, the chasm of rank, between man and man—such men have so far held sway over the fate of Europe, with their “equal before God,” until finally a smaller, almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre has been bred, the European of today.  (sec. 62)

The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped.  Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most.  High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.  (sec. 201)

Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man.  (sec. 257)

The concept of equality is ultimately destructive because it declares, not only that no one is worse than anyone else, but more importantly that no one is better than anyone else—yes, that no one can be better.  True self-betterment and self-enhancement become impossible if we are all equal.  No matter what you do, you will still be only, and always, equal to the very least among men.  This doctrine is not merely false; it is utterly contemptible and destructive of higher aims and goals.  It means the death of humanity.  Where we do not ascend, we decline; this is Nietzsche’s basic outlook.  Sadly, it conforms to the actual world in which we live today.

In the final passage above, Nietzsche points to a central fact and thus to a possible solution.  If every improvement to humanity and to society has occurred in aristocratic societies—that is, rule by the best—then we ought logically to use those as our model.  Societies that are capable of sorting men into lesser and greater types, and to do so effectively, are the drivers of human evolution.  They strive for greatness, and they create greatness.  Even the smallest steps in that direction—such as were taken by Hitler in his National Socialist Germany—would be such an improvement over the present day that any nation even attempting it would likely flourish spectacularly; and in fact, this is precisely what happened in Germany, beginning in 1933.  The rest of the equality-obsessed, Jewish-inspired world was so aghast that they were compelled to drive the remaining industrial nations against Hitler and to destroy him, so fearsome was the prospect of his success.

Still, entrenched myths die hard.  We in the US have our treasured Declaration of Independence, which declares as “self-evident”—with the calm assurance of those who know they cannot be contradicted—that “all men are created equal.”  As we know, this was disingenuous at best.  For one, they indeed meant ‘men,’ given that women could neither vote nor hold office.  And they meant ‘White men,’ given that all the Founders were White Anglo-Saxons, and many were slaveholders or otherwise endorsed slavery.  Hence that famous phrase really meant “all White males are created equal”—though even that is demonstrably untrue, as I have argued.

Original Democracy

Huxley had it exactly right:  support for modern democracy is in fact more of a belief system, or even a faith, than something grounded in history, reason, and philosophy.  Like many other religions, democracy derives from a core of historical truth—here, in ancient Greece—that was then altered beyond recognition by an accretion of layers of myth, lie, and corruption.  Today we have the belief, the faith, by all sides, “left” and “right” alike,[5] that democracy is an unquestioned virtue, that it must be defended at all costs, and that it must be spread to the world, even at the point of a gun.  This is a fundamental political error, founded on an erroneous and detrimental conception of human equality; it must be overcome if we are to survive in the long run.

Democracy wasn’t always a religion.  At one time, at the beginning, it was a rational and effective (though not unproblematic) means of self-government.  Let’s take a minute to examine the original democracy of ancient Greece to see what worked and what did not.

Athenian democracy was a remarkable institution, and remarkably different than what passes for democracy today.  To begin with, the population of the state (or polis) was small—it constituted only some 300,000 people at its peak, which included many slaves and foreigners.  By modern standards, this seems tiny but, for the time, it was extremely large.  Of this number, the only formal citizens were the adult native-born males, numbering perhaps 30,000, or just 10 percent of the population.  These citizens—the demos, the people—were the formal basis of political power, rather than some ruling wealthy elite (also known as oligarchs or plutocrats), or some tyrannical dictator, as could be found in other Greek states.

The democratic system, inaugurated by Cleisthenes around 500 BC, functioned in a very different way than we might expect.  For one, there were no elections; all leadership positions (apart from the military) were chosen by lot, at random, from among the citizens who had put forth their names.  This included even the leader of the Assembly—the collected body of citizens—who was effectively the president of the nation, though without much formal power.  The Greeks had invented a device called a kleroterion into which names were randomly inserted on small tokens; colored dice were then deployed to select names randomly and fairly from among the various tribes or families.  The system had several virtues:  immediate results, no costly or corrupted election campaigns, fairness, transparency, and an equal involvement of all concerned.  The Greeks clearly had to be nice to all their fellow (Athenian male) citizens, any one of whom could someday have a position of prominence.

Secondly, there were no representatives.  Athens was a famously direct democracy.  All interested citizens gathered on a large open hilltop, called the Pnyx, roughly once per month, to listen to the issues of the day.  When the time came for decisions, a very public show of hands determined the outcome.  Even the gravest of matters, such as going to war, were decided this way.  This is all the more striking when we consider that the army was composed of the very men who had themselves just voted for war.  In other words, when you voted for war, you personally went to war.  And many never returned.  We can only imagine a similar situation in America today:  that the Congressmen and women who support the next illegal and unjust foreign war[6] would be compelled to be on the first combat plane into the warzone.  I suspect that we would have very few wars indeed.

In sum, Athenian democracy was small, direct, accountable, and transparent.  The wealthy elite had very little power to steer events in their favor.  The citizenry comprised only native men; foreigners had literally no voice in the state, even though they outnumbered the actual citizens by a factor of two or three.  Greek democracy was thus a racial (White European), ethnic (Athenian), and gendered (men only) system of rule.  And it worked incredibly well; it produced and sustained the brilliant Athenian culture that we know today.

Two Famous Critics

For all that, the system had some harsh and prominent critics—notably, Plato and Aristotle.  Plato had two main complaints against democracy:  First, he asked, why should all the citizens get to vote on key decisions?  Why are they all treated as equals, one vote per man?  This is illogical and counterproductive.  Even in Athens, they had their share of dunces, dimwits, and degenerates.  Why let these men vote?  Why not let only the best, the wisest, vote?  For that matter, why have votes at all?  Why not just determine who are your wisest few, and let them rule?  This was Plato’s vision of an aristocracy, the optimal form of government.  It is, at least in theory, far superior to anything like a democracy.

Plato’s second concern was, ironically, with freedom itself.  In a democracy, since “the people” rule, anything goes.  Whatever the people want, the people get.  And the people—the masses—rarely want the kinds of things that they should want, namely, virtue and discipline.  Rather, they want to have fun: they want to do one thing one day, and something else the next, as it suits their fancy.  They are ‘free,’ after all.  They want to play games, engage in various petty amusements, fill their bellies, get drunk, and so on.  As it was then, so it is now; human nature has scarcely changed in two millennia.

Plato is scalding in his attack.  The “democratic man” is inundated by all manner of trivial and detrimental desires.  True and deep thoughts are driven from his soul, and “false and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place” (Republic Bk 8; 560c):

And so the young man returns to the country of the [pleasure-seeking] lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men. … There is a battle and [the false and boastful words] gain the day, and then modesty, which they call ‘silliness’, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname ‘unmanliness’, is trampled in the mire and cast forth.  They persuade men that moderation and frugal spending are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them out.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array, having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names.  Arrogance they term ‘good-breeding’, and anarchy ‘freedom’, and waste ‘magnificence’, and impudence ‘courage’.  And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.  (560d-e)

And if wiser thoughts come calling, and if they struggle for predominance in his soul, he becomes confused; “he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.”  He has lost the ability to judge and to discriminate, which degrades his entire life:

His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms ‘joy’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘freedom’; and so he goes on…  [H]e is all ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’

Hence the democratic man.  His precious freedom, given unrestrained license and lack of discipline, devolves into mindless and confused pleasure-seeking.  He believes he has freedom, and he believes in equality—but this is a sham; it is a false equality and the freedom of a shallow and vapid libertine.  Plato sums up the situation on democracy with one of the most striking sentences in the Republic:

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.  (558c)

“Charming” and “disordered” democracy, so “fair and spangled,” is all show and no substance.  It encourages undisciplined, unvirtuous lives of hedonistic pleasure.  And most importantly, it “dispenses a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”  Such a democracy, he says, can only lead in turn to the lowest form of government, tyranny.

I haven’t the space to elaborate, but in short, Aristotle basically agreed with this analysis.  He identified three primary forms of government, each of which had good and bad versions.  In descending order, the three good systems are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by a small and wise few), and a ‘constitution’ (conditional rule by many).  The distorted or bad forms of each of these are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.[7]  In this sense, for Aristotle, democracy is literally ‘the worst of the worst.’  It is rule by the poor and needy masses, not the best or noblest few.

Industrial Democracy

What, then, of democracy in the world today?  We have variations on the democratic theme that are so remote from the Athenian original that they hardly deserve the same name.  They have lost all the virtues of the original but retained all the vices.  Democracy today has devolved into a crude perversion that I like to call industrial democracy.  Its primary characteristics are these:

1)  Representative (parliamentarian) system—no direct participation.
2)  Universal suffrage—all adults can vote.
3)  Multiracial—all races can vote.
4)  Unlimited population size.
5)  Financially corrupt—moneyed interests (especially Jewish) hold great sway.

On every point, this is opposed to the Athenian model.  We vote, but typically only for a handful of pre-determined candidates or on a very limited number of referenda.  Our representation is scaled down by a factor of thousands or millions; a state as large as California, with almost 40 million people, gets all of two senators.[8]  And every half-witted, uneducated ignoramus gets his or her vote—people who vastly outnumber the educated and the wise.  (And we wonder why the intellectual level of political campaigns is so low.)  People of every race can vote, and they often do so in their own racial interest, thus guaranteeing a divided and conflicted government.  Perhaps most critically, the original small size of the Athenian citizen body, some 30,000 individuals, now numbers almost 250 million—the number of eligible American adults.

The vast size and scale of representation ensures that billions of corrupting dollars flow through the system, distorting even the most virtuous lawmaker, and guaranteeing a flood of media confusion, propaganda, and “fake news.”  Industrial democracy is rule by money: those with the most money, and the will to spend it, rule.  In America, we know who leads this race: the Jewish lobby, which contributes at least 50% of Democratic campaign funds and at least 25% of Republican funds.  Wealthy American Jews spend literally hundreds of millions on campaigns, ads, donations, and various other activities, all to influence the outcome in their favored direction.[9]  The situation is comparable in the UK, Canada, France, and Australia, all of which have relatively large and wealthy Jewish populations.[10]  The ancient Greeks—most of them, at least—would be appalled to see what their cherished democracy has come to.

As it is, we now have that which Plato predicted: democracy on the brink of degenerating into tyranny of various forms.  We have tyrannies of the rich, tyrannies of the Judeocracy, and tyrannies of Big Tech, all vying for power, and all cooperating as needed to ensure that nothing like transparent and accountable government ever comes to pass.  The main objective of the rich is to stay rich, and to maintain or grow the wealth gap between themselves and the masses; the larger the disparity, the more relative power they hold.  The main objective of the Judeocracy, of the Jewish power-elite, is to weaken and damage the national psyche sufficiently, and to diversify and deplete the nation genetically, so that they can maintain maximum control without completely destroying the wealth-producing capacity of the economy.  Under industrial democracy, the future is grim indeed.

America, sadly, has been completely subsumed by this pernicious and insidious form of government.  The country is ruled by the lowest, most depraved, most incompetent individuals imaginable.  At the same time, it is being flooded by the virtual scum of humanity—in July 2021 alone, over 212,000 arrests (“encounters”, in the government’s euphemistic propaganda) occurred at the southern border.[11]  How many more evaded “encounter” and entered the country illegally, we do not know.  And to these numbers we must add the “legal” immigration of large numbers of non-European, non-White individuals who inevitably change the character of the nation for the worse.  The combined effect is dramatic.  A recent study stated that the US now has an astonishing 44 million people who were foreign-born, of which about 75% are legal and 25% are illegal.[12]  Nearly half of these millions were born in just five countries: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, and El Salvador.  Surely not more than a percent or two of these 44 million are White.  The grand edifice that is America is collapsing as we speak.

Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost.  Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia.  Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.”  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.  The country is rotting from above and below.  Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders.  This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell.  Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.

Looking Ahead

If this report on the fatal condition of America is close to the mark, it also suggests corrective actions that must be taken to regain a sane and stable civic life, at least for the White Euro-Americans who established and ran the country for most of its existence.  The necessary actions are hardly a secret.  The basic ideas are already floating around the Internet.  Andrew Anglin, for one, was right on the mark in his recent essay on immigration.  His conclusion:

The only way we are going to fix this [immigration] problem is through a two-fold solution:  1) Redrawing the borders of the country, and 2) Physically removing tens of millions of people.  There is no situation where both of those things are not going to be necessary in the future.

He is absolutely right.[13]  Those are two necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the restoration of rational government among the White population today.

More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps: (a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units.  (b) In these new units, encourage all non-Whites, and especially all Jews, to emigrate as soon as possible.  (c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best.  (d) Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.  Let me close by offering a few words of elaboration on each.

More and more people these days seem to be recognizing the desirability and the inevitability of secession of portions of the US, and the establishment of new, independent nation-states.  In fact, as the nation continues to disintegrate, at some point people will have no choice; thus, it is better to plan now than to wait for some chaotic future breakdown.

Some of the current talk on secession has the right intent but is woefully weak and misguided.  One can find articles like “Is America still our country?” and “The separation,” but these are pathetically half-hearted.  Breaking up existing states but staying within America is a wholly insufficient form of secession.  The “6 Californias” idea is very weak; “Greater Idaho” is well-intentioned but falls way short of the mark.  None of these explicitly advocates breaking away from the US and forming new nations.  Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem.  The reigning Judeocracy knows this, which is why they do everything in their power to discredit the idea.

Point (b) is mandatory for restoring effective and rational governance.  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews all have countries of origin; they need to return there with all due haste.  After a short period of voluntary compliance, increasing pressure will need to be applied until they comply.  Yes, Whites could theoretically return to Europe, except that Whites created and built up the present civilization (such as it is) of the USA, and thus have earned a right to stay and to evict the interlopers.[14]  Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands.  And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa (with heavy Jewish involvement[15]), I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation.  We can ease the transition, but out they must go.

The hardest to deal with will of course be the Jews.  With their political clout, wealth, and bull-headed tenacity, they will be very hard to root out.  The task is made all the more difficult because of the inability of our supposedly “conservative Right” to address the Jewish Question in a meaningful way.  Most all prominent rightwing individuals and organizations flee from the Question like the devil from holy water.  As I have noted elsewhere, Fox News and crew—Carlson, Hannity, et al—never explicitly mention Jews, never out them, and never criticize them in any way; Hannity in fact bends over backward to curry favor.  Alex Jones never criticizes or outs Jews.  Same with Jared Taylor.  American Renaissance won’t deal with the Jewish Question in a serious way.  Breitbart at least discusses them, but always in a neutral or positive light.  The real critics are, sadly, few and far between; to reiterate what I wrote recently, we need to be extremely grateful for The Occidental Observer, Unz.com, National Vanguard, and people like Anglin, all of whom are willing to speak the hard truth on the Jewish Question.

Point (c) obviously follows from the above discussion.  We must drop all talk of human equality and replace it with a promotion and celebration of human uniqueness and human greatness.  This needs to be made explicit in common discourse, media, and school curricula.  We need to celebrate and praise human genius while emphasizing the fact that most people are not geniuses and will never achieve greatness, but who can nonetheless have meaningful and valuable lives.  When it is understood that humans never were, and never will be, equal, then all become free to achieve their full potential and, for those who succeed in bettering themselves, to reap the rewards of exceptional development.  In a just society, exceptional individuals will earn additional rights, but they will also bear additional duties, compared to the lesser.  “Equal” performance for the various subgroups of people—as distinguished by gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, etc.—will never be expected or mandated.  “Racial equality” will be a nonissue.

On the final point, it is clear that the hopelessly corrupt industrial democracy must go.  We can also be confident that something like an aristocracy would be a vast (if imperfect) improvement, even as there is much leeway in the specific details.  If we allow that “rule by the wiser” is superior to “rule by the masses,” then we have many ways to realize such a system.  At the simplest level, we could retain elections for officeholders but permit only the wiser—smarter, more educated, more accomplished—individuals to vote.  It could be very basic:  require that voters earn a college degree, for example; or score above average on an IQ test; or distinguish themselves in some other relevant way (an exceptional athlete, by contrast, earns no right to a voice on political issues).  The disenfranchised would not be made to feel inferior; rather, they would come to accept such a system as in the best interests of all.

At a more sophisticated level, we might move to adopt something like a Platonic education system, as laid out in the Republic.  There he sketches a 50-year training program involving age-appropriate schooling, skills training, physical fitness, and practical experience that both educates the masses and serves as a filtering process to determine who the truly wisest and most capable leaders are.  A series of pass-fail criteria progressively reduce the pool of eligible candidates, leaving, at the end, a mere handful of individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves under pressure.  In a future aristocracy, a small pool of “the best” could be added annually to a kind of ruling congress who would then be unconditionally empowered to make and enforce all laws and policies.  After a fixed term of governance, each individual would be compelled to retire in turn.  Again, this is just one way of realizing such a system.  Variations might include finding ways to identify and empower the truly exceptional individuals—or perhaps a single individual—and give them correspondingly exceptional powers to rule.

In any case, the system would need to be recognized by the vast majority of people as an effective and desirable solution.  In this sense, it would retain a small flavor of traditional democracy.  “Consent of the governed” can work, as long as the population is not too large and as long as we do not have to contend with competing racial minorities or Jewish financial corruption.  But such consent is a far cry from universal suffrage or rule by the masses, which can never work, and which always degenerates.

Such is my basic outline of a path forward.  Obviously, much more needs to be said.  But it is a start, one that addresses the root causes of our present crisis.[16]

I close with this thought:  To the extent that America ever was great, this is because, at the start, it was roughly modeled on the Athenian original.  The early American government was gendered, racial, and ethnic—White males of a predominantly north European stock.  And it stayed that way for nearly 100 years.[17]  The celebrated American “diversity” at the beginning was a diversity among Whites: English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians all would have been represented in those early years.  Yes, America had significant numbers of Blacks and Jews from the 1600s, but they had limited or no political influence.  Religion was of secondary importance.  Yes, it was nominally a “Christian nation” at the start, but few among the Founders were deeply religious—Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Jay being the exceptions—and most were skeptical believers or deists, if not functional atheists.

Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality.  Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck.  It is a testament to our initially gendered and racial governance that we accomplished so much in those early years, with such huge burdens to bear.  Two centuries later, those millstones proved to be our ruination.

America is dying a slow and painful death.  Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), chapter 8, section 95.

[2] And in fact, Aristotle’s later discussion of the “great-souled man” (Nicomachean Ethics IV.3) demonstrates conclusively that he believed in vast difference among men.

[3] The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, volume one, Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 111-112.

[4] Indeed, explicit human equality exists nowhere in the Bible.  Paul claims in Galatians (3:28) that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” under Jesus and that “we are all one in Christ Jesus.”  But this only says that all are welcome into his nascent universalist church; it does not support the idea that all are equal.  And more importantly, there are very good reasons for believing that Paul held to the most obnoxious form of Jewish supremacism, and thus did not believe in human equality in the least; see my essays “Christianity: The great Jewish hoax” and “Nietzsche and the origins of Christianity.”

[5] Though, as I have recently argued in “The problem with leftism,” both the Left and the Right are “fakes,” which explains why they both adhere to similar nonsense, and why they both supplicate to the Jewish Lobby.

[6] Actually, in America we don’t have wars anymore; we have “authorized uses of military force” or AUMFs.  This is Congress’ cowardly way to kill others on behalf of their lobbyists and patrons without having to vote for an actual war.

[7] Politics III.7.

[8] It does get 53 federal representatives, but even here, each represents the interests of an average of 750,000 very diverse individuals.

[9] See my elaborations in “The problem with leftism” and “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[10] I emphasize “relative.”  Jewish percentages of these four nations range from 0.4 to 1.0%.  Normally this should be inconsequential, but with wealthy and pernicious Jews, it poses substantial problems.  The lesson here is that any nation seeking to free itself from the Jewish Lobby had best restrict Jewish numbers to something well below 0.1%.

[11] Of course, not all illegal immigrants are scum.  But from everything we know, a very high proportion of them are from the lowest, least intelligent, and most criminal segments of humanity.  And since virtually all of them are non-White, even the best will alter the nature of our traditionally White society.

[12] Though the actual number of illegals could be much higher than the presumed 11 million.  One recent study argued that the true figure could be as high as 29 million.

[13] Now, if we could only get Anglin to drop his allegiance to the Judeo-Christian God and to that long-dead Jewish rabbi, he would be much better off.

[14] Yes, Black African slaves and Chinese coolies “built” portions of the early US.  But they provided only the low-end brute labor, not the organizational or intellectual basis for the nation.  To give them credit for building America would be akin to giving credit to the oxen and draft horses of the early pioneers.

[15] See Louis Farrakhan’s book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews (3 volumes).

[16] Elsewhere I have argued that Hitler’s National Socialism can also be a model going forward.  His nationalism created an ethnic-based sense of unity and purpose that far exceeded mindless patriotism, and his socialism served as an antidote to unrestrained finance capitalism.  There are many good lessons to be learned there.  Interested readers should start with my recent edition of Mein Kampf, and with my newly-reworked edition of Alfred Rosenberg’s classic, The Myth of the 20th Century.

[17] Black males were granted the right to vote in 1866, and women (of all races) in 1920.

Murder of a Mensch: Cuckservatives, Crypto-Jews and Catch-22s

/42 Comments/in , , , /by

The central aims of leftism are very simple: to win power, to punish its enemies, and to destroy the West. The central principle of leftism is also very simple: “Heads we win; tails you lose.” Whatever works for leftism is ruthlessly exploited; whatever works against leftism is ignored or reversed. For example, minor infractions or perfectly legal acts by the right are labelled serious crimes and harshly punished; serious crimes by the left and its favorites are censored or brazenly lied about.

Self-defense is no offense

Americans have seen this leftist principle hard at work since the self-inflicted death of the Black thug George Floyd in May 2020. During the Summer of George, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its antifa allies rioted, looted, burned, and murdered for months on end with both the complicity and the approval of leftist media and officialdom. Their very serious crimes went unchallenged and unpunished. Thanks to the self-righteous anti-police campaigning of BLM, murders have risen sharply among young Black men, the very group the left claim to be seeking to protect from “police brutality.” And all this is censored or brazenly lied about by the left.

He looks sinister because he is sinister: US Attorney-General and Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland

But when a misguided right-wing mob trespassed briefly in the US Capitol in January 2021, the left reacted as though the Apocalypse were upon us. The trespass was “domestic terrorism,” a “deadly assault” on democracy itself, and, according to the Jewish leftist Rebecca Solnit, nothing less than a “coup attempt.” And even as Black and antifa thugs walk the streets unmolested, Solnit’s co-ethnic Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has poured huge resources into fighting “white supremacy.” The Capitol trespassers have been tracked down and imprisoned, often in solitary confinement and in filthy conditions, before they go on trial on inflated and unjust charges. Also in jail is Kyle Rittenhouse, the young right-winger who coolly and expertly defended his life against a murderous assault by three people, including two Jews, one of whom was a convicted pedophile. If Rittenhouse were non-White or antifa, he would have been released long ago and his deadly shooting would have been accepted as a perfectly legal act of self-defence against bloodthirsty thugs. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

Somali enrichment strikes again

Across the Atlantic in Britain, the same power-hungry leftists apply the same principle. But even I was taken aback by the leftist reaction to the murder of the supposedly right-wing Conservative politician Sir David Amess on October 15, 2021. The alleged murderer is Ali Harbi Ali, a Muslim “of Somali heritage” (in smarmy leftist parlance) and the murder took place soon after Angela Rayner, Labour’s fiery (and possibly psychopathic) deputy leader, had described Conservatives as “scum … homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum.” You might think this was embarrassing for the left: a right-wing White man is murdered by a Black Muslim shortly after a left-wing White woman “dehumanizes” right-wing White men. Not a bit of it: the leftist media ignored Rayner’s remark and used the murder to campaign loudly for more censorship of right-wing “hate.”

When a Somali Muslim murders a “much loved” politician, this might appear to be yet more evidence that critics of Third-World immigration are correct. But not to the left, for whom David Amess’s murder is yet more evidence that we must try harder to silence critics of Third-World immigration. After the murder, leftists constantly invoked the saintly Labour MP Jo Cox and her murder by a “right-wing extremist” in 2016. The leftist Andrew Marr “spent his Sunday morning show on the BBC questioning the Home Secretary [Priti Patel] about online anonymity.” There is so far no evidence that “online anonymity” played any role in the murder, but Marr takes his ideas on political discourse straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

A cuckservative cucks

And if you had judged by one BBC Radio news-broadcast, the true victim of Amess’s murder was the still-very-much-alive left-wing Black MP Diane Abbott, who was interviewed caringly about the abuse she suffers online. But I’ll freely admit it: I feel much more sympathy for Diane Abbott than for David Amess. Abbott isn’t a traitor; Amess was a traitor. She’s Black and she works for Black interests; he was White and he worked against White interests. I’m happy to see Abbott satirized and mocked, but I don’t think she should receive foul-mouthed abuse and threats of violence. I don’t think David Amess should have been stabbed to death either, but I cannot feel any sorrow at what happened to him. He was a cuckservative whose official website proves that he was complicit not only in his own murder but also in the murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing of countless ordinary Whites, past, present, and to come:

A cuckservative cucks: David Amess supports “refugees” and an anti-White leftist charity

Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week

On Monday 17th June [2019], Sir David Amess MP met with the British Red Cross to mark Refugee Week 2019 and hear about the challenges facing those as they rebuild their lives in the UK.

The Southend West MP took the opportunity to speak with the charity’s refugee ambassadors, who shared their own stories fleeing conflict and persecution. Sir David learnt about the challenges faced by those arriving in the UK, and what more the Government can do to help refugees resettle, work and study here.

The event marked the start of Refugee Week (17th-23rd June), and the launch of the British Red Cross’ “Every Refugee Matters” campaign. Aiming to highlight the issues that many refugees face, the charity have produced a new film along with those with first-hand experience of the challenges in UK asylum system.

Speaking after the event, Sir David said: “I am proud to be supporting the work of the British Red Cross this Refugee Week, and the brilliant work they do helping those most in need rebuild their lives here in the UK. Speaking to the refugee ambassadors was an invaluable experience to hear directly from who have had first-hand experience of some of the barriers blocking them from working, accessing education and healthcare. It is vital that we are able to help and provide protection to the world’s most vulnerable.” (Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week, 18th June, 2019)

[David Amess comments on] Black Lives Matter

I have received many emails about the events in America which we have seen unfolding on our TV screens. I have been shocked, horrified and repulsed at the murder of a US citizen by a policeman, with three officers standing by and doing nothing to help. Absolutely unforgivable in every respect. I was deeply moved by the appearance of the brother of George Floyd, who visited the scene of the murder and appealed for peace and calm. I do hope he is listened to. I absolutely despair at American politics at the moment and have made representations to government Ministers. I have also added my name to the cross-party letter to Liz Truss asking the government to freeze exports of riot control equipment to the United States. (Black Lives Matter, 4th June 2020)

Amess was supposedly a right-winger, but there was nothing right-wing about his support for “refugees” and Black Lives Matter. Those posts at his website prove that he was a cuckservative allied with leftism, which is why the Guardian, without the slightest trace of irony, called him a “much loved” politician and “devout Catholic.”

Fake Catholic, fake Pope

I strongly disagree with the Guardian’s second claim: Amess was a fake Catholic whose pro-refugee and pro-BLM views chimed perfectly with those of the Anti-Pope currently occupying the throne of St Peter. If Amess had been genuinely right-wing and genuinely Catholic, the Guardian and the rest of the leftist media would have hated him and found it difficult to conceal their satisfaction at his death. True Christians are not loved or respected by enemies of Christianity, as Christ himself prophesied: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Anti-Pope Francis kisses the feet of Muslim invaders

And if Amess had been a genuine Catholic, he would never have been called a “real mensch” by one of his many Jewish fans:

Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess

Jewish groups have expressed their “profound sorrow” at the killing of Conservative MP Sir David Amess. In a statement, the Board of Deputies said they were devastated to hear that Sir David had died following a stabbing at his constituency surgery.

“We will never forget Sir David’s long and deep friendship to our community. Our hearts go out in profound sorrow to his wife Julia and children Katie, Sarah and David Jr,” they said. Steve Wilson, CEO of United Synagogue, said the parliamentarian’s murder was “horrific and chilling”. … The Jewish Leadership Council expressed their shock. “He always had a very strong and warm relationship with his local Jewish community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time,” they said. Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: “We are shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of Sir David Amess MP. A long time supporter and campaigner for the Holocaust Educational Trust, joining us at every gathering, and encouraging us in everything we did. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.”

Southend rabbis also paid respect to the MP. Rabbi Geoffrey Hyman of Southend shul described Sir David as “a real mensch”. He said: “We are absolutely devastated by the murder of Sir David Amess, our local MP. He had a very close relationship with our Jewish community here in Westcliff. Always supportive and sympathetic to our members and causes. He attended numerous events at our synagogue. We are deeply saddened and send our condolences to his dear family…. May he rest in peace.”

Sir David previously served as the honorary secretary of Conservative Friends of Israel. From the 1980s, he campaigned for the erection of a statue honouring Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from deportation while the country was under Nazi occupation. Eventually he succeeded, and in 1997 Queen Elizabeth unveiled the statue, located outside Western Marble Arch Synagogue. Earlier this year, speaking at the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, Sir David said although he was a Catholic, “there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us,” and he “would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew.” (Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess, The Jewish Chronicle, 15th October 2021)

So Amess’s death was the murder of a mensch. He was a dedicated shabbos goy and worked hard for Jews—who have always been the greatest and most implacable enemies of Christianity and the Catholic church. Amess was a traitor to both his race and his religion.

Harvey’s little helper

Or perhaps he wasn’t. Like the saintly leftist Jo Cox, Amess was little-known in Britain before his murder. But he did hit the headlines in 2017 when he appeared to support the Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein. His parliamentary office issued this unequivocal statement in Amess’s name: “The recent revelations that countless starlets have apparently been assaulted by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are dubious to say the least. Whilst it has no doubt always been the case that some individuals have achieved their big break via the casting couch, this sudden flurry of alleged inappropriate advances beggars belief. Just as with the claims against Jimmy Savile here in the UK, why did no one say anything until now?”

When the statement was criticized, Amess blamed a mix-up by his staff and claimed that he hadn’t authorized or said anything of the kind. I find that hard to believe. But why would a “devout” “right-wing Catholic” like Amess support a sleazy leftist Jew from anti-Catholic Hollywood? Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle answered that question when, following its tribute to the murdered mensch, it reported that “Sir David Amess MP is believed to have had Sephardi [Jewish] ancestry. … According to information from the The Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, the MP was a descendant of Sephardic families through his mother, Maud, who died in 2016, aged 104. While Sir David was a staunch and practising catholic [note lower case], who often referenced his faith in his work in parliament, he had ties to Sephardic Jews going back hundreds of years.”

Bound by blood

So perhaps Amess was a crypto-Jew rather than a cuckservative. The Jewish Chronicle certainly wants to believe he was, because Jews like to reassure themselves that their control of Western politics doesn’t rely only on the buying and blackmail of goyish politicians. Some of their agents are bound to them by blood, not simply by Benjamins. Prime minister Boris Johnson and his predecessor David Cameron are known to be part-Jewish. I suspect that the former prime minister Theresa May has Jewish ancestry too. The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has himself claimed to have “some Jewish ancestry” and others have suggested that Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for Rotherham, had a Jewish father. Before being jailed for fraud in 2013, the staunch feminist MacShane ignored the rape and prostitution of White working-class girls by Muslims in his Yorkshire constituency while working assiduously for rich Jews in far-off London.

Then there’s the former Conservative minister George Osborne, who discovered late in his career that he was halachically Jewish through his maternal grandmother. This prompted the Jewish politician and journalist Danny Finkelstein to wax lyrical on “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” because he had felt close to Osborne before learning that they were both Jewish. So Osborne was a crypto-Jew, not simply a cuckservative. Osborne’s attitude to mass immigration is certainly Jewish: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.” Well, it was secret to the goyim who were voting for the Conservatives, but not to Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies, which regularly meet with senior politicians to discuss “matters of concern to the Community.” After these meetings, Jews like to put out trophy-photos that implicitly gloat about their control of British politics. Here’s one of those trophy-photos featuring the obnoxious Hindu Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Priti Patel with the Board of Deputies and other Jewish supremacists

Patel has no loyalty to Britain or to British Whites, only to herself and to the Jews whose support she needs to realize her political ambitions. She’s an intellectually undistinguished authoritarian with a very harsh and unpleasant personality — indeed, her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” But you can be sure that she performs the goy-grovel most eagerly and becomingly at all her meetings with Jews.

The authoritarian spiral

Under the guidance of her Jewish masters, Patel is currently overseeing the creation of an Online Harms bill, which seeks to fight “horrific terrorist and extremist content.” In other words, she wants more and harsher censorship of those who claim, for example, that Jews have undue influence in British politics. But Patel herself has shown again and again that she clearly recognizes Jewish control of British politics. In 2017 she had to resign from Theresa May’s cabinet when it was revealed that she had undertaken a long series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians and officials, supervised by the Jewish peer Lord Polack, former director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). But she bounced back to a bigger and better position when Boris Johnson became prime minister. Patel simultaneously knows about Jewish power and wants to criminalize any discussion of that power.

The murder of the mensch David Amess will help her plans for more pro-Jewish censorship. One of David Amess’s cuckservative colleagues has asked for his memory to be honored by “David’s law,” to “crack down on social media abuse of public figures and end online anonymity.” This is the authoritarian spiral so beloved of Jews and the left. Third-World immigration inevitably spawns Third-World pathologies like terrorism and crime, which are then used to justify ever more censorship and surveillance of those who criticize Third-World immigration. Some right-wing and libertarian journalists have tried to strike back by pointing out that Amess’s murder has not been shown to have had any connection with “social media abuse” and “online anonymity.”

Migration strengthens censorship

But Amess’s murder does seem to have an intimate connection with the Religion of Peace and its ever-growing presence on British soil. Harbi Ali Kullane, the father of the alleged killer, was a member of the political elite in his Muslim homeland, like the Chechen father of the Boston bombers in America, and lives in an exclusive area of London. The Guardian reports that he is regarded by fellow Somalis as “a committed anti-extremist [and] a liberal, open-minded man, who was not very religious.” Kullane has obviously done very well out of his migration to Britain, but can we say the same of Britain itself? The Guardian and other leftists will not try to answer that question, much to the disquiet of the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, who believes passionately in both free speech and open borders. In a hard-hitting column written within hours of Amess’s death, O’Neill asked: “Can we now have an honest discussion about Islamist terrorism?”

Can we? Well, no, we can’t. O’Neill and libertarians like him don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) the Catch-22 that applies to non-White enrichment. The more non-Whites you have in your country, the more they will reproduce the pathologies of their homelands and the less you will be able to discuss those pathologies, let alone try to end them. This isn’t difficult to understand. True nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t have big problems with suicide-bombers, rape-gangs, and stabby Somalis. Indeed, they don’t have any such problems at all. Why not? Because they haven’t been enriched by millions of non-Whites and haven’t been initiated into a leftist-Jewish cult of minority-worship. That cult is difficult to establish in the absence of non-Whites, which is why leftists in all those nations are eager to welcome “refugees,” establish the cult, and open the borders. So far, they haven’t succeeded.

Serving leftism from beyond the grave

The crypto-Jew and crypto-leftist Sir David Amess also welcomed “refugees,” who are mostly healthy young men of low social value and high criminal potential. Amess is gone now, seemingly cut short in his cuckservative prime by a stabby Somali and certainly mourned on all sides of British politics. But even in death he’s providing a valuable service to his former Jewish masters and leftist allies. His “shocking murder” will be used to justify more censorship, more surveillance, and more minority-worship. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

This leftist principle isn’t intellectually sophisticated, but it’s been very effective across the West. When the left is in power, leftism advances. When the so-called right is in power, leftism advances just the same. If you want to see how that works, look no further than that “real mensch” Sir David Amess, the “devout Catholic” who was “much loved” by those who hate Christ and the Catholic church.

Sines v. Kessler Plaintiffs Coordinated with Refuse Fascism, an Anti-White Terrorist Organization

/19 Comments/in , , /by

“Antifa WILL claim they are bystanders so they can file lawsuits.”
@Aeyannic_Order, Unite the Right Discord Server, August 11, 2017

Two plaintiffs in the upcoming Sines v Kessler lawsuit have ties to, and coordinated activities with, the anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism in the months prior to and during the rally. The organization, a “mass line” front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, rioted across numerous states in the months before Unite the Right in order to “shut down” the events of their political opponents, including the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. The two plaintiffs connected to the terrorist organization, Natalie Romero and Seth Wispelwey, have both alleged that Unite the Right speakers and organizers conspired to violate their rights at the 2017 Charlottesville rally. A new report by Occidental Observer reveals the extent of these ties, and how a founding leader of the organization was brought in to violate the rights of the defendants.

Refuse Fascism’s 2017 Terrorist Rampage

Following the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016, Refuse Fascism was founded by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and other anti-White extremists such as Bill Ayers, a member of the infamous anti-White, Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist cell that not only bombed the U.S. Capital in 1971, but discussed the “merits” of murdering all newborn White babies. Numerous protests the group have attended, organized or participated in have descended into violent riots as participants attacked those they were “protesting.”

All the more terrifying is the organization’s connections with several extraordinarily wealthy and powerful anti-White Jewish billionaires. In June of 2020, a Project Veritas undercover operation revealed that the head of the organization’s Atlanta chapter, Tee Stern, claimed to have received funding from George Soros for a side project and was in talks with Jewish billionaire Tom Steyer’s assistant. Steyer was the top Jewish donor to the Democratic party during the 2020 election cycle, contributing 54 millions dollars to Democrats and 35 Million to Republicans.

On January 14, 2017, the homosexual, Jewish libertarian Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak to students at UC Davis. Refuse Fascism was among the terrorist groups who showed up and shut the event down. As with the Unite the Right rally, mob participants brandished genocidal anti-White “antifa” terrorist symbols, as well as the bold black and white Refuse Fascism signs that have various demands such as “NO! STOP TRUMP/PENCE FASCIST REGIME BEFORE IT STARTS” with the organization’s website at the bottom.

In a now deleted video, a Breitbart photographer is shoved and spit on by Refuse Fascism protesters. Ringleader calls for his comrades to steal the photographer’s camera.

During the fracas, numerous attendees were assaulted. Milo’s guest speaker had dog feces thrown at him. Nathan Damigo, a current defendant in the Sines v Kessler lawsuit who conducted an interview with CNN that evening was assaulted while livestreaming the riotous mob. Breitbart cameraman Mike Perdie was assaulted after a member of Refuse Fascism demanded he stop filming. He then called for his comrades to remove Perdie from the area. After pushing and shoving Perdie around, a man shouted directly in front of him with a bullhorn screaming “Fuck off” and then spit in his face. It was then that the man who appeared to be the leader of the Refuse Fascism group yelled for his comrades to steal Perdie’s equipment, “Get that camera! Someone grab that expensive camera!”

Mob participants then began inciting violence, chanting “No justice, no peace!” and “If we don’t get it, shut it down.” Animated by the rhetoric, the agitated mob tore down the barricades and blocked the door of the venue. Administrators and campus police called the event off with little attempt to apprehend the perpetrators of the violence and chaos.

#DisruptJ20

A week later Refuse Fascism would carry out a conspiracy to disrupt the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Days before the event, undercover footage of Refuse Fascism organizer Sunsara Taylor was released by Project Veritas revealing their plan to disrupt the inauguration with various anti-White terrorist groups. The conspirators included numerous organizations who later that summer would descend upon the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, such as Antifa Seven Hills, Ashville Anti-Racism, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council (MACC), Redneck Revolt, and The Revolutionary Communist Party (RevCom), to name just a few.

The night prior to the inauguration, members of Refuse Fascism clashed with police outside Trump International Hotel. They then met up with other anti-White “antifa” terrorists outside the Deploraball, an event put on by Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters. Mob participants threw objects such as eggs and batteries at those entering the venue and attacked multiple attendees. Among those attacked was James Allsup, a young college student from Washington state who would go on to attend Unite the Right. While debating a member of the mob, he was surrounded by the anti-White “antifa” terrorists who stole his hat. When he attempted to retrieve it, the terrorists beat him. They then proceeded to stalk him and attacked him again, hitting him in the back of the head leaving him bleeding so profusely that he had to be taken to the hospital.

A young James Allsup was taken to the hospital following an attack by anti-White “Antifa” terrorists outside the DeploraBall, January 19, 2017.

On the day of the inauguration, Refuse Fascism stormed a highway, shutting down all traffic. Code Pink also blocked streets in an attempt to stop the inauguration from taking place. During the human blockade Tighe Barry, a member of Code Pink who’s in a relationship with the organization’s cofounder, Medea Benjamin, was wearing a large Refuse Fascism sticker on his chest and claimed that “we blocked this street because…we feel like we have the right to tell them not to go into our city.” The stunt created chaos, but unlike Unite the Right, police stepped in and made arrests. Code Pink has a history protesting with Refuse Fascism, and its leaders Tighe Barry and cofounder Medea Benjamin were among those who attended the Unite the Right Rally.

In other parts of the city, Refuse Fascism members participated in a goon march with black bloc terrorists where they proceeded to riot through the streets, smashing windows and setting a limousine on fire. Several hundred were arrested, although only around 20 of the 234 people arrested were ever convicted, and those were primarily due to plea deals. Unlike the majority of the January 6 capital protesters who were refused bail, the majority of those arrested in 2017 received bail and had their charges dropped by prosecutors.

It was during the chaos that defendant Richard Spencer was famously punched in the head by an anti-White black bloc terrorist, igniting a media firestorm about the “ethics of punching Nazis.” One writer for Politico resigned in disgrace after implying that Spencer should be beaten with a baseball bat. A Huffington Post writer instructed his readers to assault White advocates, referring to them with the pejorative, anti-White racial slur of “nazi.” The racial incitement of the public to violence by the mainstream corporate media would contribute to the chaos in Charlottesville that summer, as well as help to cover up attacks on Unite the Right participants.

Crashing Berkeley

With the success of their heckler’s veto at UC Davis and close attempt at a successful coup at the inauguration, Refuse Fascism members launched another aggressive attack several week later against Yiannopoulos’ UC-Berkeley speaking engagement. Following a similar pattern, Refuse Fascism showed up early along with other anti-White terrorist organizations. These groups included the TORCH Antifa Network’s local chapter Northern California Anti-Racist Action (NoCARA) whom law enforcement claimed had attacked a pro-White rally in Sacramento in 2016 hosted by Sines v. Kessler defendants Matt Parrot and Matthew Heimbach’s Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP). Other organizations included By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), whose founding members worked with and were members of the openly pedophile organization North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMLBA), as well as Refuse Fascism’s parent group, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RevCom). A Buzzfeed livestream filmed the entire event, and showed Refuse Fascism members instigating the riot, pulling down the barricades and leading the mob up to the building where the event was set to occur.

After pulling down police barricades, Refuse Fascism member with shield and sign (second from the right) leads the mob into the prohibited area, kicking off the riot.

As the mob attacked the building using the metal barricades as battering rams against the glass windows, they fired explosives at law enforcement. Several women who came to see Yiannopolus speak were then attacked. One of the young female students was giving an interview with local media when she was pepper sprayed. Another woman was attacked with a club disguised as a flagpole. After fending off her attacker, another masked terrorist sprayed her in the face with pepper spray. She was then beaten mercilessly by multiple terrorists with wooden clubs.

A mobile light tower illuminating the plaza was knocked over and caught fire. Numerous trash cans were knocked over and lit on fire, and even a bank  had a  flare thrown in it as the mob proceeded to celebrate the success of their heckler’s veto by parading down the street adjacent to the school and vandalizing local businesses. The San Francisco Chronicle estimated $100,000 in damage to the school and the surrounding area.

Yvette Felarca, a leading member of BAMN openly bragged on Fox News to Tucker Carlson about how her terrorist group had helped shut down the event. Refuse Fascism claimed on their website that “what happened at UC Berkeley is part of the kind of broad, powerful and meaningful protest which needs to continue on an unprecedented scale to OUST this regime from power” and that their actions were “righteous” with “much more like this…[is] needed.”

Plaintiff Natalie Romero, Movimiento Cosecha, and Refuse Fascism

Sines v Kessler plaintiff Natalie Romero, who admitted her parents were in the country illegally, travelled from Houston to Charlottesville on August 12, 2017 to call for the ethnic cleansing of European cultural symbols from the city’s parks. She is among those who filed a lawsuit that same year alleging speakers and organizers of the event “conspired” with James Fields to hit her with his vehicle. Despite a law enforcement investigator involved with the Fields case admitting under oath that there was no evidence of communication between Fields and other Unite the Right defendants of the Sines v Kessler lawsuit, Romero and her fellow plaintiffs have continued to make the unsubstantiated allegation. Why, despite lack of evidence, Romero has continued to make such allegations which have destroyed the lives of the plaintiffs is unknown. However, new evidence reveals that Romero had a history of blocking traffic and was a member of an organization with deep ties to the anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism.

Movimiento Cosecha & Refuse Fascism

At the time of the Unite the Right event in 2017, Romero was a member of the anti-White, racial replacement organization Movimiento Cosecha. The group calls for open borders and the amnesty of all illegal aliens residing in the United States; it had conducted numerous acts of civil disobedience across the country in the months prior to, and in the years following, Unite the Right. In Michigan, three of their members were arrested in April of 2017 for blocking a highway. Two months later, in an event Romero would help lead, 15 members (of whom four were illegally in the country) were arrested in Austin, Texas for sitting in the street and blocking traffic in front of the State’s Capitol. In 2019, 22 members were arrested in Detroit for blocking the Windsor Tunnel.

Movimiento Cosecha’s president Dylan Lazerow, is unsurprisingly Jewish. A recent in-depth report by the National Justice Party revealed that Israel’s strategy outside its borders is the exact opposite of what it advocates for its own people, and that the majority of organizations assisting migrants in ethnically replacing Europeans in all White countries are run by Jews. Even in cases where Christian churches are involved, they are receiving Jewish funding to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. While Lazerow has opposed Israeli settlement policy of Palestine, he promotes the settlement of tens of millions of unwanted non-Whites into European nations.

Movimiento Cosecha President Dylan Lazerow with Refuse Fascism Co-Founder Cornel West.

In March of 2017, Lazerow posted a photo on his Facebook page of himself posing with Cornel West, a cofounder and lead spokesman of Refuse Fascism who has fielded various interviews for the terrorist organization. West was recently denied tenure and compelled to resign from his position at Harvard by the institute’s Jewish leadership for criticism of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Like Lazaro, however, West has no problem promoting the ethnic replacement of European peoples, but he does have a problem with ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

While it is common for popular people to have their photo taken with random individuals they don’t know, this was not the case with Lazerow and West. Lazerow once posted a Movimiento Cosecha advertisement with Cornel West quoting him as saying “In this moment in history, the people dedicated to loving their neighbors must resist. Stand with me as I join Movimiento Cosecha and our immigrant brothers and sisters on May 1st for the #DayWithoutImmigrants — and beyond — as we work to win permanent protection, dignity, and respect.” Furthermore, Movimiento Cosecha also has a history of demonstrating with Refuse Fascism. These facts reveal close ties between the two organizations.

Refuse Fascism members participate in Movimiento Cosecha’s Austin, Texas action.  

Less than a month prior to the now infamous Unite the Right rally Natalie Romero and other members of her organization, along with members of Refuse Fascism, blocked traffic in Austin, Texas to demand citizenship for millions illegally living within the country. Video of the incident revealed Romero to be playing a major role, practicing and then leading the group in chants with a megaphone as they approached the state capitol. Romero initiated chants such as “The power, is in our hands. This is our state!” and “Undocumented and unafraid.” She even went so far as to parrot a slogan taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto “One struggle, one fight. Workers of the world unite!”

As the group approached the intersection of Congress Avenue and 15th Street, a number of agitators marched into the center of the road. Romero can be seen in the background, wearing an orange reflective safety vest blocking traffic on Congress. Fifteen Movimiento Cosecha members were arrested during the action. As those arrested were moved into transport vehicles, Romero led those still remaining in further chants celebrating their actions calling for policy that would further the ongoing racial replacement Americans.

Following the Unite the Right rally, Movimiento Cosecha published a photo of Romero wearing a t-shirt with their logo emblazoned on it and holding a megaphone, claiming her as a member. Another photo published on the organization’s Facebook page on July 25, prior to their July action, shows Romero lying on a pile of Movimiento Cosecha t-shirts with another activist with the caption “We are in Austin! Text “RESISTE” to 41411 to stay updated as we launch the first DACAmented sit-in of the Trump era TOMORROW at 11am. Stay tuned!” This evidence reveals that Romero was no average member, but a very active participant with the organization.

“We are in Austin! Text “RESISTE” to 41411 to stay updated as we launch the first DACAmented sit-in of the Trump era TOMORROW at 11am. Stay tuned!” Natalie Romero (bottom left) poses on a pile of t-shirts for Movimiento Cosecha days prior to blocking traffic in Austin, Texas and a month prior to Unite the Right.

As Unite the Right attendees headed to their vehicles on August 12, 2017 the anti-White mob who managed to shut down the rally followed them to the parking lot on South Street where they blocked attendees in and then attacked and chased their vehicles as they attempted to leave. Moments before Romero and several of her co-plaintiffs were struck by Fields’ vehicle, the mob she was marching with were celebrating how they successfully shut the rally down, chanting “who shut shit down, we shut shit down!” Those Romero was illegally blocking the street with during the state of emergency consisted of various anti-White terrorist cells, such as the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, several chapters of the TORCH Antifa Network, along with members of Refuse Fascism.

Seth Wispelwey Invites Refuse Fascism’s lead spokesman Cornel West to Help Him Shut Down Unite the Right

In preparation for Unite the Right, plaintiff Seth Wispelwey’s organizations, Congregate Charlottesville and the United Church of Christ, hosted direct action training in preparation for violating the rights of those he is now frivolously suing. During a press conference on July 31, 2017, Wispelwey claimed that Refuse Fascism’s spokesman Cornel West and others “had already responded to the call and are committing to join Congregate’s efforts in Charlottesville to confront the rise of White Nationalist’s political power and refuse to let Charlottesville be used as a platform towards those ends.”  It is no surprise then that several days prior to Unite the Right, West’s anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism called on their members to go to Charlottesville to “protest” the event, a word which the organization had previously used to describe mass rioting and violence they instigated at UC Berkeley.

On the night before Unite the Right, West gave a sermon at St. Paul’s Memorial Church in Charlottesville where he proclaimed to thunderous applause “We have to take a stand! That’s why some of us came to fight and get arrested if necessary!”  During the church service Wispelwey took the microphone and announced that “This [service] is the result of Congregate [C’Ville] being in existence for one month. Think about what we could do in Charlottesville over one year,” and “We are working as the fiscal sponsors for this work.” Prior to the rally the following morning, West gave another sermon at First Baptist Church where he further called on the congregation to get arrested with them to stop the rally, telling the congregants “When we march this morning. We hold hands and lock in this morning. When we’re seen this morning. When we get arrested this morning. When we go to jail this morning, let’s try to remember those, the best of those who came before who sacrificed so much for us. Who paid a greater cost than we gonna pay today.” West then marched to the park with Wispelwey and blocked the entrance.

Cornel West joined Seth Wispelway and other clergy block the entrance to the park and discuss tactics with anti-White terrorists.

Wispelwey blocked UTR participants from entering the park just yards away from where Refuse Fascism members attacked numerous event attendees. Newly released drone footage shows some of the attacks which are all clearly unprovoked. Other video and photographic evidence shows Refuse Fascism members knocking individuals to the ground, kicking and stomping on their heads. The Charlottesville police department never prosecuted the assailants, despite the large black and white signs they were holding during the assaults clearly displaying what organization they were with.

Following the rally, in an attempt to separate himself from the violence of Refuse Fascism and other anti-White terrorist organizations while simultaneously showing his approval of their actions, Wispelwey claimed in an interview with Slate magazine that “They [“antifa”] have their tools to achieve their purposes, and they are not the ones I will personally use, but let me stress that our purposes were the same: block this violent tide and do not let it take a pedestal.” Britany “Smash” Cain-Coneley, who co-founded Congregate Charlottesville with Wispelwey claimed in a now deleted interview with United Church of Christ that “We were all there with the same goal,” in reference to the violent anti-White “antifa” terrorists.

Far from exculpating Wispelwey, these statements, in concert with what is now known about his connection to the Refuse Fascism leadership, indicate his intentions at Unite the Right. During a Q&A session following Unite the Right, Wispelwey was asked about his cooperation with anti-White terrorists; he responded “I encourage a perspective shift. Because when you start to see that that violent ideology, systemically and directly, bodily and physically, harms everyone who doesn’t look like me. Then to stand and confront White Supremacy in its many forms is not an act, is not obstructing someone’s constitutional rights. It is an act of love. Maybe they have a right to the rally, we have a right to block them.”

Wispelwey went on to bemoan his co-religionists who rebuked his actions, admitting that he had “been accused of inciting violence by liberal White Christians so many times for showing up and trying to block their [UTR participants] entrance.” This statement reveals that it was very clear to many in his community that what he was doing would lead to violence. Numerous statements made by Wispelwey on social media since Unite the Right clearly demonstrate that this charlatan was in fact inciting violence and vandalism against his political opponents. Wispelwey encouraged his followers to damage the property of relatives who watch Fox News, assault people with milkshakes; he also follows various anti-White “Antifa” terrorist accounts on social media such as Bat City Antifa, New York City Antifa, and It’s Going Down.

Wispelwey went on to make numerous unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims that “antifa” had saved his life. After reviewing hundreds of hours of video footage and volumes of photographic evidence of Unite the Right, my colleagues and I  were unable to discover any instance where Wispelwey’s life was anywhere close to being in danger. This cannot be said of Unite the Right attendees whose heads were kicked and stomped on by Refuse Fascism members after being knocked to the ground in unprovoked attacks. Furthermore, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the riots that occurred on the night of the torchlight ceremony at the University of Virginia on the rotunda the night of August 11 and the brawl on 2nd and E. Market street the following day would not have occurred had it not been for the instigation of well-known anti-White “antifa” terrorist groups.

Video evidence has revealed that the night of the torchlight ceremony, several participants were assaulted by known anti-White terrorists, particularly Thomas Keenan and Thomas Massey. While demonstrators were coming down onto the rotunda, Massey, who was arrested for rioting at Donald Trump’s inauguration and was quoted in The Washington Post as being disappointed he and his comrades weren’t able to commit more violence and hoped that he would at future events,  splashed an unknown liquid from a water bottle on torchlight participants. He then turned to journalist Dave Reilly and smacked his camera out of his hand. One “antifa” went so far as to spit on an attendee who did not retaliate. Another man who confronted the two had his arm hit by Keenan in an attempt to knock his torch out of his hand. It was only after these repeated assaults against torchlight participants and refusal of local law enforcement to intervene, that the rioting kicked off. The following year, Keenan and Massey would be arrested for the beating of two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia, in which they were charged with racial intimidation, among other things.

Thomas Massey (Left) and Thomas Keenan (Right) at the August 11, 2017 Charlottesville Torchlight ceremony (Top), 2018 mugshots for the beating of two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia (bottom).

The day of the rally, minutes after Richard Spencer was attacked with bear mace as he entered the park, Keenan, Massey, and various other anti-White terrorists rushed to barricade the street to block the National Front’s entrance to the park. A flag bearer at the head of the parade attempted to push his way through them and was immediately punched by various individuals so as to not let him through. As other National Front members came to his aid, the anti-White gang members pulled out weapons, including a hammer, to attack them with. The situation was the complete opposite of defendant Wispelwey’s claim.

The facts regarding just how these altercations were initiated reveal that there was no threat to the people of Charlottesville and minorities from Unite the Right participants. The violence that broke out was a direct result of known anti-White terrorist networks coming to Charlottesville to utilize violence and intimidation to stop White Americans from expressing themselves and participating in the democratic process in what has been the greatest modern civil rights violation in modern American history. These organizations and their anti-White terrorist members openly claimed they were heading to the rally to disrupt it. The Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, claimed they had intelligence that extremist groups planned to attack rally participants and law enforcement. Afterwards they bragged on their websites about how they attacked the rally while relying on the anti-White, Jewish-owned mass media to cover up the terrorist’s actions.

Adding insult to injury, the real victims of racial violence and intimidation are now on trial in a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit launched by the very individuals who conspired with the anti-White terrorists in the months prior to and during the rally to violate their rights. We will soon see if the Charlottesville jury will buy the outrageous conspiracy theory concocted by Roberta Kaplan and her slimy plaintiffs, though the psychological effects of widespread anti-White terrorism over the last few years means that even if the jury doesn’t buy it, they are likely to be too terrified to clear the defendants of all allegations for fear of their lives and careers.

Evil Genius: Constructing Wagner as Moral Pariah – PART 4

/5 Comments/in , , /by

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.

Wagner and National Socialist Germany

Richard Wagner has long been reviled by Jews as the intellectual and spiritual precursor to Adolf Hitler who, according to William Shirer, once declared: “Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner.”[1] This line is spoken by the Hitler character in the 2008 Hollywood film Valkyrie (the Wagnerian title of the film being taken from the codename for the failed Wehrmacht plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944). For music critic Larry Solomon, no other composer in history had a greater impact on world events than Richard Wagner; and “his devastating political legacy is second only to Adolf Hitler.”[2] In his book Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind: A Psychiatrist Explores the Psychodynamics of a Symbol Sickness, Theodore Rubin states that a psychologically sick Adolf Hitler “borrowed from the almost equally sick anti-Semitic Wagner.”[3] Jewish activist and prolific writer on anti-Semitism, the late Robert Wistrich, likewise proposed that: “Wagner’s essentially racist vision of Jewry would have a profound influence on German and Austrian anti-Semites, including the English born Houston S. Chamberlain, Lanz von Liebenfels, and above all on Adolf Hitler himself.”[4]

This widely accepted notion of a direct intellectual line of descent from Wagner to Hitler has, however, been challenged by historians like Richard Evans who points out that “the composer’s influence on Hitler has often been exaggerated,” and that while Hitler “admired the composer’s gritty courage in adversity,” he “did not acknowledge any indebtedness to his ideas.”[5] Magee likewise maintains that “if one studies the intellectual development of the young Hitler one finds no evidence that he got any of his anti-Semitism from Wagner.”[6] While Evans and Magee slightly overstate their case, they are right to attempt to put the issue of Wagner’s influence on Hitler into a more rational perspective.

Wagner’s intellectual influence on Hitler was mainly secondhand through his son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who developed some of Wagner’s ideas in his bestselling 1899 book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, which did influence Hitler’s ideas on race and the Jewish Question. The man who founded the library at the National Socialist Institute in Munich, Friedrich Krohn, compiled an inventory of the titles borrowed by Hitler between 1919 and 1921. The four page list contains over a hundred entries. Listed alongside Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century is the German translation of Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, and condensations of titles such as Luther and the Jews, Goethe and the Jews, Schopenhauer and the Jews, and Wagner and the Jew. Clearly Hitler had some exposure to Wagner’s anti-Jewish writing.[7] It is also clear that Hitler read and greatly admired Wagner’s autobiography, and the title of his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was conceivably modeled on Wagner’s Mein Leben (My Life).[8] According to German historian Guido Knopp, “It was not just the title, but also one of the key sentences, that Hitler copied from Richard Wagner. Just as the composer has written in Mein Leben: ‘I decided to become a composer,’ so did the prisoner [Hitler] now write: ‘I decided to become a politician.’”[9]

In his book Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life, Timothy Ryback notes that among the books that found their way into Hitler’s vast private collection was a biography of Wagner by Chamberlain entitled Richard Wagner: The German as Artist, Thinker, Politician.[10] This book contains only a few minor references to Jews. In 1933, Hitler received a volume entitled Wagner’s Resounding Universe which was inscribed by its author, Walter Engelsmann, to “the steward and shaper of the descendants of Siegfried upon the earth.”[11] Among the books found in the bunker complex after the fall of Berlin in 1945 was a 1913 treatise on Wagner’s Parsifal.[12] Wagner’s ideas clearly exerted some influence on Hitler’s intellectual development. However, just three known volumes on Wagner (with none by Wagner himself) out of an estimated 16,000 books in Hitler’s collection at the time of his death, hardly suggests Wagner’s intellectual influence was “profound.”

There is certainly no evidence to support the extravagant claim of Joachim Fest in his biography of Hitler that: “Wagner’s political writing was Hitler’s favorite reading, and the sprawling pomposity of his style was an unmistakable influence on Hitler’s own grammar and syntax.” Fest even ventured to claim that Wagner’s “political writings together with the operas form the entire framework of Hitler’s ideology,” and that in these he “found the granite foundation for his view of the world.”[13] This assessment of Wagner’s influence on Hitler is utterly rejected by Jonathan Carr in his 2007 book The Wagner Clan. Carr makes the point that:

If Wagner’s works really were “the exact spiritual forerunner” of Nazism, surely the Fuhrer of all people would have drummed that point home ad infinitum. But one looks to him in vain not only for fascist interpretations of the music dramas but, stranger still, for direct references to the theoretical writings. There is, indeed, surprisingly little evidence that Hitler read Wagner’s prose works, though he evidently did borrow some from a library before he rose to power and the wording of some of his speeches indicates that he imbibed at least Das Judentum in der Musik. Why then did he not use the Master more clearly as an ally, especially in his anti-Semitic cause? In Mein Kampf, for instance, he notes that his early hostility to Jews owed much to the example set by Karl Lueger, the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna. He also praises Goethe for acting according to the spirit of “blood and reason” in treating “the Jew” as a foreign element. He pays no similar tribute to the Master, indeed he only mentions Wagner by name once in the whole book (although he refers elsewhere to the “Master” of Bayreuth).[14]

In one of three brief references to Wagner in Mein Kampf, Hitler reflects on his early experiences attending Wagner’s operas: “I was captivated. My youthful enthusiasm for the Bayreuth master knew no limits. Again and again I was drawn to hear his operas, and today it still seems to me a great piece of luck that these modest productions in a little provincial city prepared the way and made it possible for me to appreciate the better productions later on.”[15] Among the “great men” in history that Hitler singled out in Mein Kampf were Luther, Frederick the Great, and Wagner. He praised Wagner as a “combination of theoretician, organizer, and leader in one person” which he regarded as “the rarest phenomenon of this earth. And it is that union which produces the great man.”[16]

Despite the paucity of evidence for Wagner having exercised the high level of intellectual influence on Hitler that is widely alleged, for the Jewish music writer David Goldman, Wagner’s name is eminently worthy of execration on the basis that he “mixed the compost heap in which the flowers of the twentieth century’s greatest evil took root.” According to Goldman:

The Nazis embraced Wagner not by accident or opportunism but because they recognized in him the cultural trailblazer of the world they set out to rule. … Wagner may not have been the only anti-Semite among the composers of the 19th century, nor even the worst, but he did more than anyone else to mold the culture in which Nazism flourished. The Jewish people have had no enemy more dedicated and more dangerous, precisely because of his enormous talent. In a Jewish state, the public has a right to ask Jewish musicians to be Jews first and musicians second. With reluctance, and in cognizance of all the ambiguities, I think the Israelis are right to silence him. [Goldman here refers to the unofficial ban on performances of Wagner’s music in Israel][17]

For Goldman, Hitler’s intellectual debt to Wagner and the “proto-Nazi” nature of Wagner’s musical dramas are unambiguous. Magee questions the idea that Wagner’s works inherently support National Socialist notions of heroism, and notes that Wagner’s last opera Parsifal (frequently cited as Wagner’s most “racist” opera) was denounced by the regime in 1933 for being “ideologically unacceptable” and was not performed at Bayreuth during the war.[18] Moreover, while Wagner’s music and operas were frequently performed during the Third Reich, his popularity in Germany actually declined in favor of Italian composers like Verdi and Puccini. In the theatrical year in which Hitler came to power, 1932–33, there were 1,837 separate performances of operas by Wagner in Germany. The number of performances then went steadily down until, by 1939–40, they were less than two-thirds of that figure, 1,154.[19] Evans notes that by the 1938–39 opera season, Wagner had only one opera in the top fifteen most popular operas of the season, with the list being headed by Leoncavallo’s Pagliacci.[20]

It is well known that the Berlin Philharmonic’s last performance prior to their evacuation from Berlin in April 1945 was of a scene from the conclusion to Wagner’s Götterdämmerung to an audience that included Speer, Dönitz and Goebbels. Likewise, when the Reich Radio announced Hitler’s death, the funeral march from Götterdämmerung was played. With these events in mind, Wagner’s music has been used in countless Third Reich documentaries—in the process consolidating the misleading impression that Wagner’s music was uniquely bound up with the cultural politics of the National Socialist state.

It is clear that the supposed National Socialist fascination with Wagner, to the extent it genuinely existed, was mostly Hitler’s inspiration. Hitler’s boyhood friend, August Kubizek, noted in his book The Young Hitler I Knew that what made the young Hitler so receptive to Wagner’s operas was not the composer’s political outlook, but rather Hitler’s own “constant, intensive preoccupation with the heroes of German mythology,” and Wagner’s ability to translate “his boyish dreams into poetry and music” which satisfied “his longing for the sublime world of the German past.”[21] Kubizek writes that, “listening to Wagner meant to him not a simple visit to the theater, but the opportunity of being transported into that extraordinary state which Wagner’s music produced in him, that trance, that escape into a mystical dream-world which he needed in order to sustain the enormous tension of his turbulent nature.”[22]

Kubizek describes the time they first went to a Wagner opera—Rienzi, an early work by Wagner that established him as a composer. “We were shattered by the death of Rienzi,” he writes of that fateful evening in 1906, “and although Hitler would usually begin to talk immediately after being moved by an artistic experience, and to voice sharp criticism of the performance, on this occasion Adolf remained silent for a long time.” Rienzi was a Roman who rose to be tribune of the people but was then betrayed and died within the ruins of the Capitol. Kubizek described how his friend suddenly announced with “grand and thrilling images,” how he would lead the German people “out of servitude to the heights of freedom.”[23] According to Kubizek, Hitler’s decision to become a politician “was seized in that hour on the heights above the city of Linz,” when “in a state of complete ecstasy and rapture,” he transferred the character of Rienzi “to the plane of his own ambitions.”[24] Describing that fateful night to Winifred Wagner in 1939, Kubizek claims that Hitler solemnly declared “In that hour it began!”[25]

Hitler heard Tristan and Isolde at least thirty or forty times during the Vienna phase of his life. At one stage, he even wrote a brief sketch for a Wagner-style opera entitled Wieland the Smith. Gretl Mitlstrasser, the woman who managed the daily running of the Berghof “recounted numerous stories of Hitler’s private ‘communing’ on the property… when he held late-night vigils on the Berghof balcony, watching the Untersberg bathed in moonlight; when he let the ethereal strains of Wagner’s Lohengrin fill his study as he watched the jagged cliffs peek through the enfolding mists.”[26] Hitler had a bust of Wagner by Arno Breker in his private quarters, and in his table talk once claimed that “when I listen to Wagner I hear the rhythms of a bygone world.”[27]

In the 1920s, Hitler became a friend of Wagner’s children and grandchildren, and particularly of his English-born daughter-in-law Winifred, who joined the NSDAP in 1926, and who proposed marriage to him. She later wrote that “the bond between us was purely human and personal, an intimate bond founded on our reverence and love for Richard Wagner.”[28] In the summer of 1933 she found that hundreds of foreign ticket reservations for that year’s Bayreuth Festival had been cancelled, threatening its financial viability. Lieselotte Schmidt, a close friend of Winifred, noted at the time that “we have been frozen into isolation. The hate campaign against Bayreuth, which is at root of purely Jewish origin, stops at nothing in its lies and unpleasantness.” When the matter came to Hitler’s attention, he summoned Winifred to Berlin, and Schmidt noted that: “She flew there, and within a quarter of an hour we had the necessary help—and how!” The festival was made exempt from all taxes during the Third Reich, and Hitler donated 50,000 Reichsmarks of his own money for each new production.[29]

Wagner’s grandson and daughter-in-law with Hitler

Evans points out that Hitler’s personal patronage meant that “neither Goebbels nor Rosenberg nor any of the other cultural politicians of the Third Reich could bring Bayreuth under their aegis.”[30] Winifred Wagner and the managers of the Festival were “granted an unusual degree of cultural autonomy” by Hitler, and Knopp states that “It is a fact that even the Bayreuth productions during the Nazi era hardly display any evidence of distortion for propaganda reasons.”[31] Hitler was a regular guest at the Bayreuth festivals between 1933 and 1939, and on his fiftieth birthday Winifred arranged for him to be presented with the manuscript draft to Wagner’s Rienzi and original scores of Das Rheingold and Die Walküre, as well as a sketch for Götterdämmerung.[32]

When considering Wagner’s posthumous relationship with the National Socialists, we need to draw a clear distinction between Hitler as an individual and the Third Reich as a regime. Magee is careful to do so:

It was not the case that the Nazi regime in general was devoted to Wagner, or did anything to promote his works. Many people nowadays write and talk as if Wagner provided a sort of sound-track to the Third Reich, and that on organized party occasions there was always, or usually, Wagner. This conception has become a cliché on film and television, where it is usual for any depiction of the Nazis to be literally accompanied by Wagner’s music, for preference at its most brassy and bombastic, as in the Ride of the Valkyries or the Prelude to Act III of Lohengrin, and played very loud. The whole picture that this conjures up, and is meant to conjure up, is false.

Supporting this thesis, Evans maintains that there was a “lack of interest” in Wagner “on the part of almost everyone in the Party leadership except Hitler himself.”[33] In 1933, Hitler ordered that each Nuremberg Rally would open with a performance of Die Meistersinger, although these performances were very unpopular with other Party functionaries who had be ordered to attend. Evans notes that when Hitler “entered his box he found the theater almost empty; the party men had all chosen to go off to drink the evening away at the town’s numerous beer halls and cafes rather than spend five hours listening to classical music. Furious, Hitler sent out patrols to order them out of their drinking-dens, but even this could not fill the theater. The next year was no better. … After this Hitler gave up and the seats were sold to the public instead.”[34]

While Joseph Goebbels seems to have shared some of Hitler’s affinity with Wagner, and often visited Bayreuth, his diaries reveal no special insights into Wagner’s works or ideas, and nor do his public speeches. He praised Die Meistersinger as “the incarnation of all that is German.” It contained everything “that defines and fulfills the cultural soul of Germany.”[35] The 1933 Bayreuth Festival was opened by Goebbels with the words: “There is probably no work so close in spirit to our age and its intellectual and psychological tensions as Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger. How often in recent years has its rousing chorus, ‘Wacht auf, es nahet gen dem Tag’ (Awake for morn approaches), echoed the faith and longing of Germans, as a tangible symbol of the reawakening of the German people from the deep political and spiritual slumber coma of 1918.”[36]

Joseph Goebbels attending the Bayreuth Festival in 1937

Albert Speer, Hitler’s personal architect, and later also his armaments minister, was another Bayreuth regular, ostensibly motivated more by duty than genuine interest. He notes in his memoirs that Hitler often discussed Wagner with Winifred and seemed to know what he was talking about. Evidently Speer did not know enough to be sure.[37] For the leading ideologist of the party, Alfred Rosenberg, the real National Socialist musical model was Beethoven who “took fate by the throat and acknowledged force as the highest morality of man. … Whoever understands the essence of our movement knows that there is a drive in us all like that which Beethoven embodied to the highest degree.” While he also believed Wagner embodied the strength of the “Nordic soul,” Rosenberg criticized the composer’s Gesamtkunstwerk approach, noting that “the inner harmony between word content and physical content is often hindered by the music. … An attempt to wed these forces destroys spiritual rhythm and prevents emotive expression.”[38]

Rosenberg was certainly not alone in his view. The general manager at Bayreuth during the Third Reich, Hans Tietjen, made the point after the war that “In reality, the leading party officials throughout the Reich were hostile to Wagner. … The party tolerated Hitler’s Wagner enthusiasm, but fought, openly or covertly, those who, like me, were devoted to his works—the people around Rosenberg openly, those around Goebbels covertly.”[39] Aside from the hostility to Wagner grounded in aesthetics and ideology, Carr makes a more general point:

The truth is that many Nazis, in high and low places, were bored to tears by Wagner. There is nothing very odd about that. Lots of people past and present who may well have a certain interest in other music will run a mile to escape a seemingly interminable evening with the Master. Too few tunes, too many scenes in which people stand about for ages apparently doing nothing much. The point is only worth stressing here because the Nazis are reputed to have had a special affinity to Wagner’s music. The evidence suggests this was simply not so.[40]

It has been sometimes alleged that Wagner’s music provided a “soundtrack to the Holocaust” and was played at concentration camps during wartime. The German historian Guido Fackler claims that Wagner’s music was sometimes used at the Dachau concentration camp in 1933 and 1934 to “reeducate” political prisoners through the beneficial exposure to nationalistic music.[41] There is, however, no documentary evidence supporting claims that Wagner’s music was used in this way during the war. Larry David mocked this urban legend (and the unhealthy Jewish obsession with Wagner) in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where he is rebuked by a Jewish stranger for whistling a Wagner tune in the street.[42]

Conclusion

The ethno-political motivation that underpins the construction of Richard Wagner as moral pariah is exemplified by the contrasting way that Jewish commentators have reflected on the life and legacy of the Jewish composer Hanns Eisler who once declared Wagner to be “a great composer, unfortunately.” A committed Marxist, Eisler began in 1930 a long-standing collaboration with the poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht. With Hitler’s ascent to power, Eisler left Germany and eventually settled in Hollywood, where he was nominated for Oscars for writing the music for the films Hangmen Also Die (1942) and None but the Lonely Heart (1944). In 1947, Eisler appeared before the Un-American Activities Committee, and despite the intercession of Albert Einstein, Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein, was deported to East Germany in 1948 where he remained for the rest of his life, writing music for the totalitarian state (including its national anthem, and the Comintern anthem). Eisler collaborated with T.W. Adorno in 1947 to produce the book Composing for the Films. Instead of reproaching Eisler for his ardent commitment to a regime and ideology that destroyed millions of lives, Jewish commentators invariably portray him as the innocent victim of the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich, and then of the HUAC hearings and the Hollywood blacklist.

Jewish communist composer Hanns Eisler

The Jewish-dominated intellectual and media elite eagerly invoke Wagner’s life and legacy as a salutary lesson in the evils of anti-Semitism and White nationalism. Constructing Wagner as moral pariah allows the composer and his works to be constantly used as a springboard for intensive reflections on “the Holocaust,” the evils of white racial feeling, and the moral necessity of state-sponsored multiculturalism and mass non-White immigration to the West. Only these policies, after all, will ensure that Wagner’s “morally loathsome” intellectual legacy (which amounts to a proposal for a European group strategy in opposition to Judaism) can never again find a receptive White audience—by progressively doing away with White people altogether.

In the meantime, the construction of Wagner as an anti-Semitic exemplar and moral pariah ensures the composer, whose achievement far surpasses that of any Jewish composer, can never become a locus of White racial pride and group cohesion. Richard Wagner has been a particular target for Jewish denigration because of his strong and unashamed ethnic and racial identification, and for his willingness to publicly oppose Jewish influence. This, together with his status as one of the most stupendous musical geniuses that the world has ever seen, endows him with rich potential to re-emerge as a rallying point for White Nationalists. The rebirth of a strong sense of racial feeling among White people will be greatly aided by reclaiming cultural heroes like Richard Wagner from the manufactured taint of moral censure that distorts their popular remembrance.

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

[1] William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Random House, 2002), 101.

[2] Solomon, “Wagner and Hitler,” op. cit.

[3] Rubin, Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind, 127.

[4] Robert S. Wistrich, Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred (London: Thames Mandarin, 1992), 56.

[5] Richard Evans, The Third Reich in Power (New York, Penguin, 2005), 199.

[6] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 362.

[7] Timothy Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (New York: Vintage, 2010), 50.

[8] Guido Knopp, Hitler’s Women, trans. by Angus McGeoch (Phoenix Mill: Sutton, 2003) 158.

[9] Ibid., 169.

[10] Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library, 134.

[11] Ibid., 146.

[12] Ibid., 239.

[13] Joachim Fest, Hitler (London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992), 56.

[14] Carr, The Wagner Clan, 187.

[15] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by James Murphy (Bottom of the Hill, 2010), 23.

[16] Ibid., 488.

[17] David Goldman, “Muted: Performances of Wagner’s music are effectively banned in Israel. Should they be?” op. cit.

[18] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 366.

[19] Ibid., 365.

[20] Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 201.

[21] August Kubizek, The Young Hitler I Knew, trans. by Geoffrey Brooks (London: Greenhill Books, 2006), 84.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 118.

[24] Ibid., 116-8.

[25] Ibid., 118-9.

[26] Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library, 176.

[27] Nicholson, Richard and Adolf, 21.

[28] Knopp, Hitler’s Women, 152.

[29] Ibid., 181.

[30] Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 200.

[31] Knopp, Hitler’s Women, 189.

[32] Ibid., 193.

[33] Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 201.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Knopp, Hitler’s Women, 184.

[36] Ibid., 182.

[37] Jonathan Carr, The Wagner Clan, 184.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Quoted in Magee, Wagner and Philosophy (London: Penguin, 2000), 366.

[40] Jonathan Carr, The Wagner Clan, 184.

[41] Guido Fackler, “Music in Concentration Camps 1933-1945,” trans. by Peter Logan, Music & Politics, Undated. http://www.music.ucsb.edu/projects/musicandpolitics/archive/2007-1/fackler.html

[42] To view this scene see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS66Ivbvc