Featured Articles

The Change We Need Will Not Occur Until We Have Nothing Left to Lose

The recent mid-term election results which many people predicted would be a “red wave” throughout the U.S. proved at best to be a red drizzle. It was not what many political conservatives wanted although, in fairness, the Democrats lost several seats in the House of Representatives where the GOP will have a slim majority.

Many have rightly wondered why there wasn’t a greater displacement of Democrat incumbents when Biden’s presidency has been such a dismal failure? What didn’t the American people see?

We are now facing a serious recession, and things don’t look like they’ll improve anytime soon. Crime in our major cities is at skyrocketing levels, and seemingly none of our elected leaders want to face the reality of Black criminality. Our southern border is daily overridden by illegals, and the current administration is simply processing and busing them to various cities throughout the country (landing many of them in the Whitest parts too!).

We are also engaged in a proxy war on behalf of Ukraine against Russia – a country that has largest nuclear stockpile in the world (approximately 4,300 compared to America’s 3,600 nuclear missiles). Why would any rational nation instigate conflict with another nation that not only has a larger nuclear arsenal, but which in the end could lead to the extinction of all human life? Despite Trump’s faults, none of this would have occurred under his presidency.

Yet apparently half the country refused to eject incumbent democrats who, along with President Biden, are largely the source of so many of our national problems. The republicans, of course, have their own set of troubles. But they are not bent on radicalizing the country as the democrats are.

How, then, could Americans not see what is so patently obvious?

I’ve tried to make sense of this, and I keep coming back to the hard truth that most Americans are still too wealthy, well-fed and comfortable. They have not yet felt the consequences of their voting decisions. Their voting thought process is very much theoretical and ideological. Little if any of it is down-to-earth, real-life, and practical. It’s nearly impossible for many Americans to think their vote will lead to destructive consequences that will directly affect them and the entire nation when they still have jobs, can still meet their mortgage demands, take their annual vacation, purchase a new car, plan for their retirement, and still have food on the table.

It’s easy to virtue signal when one is not required to sacrifice anything of themselves. It’s easy to support the violence that Black Lives Matter thugs and Antifa engage in when it’s not occurring in one’s own city. It’s easy to support progressive social policies when one is detached from its immediate consequences and has the wealth and resources to move somewhere else if necessary. It’s easy to support open borders policies when one is not directly impacted by illegal aliens and the sorts of problems they bring. Wealth, comfort, and the generally American good life can easily lull us into a false sense of security, a feeling that we are immune from the impact of our voting choices.

This is perhaps the greatest problem with accumulating wealth, materialism, and having abundance. It blinds us to reality. It clouds our vision from the truly important things in life. It’s not that possessing riches is a bad thing by itself, but only that it has negative intoxicating effects when we allow them to consume us.

This may partly explain why so many Americans failed to vote against Democrats in this most recent election. Their lives, apparently, had not been impacted by Biden’s buffoonery, poor decisions, and failed leadership. The Democrats took no responsibility for the economy, their handling of the Covid pandemic, nor for the burning and looting that occurred in the Summer of George which they spurred on as a means of ridding the nation of President Trump.

And that’s where the crux of the matter seems to be. When voters do not directly feel the effects of their poor voting habits, there is no reason to believe they will change them. Yet the substantial change in outlook that we envision for White Americans will likely not occur until massive numbers of our people have suffered great losses in terms of finances and overall comfort. The kind of lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to must be radically altered if we expect the greater majority to hear our message.  

When their pensions are reduced or taken from them altogether, when they can no longer afford their mortgages, when they’re denied employment because they are seen as the “White oppressor class,” when everything they have worked for has been taken from them, when they feel a complete sense of despair – then and only then will their eyes start to open in ways we have envisioned.

Their noses must be rubbed in the feces of ‘diversity’ dogma, and most need to experience being robbed and beaten by a Black thug on a public transit bus before they will come to their racial senses.

Whites will not come to our views en masse based on racial statistics. They will not do so no matter how much evidence we provide proving Jewish political power, influence and cultural subversion. No matter how much we expose Democrat corruption, they will not believe us. The deception is much too deep among White Americans, especially when one realizes that we have been daily propagandized to hate ourselves and our country for the past 70 years.

Take away their comforts, however, including their wealth, their sense of security, their personal safety – and then the pitchforks start to come out. But not until then. We are still much too comfortable. We still have too much food on our tables. We still have money (although even that is starting to diminish). We are still supportive of the very ‘system’ that hates us and seeks to replace us. We haven’t seen the ‘Beast’ for who and what it is.

Yet this is what it takes to awaken a people who have been daily demoralized since the end of World War II. This is what it takes to awaken Whites who have willingly allowed themselves to be duped by endless wealth and materialism. This is what it takes to open the eyes of White people who believe that Blacks and illegal aliens are “just like us.” This is what it takes to racially motivate Whites addicted to Black sports and mind-numbing entertainment.

Inconvenient facts either don’t matter or matter very little to a people who are so gullible as to believe that “all humans and cultures are equal.” These kinds only learn by being stomped on, by feeling the boot on their face – and even then, there are no guarantees.

Yet this is probably what needs to happen. Wealth and comfort won’t do it. Only the sobriety that poverty, denial of rights as Americans, “cultural enrichment” that come from Black beatdowns, the complete collapse of the American dollar, the loss or reduction of our 401k retirement plans, and the like. This will accomplish what no racial crime statistics or racial IQ data could ever do.

The German people did not come to their senses regarding the parasites among them until the end of World War I (e.g., the great ‘stab-in-the-back’).  It was only after suffering poverty, great monetary loss, and starvation that the German people came to their senses. It was only after Germans were forced to beg, and to sell themselves and even their children as prostitutes that they started to awaken from their prior slumber. It was only after their currency became worthless that the German people began to see what they should have seen years earlier.

I fear this is what must happen to White Americans if they are to change their current predicament. I do not wish it. I don’t want to see anyone suffer. But it seems inevitable since nothing else has awakened them. And it will be all the more difficult because of the massive numbers of non-Whites imported in recent decades.

So, as much as I was disappointed by the mid-term elections, I realized that not enough White people throughout the nation have suffered in the ways I have expressed in this article. When this occurs, the scales over their eyes that currently cloud their vision will fall off (at least for most).

This is because most White liberal Democrats and racially naïve Republicans still possess a sense of personal survival. Granted, many of them do not, and they will fall by the wayside. But most do. The problem is that this inherent sense of survival has not yet been fully tested.

But that day is rapidly approaching.

All the virtue signaling, Black worship, and Jew obeisance will largely end when White Americans have real issues to be concerned about – namely, where their next meal is going to come from, how to pay their costly mortgages, how to secure employment, affordable health care, and not being robbed my marauding Black criminals in their cities.

There is, however, still some good news that came out of the mid-term elections – namely, the continuance of government gridlock which would largely prevent Democrats from accomplishing all they want. Greg Johnson at the ‘Counter Currents’ website explains:

“The wrong kind of red wave would actually be bad for whites. Under Joe Biden, millions of whites have been radicalized. They now recognize that the Left is an implacable enemy committed to the degradation, dispossession, and ultimate destruction of white America. But they do not fully see what a weak and traitorous opposition the Republicans are. Thus, a red wave would make these people feel safe again. It would lull them back to sleep. This would allow the Great Replacement to continue unabated, but under Republican leadership. But the failure of the red wave and the continuation of partisan gridlock will keep these white voters angry, agitated, and receptive to our message. That’s the best possible outcome for White Nationalists” (“Why White Nationalists Don’t Want a Red Wave,” Nov. 11, 2022).

If the Democrats continue their campaign to destroy America by crashing its economy, by ignoring or excusing soaring crime rates, by promoting the most deviant and soul-destroying social trends, and by seeing “white supremacy” as their greatest threat, then it’s possible they will make life for all of us so unbearable that a republican presidency is practically guaranteed.

The only question is: Will White Americans learn anything from it?

 

Oppressed Jew Is Watching You: What Orwell Got Wrong in his Dystopian Satire Nineteen Eighty-Four

When it was first published in 1949, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a dystopian satire aimed at the left. In 2022, the novel seems to have become an instruction manual used by the left. For example, in Orwell’s satire the worst of all offences is thoughtcrime, the denial of official ideology and rebellion against the self-proclaimed wisdom and virtue of the state. The modern left have invented many forms of thoughtcrime to justify censorship and their own control. And the supreme form of thoughtcrime today is racism. In Britain, leftists have concealed and even collaborated with decades of organized rape and child-prostitution because the criminals are brown-skinned Muslims and their victims are White.

Oppressed Jew Is Watching You: the sinister American Attorney-General Merrick Garland

Rape is merely a crime against the body, after all. Accepting that Muslims – and other non-Whites – are much more likely to commit rape would be a crime against the central leftist principle of racial equality. But in fact that principle is routinely betrayed by leftists themselves, because they use what Orwell called doublethink, the “holding of two opinions” that cancel out, “knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” It’s a central principle of leftism that there’s only one race – the Human Race. We’re all the same under the skin, capable of exactly the same high achievements and exactly the same misdeeds. At the same time, leftism clearly acts on the belief that Whites are innately vicious and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Critical Race Theory demands, inter alia, that Whites be stripped of power and punished in perpetuity for enslaving Blacks, despite the fact that all races have practised slavery and only one race – Whites – ever sought to abolish it.

Labour now hates the working-class

Meanwhile, the Labour Party in Britain seems to have modelled itself on the ministries overseen by IngSoc in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” By name, the Labour Party in Britain is still the dedicated champion of the working-class. By nature, however, it is now the vicious enemy of the working-class, as the Jewish Labour peer Maurice Glasman admitted in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

So Labour now hates laborers just as the Ministry of Truth hated truth. But Orwell could have gone further in explaining the roots of leftism’s hatred of truth and love of power. I believe he made one big mistake in the book: he assigned the wrong names and races to two of its most important characters. The chief villain is a gentile called O’Brien and the chief heretic is a Jew called Goldstein. If it had been the other way around, Nineteen Eighty-Four would have been much closer to reality, both back then and right now. Jews are not heretics in the modern West, but hunters of heretics. If Orwell had made Goldstein the villain and O’Brien the heretic, he would have created an uncannily accurate prophecy of twenty-first century America, where Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in a government resolutely committed to harming and demeaning the White majority. The sinister Jew Merrick Garland oversees the corrupt American legal system and hunts down White dissidents even as the sinister Jew Alejandro Mayorkas oversees “Homeland Security” and allows illegal migrants to flood across the southern border.

Information Is Power

And if Goldstein had been the villain, Orwell would also have prophesied the central Jewish involvement in the surveillance state. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party spies incessantly on its own members, determined to detect and punish the slightest challenge to its power. As Winston Smith thinks to himself: “You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” In the real twenty-first century, Western intelligence-agencies and web-companies are doing their best to bring Orwell’s dystopian visions of omni-surveillance to life. And Jews have always been at the center of this spying, as a recent investigation by independent media has once again confirmed: “A MintPress study has found that hundreds of former agents of the notorious Israeli spying organization, Unit 8200, have attained positions of influence in many of the world’s biggest tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.”

Information is power and spying allows Israel to blackmail or subvert politicians, steal military and technological secrets, and profit from advance knowledge of movements in the financial markets. The jailed Jewish sex-predator Harvey Weinstein employed Jewish spies against his victims, including some recommended by the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. The late Jewish sex-predator Jeffrey Epstein very likely worked for Israeli intelligence, filming and blackmailing corrupt goyim like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Epstein collaborated with the jailed Jewish sex-predator Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the Jewish mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (né Binyamin Hoch), who sold software with hidden access for Israeli intelligence to governments around the world.

“Vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew”

Spying is as Jewish as lox on bagel, but Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world’s greatest satire on the surveillance state, makes the Jewish Goldstein the opponent of totalitarianism and the goy O’Brien its cruel embodiment. So why did Orwell get the names and races the wrong way round? I think he’d succumbed the same pressure as Charles Dickens (1812-70), a great White writer from an earlier era who portrayed Jews accurately as villains in his early work, was made to feel guilty for it by aggrieved Jews, and mistakenly tried to make amends in one of his final books. A Jewish master-criminal called Fagin was the central villain of Dickens’ Oliver Twist (1839) and was called “the Jew” over three hundred times in early editions. I’ve also argued in “Minority Malice: The Curious Case of Daniel Quilp” that Dickens secretly intended Quilp, the demonic dwarf of The Old Curiosity Shop (1841), to be a Jewish villain too. Dickens would have felt the need for secrecy because he’d been strongly criticized for his accurate portrayal of Jewish criminality in Oliver Twist. One Jewish critic said that Fagin “encouraged a vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew.” The guilt-tripping worked: Dickens softened the references to Fagin’s Jewishness in later editions of Oliver Twist and in Our Mutual Friend (1865), one of his final books, he created a highly positive Jewish character called Riah, which is Hebrew for “friend”.

George Orwell underwent the same rehabilitation as Dickens. In his early work, he succumbed to the virus of anti-Semitism, was heavily criticized for it, and has been criticized ever since. As the Jewish journalist Raymond S. Solomon complained in the Jerusalem Post in 2019: “To be aware that Orwell had an antisemitic streak, you only have to read Down and Out in Paris and London, in which the term ‘the Jew’ is used many times.” But what critics like Solomon call “anti-Semitism” is better described as accuracy and honesty. Here are three examples of “anti-Semitism” from Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), Orwell’s chronicle of his time living in poverty in those two cities:

I had to do what I could on thirty-six francs a week from the English lessons. Being inexperienced, I handled the money badly, and sometimes I was a day without food. When this happened I used to sell a few of my clothes, smuggling them out of the hotel in small packets and taking them to a secondhand shop in the rue de la Montagne St Geneviève. The shopman was a red-haired Jew, an extraordinary disagreeable man, who used to fall into furious rages at the sight of a client. From his manner one would have supposed that we had done him some injury by coming to him. “Merde!” he used to shout, “you here again? What do you think this is? A soup kitchen?” And he paid incredibly low prices. For a hat which I had bought for twenty-five shillings and scarcely worn he gave five francs; for a good pair of shoes, five francs; for shirts, a franc each. He always preferred to exchange rather than buy, and he had a trick of thrusting some useless article into one’s hand and then pretending that one had accepted it. Once I saw him take a good overcoat from an old woman, put two white billiard-balls into her hand, and then push her rapidly out of the shop before she could protest. It would have been a pleasure to flatten the Jew’s nose, if only one could have afforded it. (Part 1, ch. 3)

On some mornings Boris [a Russian friend of Orwell’s] collapsed in the most utter despair. He would lie in bed almost weeping, cursing the Jew with whom he lived. Of late the Jew had become restive about paying the daily two francs, and, what was worse, had begun putting on intolerable airs of patronage. Boris said that I, as an Englishman, could not conceive what torture it was to a Russian of family to be at the mercy of a Jew.

“A Jew, mon ami, a veritable Jew! And he hasn’t even the decency to be ashamed of it. To think that I, a captain in the Russian Army — have I ever told you, mon ami, that I was a captain in the Second Siberian Rifles? Yes, a captain, and my father was a colonel. And here I am, eating the bread of a Jew. A Jew…

“I will tell you what Jews are like. Once, in the early months of the war, we were on the march, and we had halted at a village for the night. A horrible old Jew, with a red beard like Judas Iscariot, came sneaking up to my billet. I asked him what he wanted. ‘Your honour,’ he said, ‘I have brought a girl for you, a beautiful young girl only seventeen. It will only be fifty francs.’ ‘Thank you,’ I said, ‘you can take her away again. I don’t want to catch any diseases.’ ‘Diseases!’ cried the Jew, ‘mais, monsieur le capitaine, there’s no fear of that. It’s my own daughter!’ That is the Jewish national character for you.

“Have I ever told you, mon ami, that in the old Russian Army it was considered bad form to spit on a Jew? Yes, we thought a Russian officer’s spittle was too precious to be wasted on Jews…” etc. etc. (Part 1. ch. 6)

Like many misers, Roucolle came to a bad end through putting his money into a wildcat scheme. One day a Jew appeared in the quarter, an alert, business-like young chap who had a first-rate plan for smuggling cocaine into England. … The old man was half frantic between greed and fear. His bowels yearned at the thought of getting, perhaps, fifty thousand francs’ profit, and yet he could not bring himself to risk the money. He used to sit in a comer with his head in his hands, groaning and sometimes yelling out in agony, and often he would kneel down (he was very pious) and pray for strength, but still he couldn’t do it. But at last, more from exhaustion than anything else, he gave in quite suddenly; he slit open the mattress where his money was concealed and handed over six thousand francs to the Jew.

The Jew delivered the cocaine the same day, and promptly vanished. And meanwhile, as was not surprising after the fuss Roucolle had made, the affair had been noised all over the quarter. The very next morning the hotel was raided and searched by the police. … At the station, Roucolle and [his Polish collaborator] were interrogated by the Commissaire while a tin of the cocaine was sent away to be analysed. … After an hour a policeman came back with the tin of cocaine and a note from the analyst. He was laughing.

“This is not cocaine, monsieur,” he said.

“What, not cocaine?” said the Commissaire. “Mais, alors — what is it, then?”

“It is face-powder.”

Roucolle and the Pole were released at once, entirely exonerated but very angry. The Jew had double-crossed them. Afterwards, when the excitement was over, it turned out that he had played the same trick on two other people in the quarter. (Part 1, ch. 23)

One Jewish reader of the first edition of Down and Out immediately wrote a letter to its Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz, complaining about Orwell’s “insulting and odious remarks about Jews” and even threatened legal action. Such critics didn’t object, for example, to Orwell calling the shopkeeper “an extraordinary disagreeable man” and recording the way he abused and exploited his customers, but they thought Orwell should have suppressed or goywashed the shopkeeper’s Jewishness. That’s part of minority-worship, which insists that minorities are always virtuous victims of the cruel and oppressive majority. But minority-worship is a lie, because minorities often behave badly and harm the majority. And, as Steve Sailer has often asked, if minorities, and Jews in particular, cannot be criticized, shamed or mocked for behaving badly, when will they mend their ways? The obvious answer is: Never.

Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer thinks that George Orwell had an ugly side

As things are, it’s honest writers like Orwell, Dickens, and Sailer who are shamed and mocked for telling the truth about minority misbehavior. That’s why Dickens capitulated to his Jewish critics and created such a positive Jewish character for one of his final books and why, I would suggest, Orwell made Goldstein a victim and O’Brien a villain in his own final book. O’Brien is, in fact, intended to be a hidden portrait of a Catholic priest, a Jesuit intellectual overseeing a new Inquisition, because Orwell was attacking and satirizing both communism and Catholicism in the novel. He thought both ideologies were totalitarian and tyrannical. Yet he saw degrees of deplorability within Catholicism and gave this shocking remark to one of the characters in his novel A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935): “For the beastliest type the world has yet produced give me the Roman Catholic Jew.” The remark was suppressed by the publisher and never saw print, but it raises the same question as Orwell’s alleged bigotry in Down and Out. Was it anti-Semitism or accuracy and honesty? The Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer is in no doubt that it was anti-Semitism:

Other contemporaries record Orwell, at late stages of his life, remarking to them about the preponderance of Jews working for the Observer newspaper for which he wrote, and indeed in his diaries he refers to the control of Jews over vast swathes of the media. … Even in his last years (he died in 1950) Orwell was always quick to identify people, gratuitously, as Jews, in a way in which their Jewishness is seen an explanation to their situation, actions or appearance. … Hearing a rumor in 1940 that “Jews greatly predominate among the people sheltering in the Tube [underground station],” Orwell notes: “Must try and verify this.” Ten days later, he is down in the depths of the transport system to examine “the crowds sheltering in Chancery Lane, Oxford Circus and Baker Street stations. Not all Jews, but, I think, a higher proportion of Jews than one would normally see in a crowd of this size.” He goes on, with almost cold objectivity, to note that Jews have a way of making themselves conspicuous. (Was Orwell an anti-Semite?, Haaretz, 3rd August 2012)

The headline of the article asks “Was Orwell an anti-Semite?” and Pfeffer answers that Orwell definitely was. I think Pfeffer is wrong – or rather, I think that he’s accusing Orwell of thoughtcrime for being accurate and honest about reality. It’s not “gratuitous” to record the race of a human being, because race is often central to explaining human behavior. Orwell wanted to understand the world, which is why his writing now falls foul of that core commandment of modern leftism: “Thou shalt not recognize patterns.” The leftist Patrick Cockburn condemned Orwell for writing a “list of notable writers and other people he considered to be unsuitable as possible writers for the anti-communist propaganda activities of the Information Research Department, a secret propaganda organisation of the British state under the Foreign Office.” To Cockburn’s disgust, Orwell thought that the race and sexual orientation of people on the list were worth recording. In other words, Orwell was trying to recognize patterns and understand why some groups were more attracted to the murderous tyranny of communism than others.

Minorities committing mass murder

For leftists, Orwell was being “racist” and “homophobic.” He was refusing to bow in the cult of minority-worship and suppress the very obvious fact that minorities can behave badly and harm the majority. Indeed, communism is a glaring example of the way that minorities can tyrannize the majority and commit mass murder against it. As I pointed out in “Minority Rites: Modern Lessons from the Bolshevik Revolution,” the slaughter of millions of Russians and Ukrainians under communism was overseen by ethnic outsiders like Jews, Georgians, and Latvians. The most important of those outsiders were Jews, who played a necessary, if not sufficient, part in the triumph of communism.

Criticizing minorities like that is thoughtcrime to modern leftists. As Timothy Garton-Ash, another leftist commentator, said of Orwell’s list: “One aspect … that shocks our contemporary sensibility is his ethnic labeling of people, especially the eight variations of ‘Jewish?’ (Charlie Chaplin), ‘Polish Jew,’ ‘English Jew,’ or ‘Jewess.’” Garton-Ash is right: “contemporary sensibility” – that is, leftist sensibility – is indeed shocked by any attempt to be accurate and honest about racial reality. Jews were central to the mass-murdering tyranny of communism and Orwell’s private list seems to have brought that uncomfortable fact before the eyes of a few officials. It’s just a pity that his public novel Nineteen Eighty-Four didn’t bring the same uncomfortable fact before the eyes of millions of his readers.

A Depressing Election

I am not in the least bit susceptible to depression, but I have to admit that as Tuesday night wore on, I found I was getting depressed. And on Wednesday I was really down. If you watch conservative media, you were expecting a red wave, and there was even talk of a paradigm shift as the GOP was projected to attract new constituencies—suburban Whites, Blacks, and Latinos were supposedly gravitating to the GOP. It would be a landslide. A paradigm shift that would ensure sweeping electoral victories for the Republicans for years to come.

Certainly anyone paying attention could understand why there would be a GOP tsunami: rampant inflation and a weak economy that may well slide into a deep recession; crime, especially by Blacks, in the big cities with radical, Soros-backed District Attorneys (conservative media was full of videos depicting horrible crimes, almost all by Black men, and they emphasized the weak or non-existent punishment); a completely open southern border (also prominently featured in conservative media, along with some discussion of the Great Replacement; resulting in ~5 million additional illegals since Mayorkas got in and untold numbers of fentanyl deaths), a war in far off Ukraine (intensively pursued by the administration and resulting in pressure on energy and food prices); gender indoctrination in the schools; repeated examples of anti-White hate and statements of overt anti-White discrimination by prominent leftist activists and in the liberal-left media (often highlighted on conservative media, so this was not a secret); and a doddering, senile president whose personal popularity is in the tank and would presumably be a drag on the rest of the Democrat candidates.

But why should I be depressed given that the Republican Party is hopeless—at best a palliative that makes the patient more comfortable as he awaits certain death from an incurable disease? I think the reason I was depressed is because I was expecting some signs of a White awakening. If Whites ever needed cover for voting for a party that is repeatedly accused of being racist, misogynist, and generally evil, this would be a golden opportunity given all the negatives of the Biden administration. What White person in their right mind could possibly vote Democrat? Isn’t it obvious to even the most casual observer that we need a change of direction?

But it didn’t happen. The narrative held. The media in general is still all-in for the Democrats, so a great many people likely never heard about the southern border, or the many examples of anti-White discrimination and hate, or the huge spike in Black criminality, and they never heard about Biden’s senility. They heard a lot about abortion and the GOP’s “war on women,” and pro-abortion ballot measures won in several states and probably helped Democrats overall, as in Michigan where it probably helped the evil Gretchen Whitmer.

I should also mention that, even assuming there was no fraud, the Democrats obviously know how to game the current system, often with the help of laws they put in place making it super easy to vote. And they even engaged in dirty tricks like funding Republicans they thought,  correctly as it turns out, who would be weak candidates.

And they heard a lot about endangered democracy, supposedly threatened if Republicans win elections (!). But this was likely an effective message because it’s a moral message (as are so many other messages during this cycle—Trumpian evil [fascist! insurrectionist!] being an obvious favorite). And if it’s one thing White people, especially White women, resonate to, it’s the feeling that they are an upstanding part of a moral community (I try to explain it here, Ch. 8). It’s so comforting to know you are on-page with the NYTimes, NPR, and the college professors the liberal media trots out to give their talking points. White people won’t act unless they think it’s the morally right thing to do, and as always in the media age, the people who control the media create the moral communities. Jewish control of much of the media allows them to create the moral high ground that is absolutely compelling to a great many Whites.

Another factor was that Trump endorsed some marginal candidates as long as they went along with the 2020 election fraud narrative—as emphasized by Ann Coulter. I agree the Democrats cheated (with a lot of help from the likes of Google biasing the news that people see). But let’s face it, it’s a losing issue now. Every news article in the liberal media and much of the conservative media that I have read for the last two years has claimed that election fraud is an outright lie, often repeated several times in the same article. I’m not talking about op-eds, but about “news” articles. It’s never phrased tentatively but as an absolute, undeniable fact.

So the general consensus seems to be that Trump-endorsed candidates went down in winnable seats, but this is likely because of the success of the media in promoting the idea that only crazy people think the election was stolen. And the liberal media continued to spew hatred toward Trump as evil incarnate, the president fomented an “insurrection” to avoid his much deserved electoral defeat.

I certainly supported Trump in 2016 and 2020 even though he was far from ideal, and I would vote for him again if he gets the nomination. But his massive ego is now completely out of control, as seen in his recent comments on Ron DeSantis.

Notice there’s no statement of principle here, only gratuitous disparagement and basically saying that DeSantis owes him—even though DeSantis has never attacked Trump as far as I know. If Trump gets the 2024 nomination, the hatred would rise to fever pitch—an even more intense version of 2016 and 2020, when the media was blaring everything from Trump as the Second Coming of Hitler, to the Russia collusion hoax, to insurrection incitement and  personal corruption. The midterms clearly show that the elite media still has enormous influence and a Trump candidacy would be seen as an Armageddon moment for them. Pull out all the stops. Lying and cheating are completely justified.

But quite possibly a Trump nomination would be good simply because it would further polarize the country, if that’s possible. Trump’s everlasting contribution was to upend the comfortable neocon-Chamber of Commerce Republican establishment that would have given us unending Jeb-vs.-Hillary type elections. We need polarization, hopefully leading to a divorce. White conservatives have to get to the point where they realize that they can’t win elections and that the GOP is a permanent minority party. (If the Republicans do so poorly in these midterms, you have to think it will be far worse in 2024.) At that point other solutions would have to be considered.

But a couple things from CNN’s exit polls (for Whites only).

Whites were overrepresented in the total vote (73%), with 58% going for Republicans, about typical for past midterm elections; so no awakening. As usual, there was a gender gap among Whites, 63%-53%, but with both sexes more Republican. And an education gap, with White women college grads skewing Democrat (56%-42%) and White male college grads skewing Republican (52%-48%), and non-college Whites of both sexes strongly favored Republicans. And there was the usual age gap, with younger voters age 18-29 (still influenced by the school system? youthful idealism?) skewing Democrat (58%-40%). All of these percentages should be increased because there are considerable numbers of people who are classified as White but do not identify with the European Christian-derived population—Jews (at least 66% Democrat, “animated by democracy and abortion concerns”), Middle Easterners, etc.

For Whites, marriage showed a big difference. In general, marriage is linked to voting Republican (63%). Unmarried White men are average White voters (58% GOP), but unmarried White women (20% of the White sample) are only 41% GOP. One envisions wine ladies, pro-abortion fanatics, and graduates of gender studies programs. And it reinforces the idea that White women are especially prone to the morally framed messages coming from the media they watch. White women college grads are a big problem.

A third of the White sample identified as a born-again or Evangelical Christian and skewed strongly toward the GOP (83%-15%), but the two-thirds who did not so identify skewed Democrat (54%-44%).

Try to wrap your head around that. The great majority of White people—the ones who aren’t seriously religious—tend to vote Democrat by a substantial margin. This a good indication of the hopelessness of the cause of getting White people to understand the need to start asserting their interests as Whites.

And of course, to make matters worse, the born-agains and Evangelicals are at best implicitly White. Their world view is foreign to racial thinking and they strongly support Israel and see Jews in a very positive light.

So in general, these results show that the great majority of Whites are still very much under the spell of the narrative being pumped out by the media and the educational system, and have no idea what their long-term interests are. It’s all going to work out wonderfully, and we can all look forward to a harmonious, conflict free future.

The conclusion is that there aren’t any more signs of a White awakening than have been evident in the recent past, despite all the reasons to further coalesce in the Republican Party. Like I said, depressing. The message of the dissident right is not getting through. And of course the demographics and the continuing hold of the establishment narrative on so many Whites means that things will just keep getting worse. It’s become blindingly obvious that Whites can’t or won’t find salvation in voting.

This limits the options: peaceful secession; civil war (resulting in unthinkable destruction and having to deal with a military that is already inundating their personnel with woke propaganda and purging dissenters); making alliances with some non-White groups that don’t really share our interests; or going out with a whimper (what the establishment wants). I would love to see a successful secession movement but that’s a long way off by the looks of things. Far too many Whites still accept the system narrative, and even the best talking heads in the media shy away from advocating explicitly for White interests or dealing honestly with Jewish issues.

Nevertheless, there are still parts of the country that are very White, very conservative, and very angry about what’s going on. So a secession movement may take off, especially if the system shows signs of collapse. So, being the optimist that I am, I continue to have hope.

Is Enrique Krauze an honest historian?

Four years ago I wrote an article for The Occidental Observer about the Jewish Mexican Enrique Krauze and his hatred for Donald Trump and White Protestant America. Krauze has lived in Mexico City since his childhood and is one of the most respected intellectuals in the Spanish-speaking world. In 2003 the Spanish government decorated him with the Gran Cruz de la Orden de Alfonso X el Sabio, and last year he was awarded the Premio de Historia Órdenes Españolas.

This September Krauze published Spinoza en el Parque México (Spinoza in Mexico Park), his intellectual autobiography that is currently being praised by an important sector of the country’s educated bourgeoisie. The cover of Krauze’s book features Samuel Hirszenberg’s 1907 painting Spinoza Excommunicated. It is curious to note that, in one of his recent television interviews on his book tour, Krauze expressed himself very angrily, not only about Vladimir Putin, but also about Viktor Orbán, because the White man’s nationalism frightens him.

The book of more than 700 pages traces the ideological odyssey of Krauze, born in 1947, from his childhood talks with his grandfather Saul, an avid reader of Spinoza, to the 1980s. One chapter from the book is entitled “Athens or Jerusalem.” In other chapters, in addition to Spinoza, Krauze confesses how other Jews influenced his intellectual odyssey: from Heinrich Heine, Franz Kafka, Ernst Toller, Walter Benjamin, György Lukács, Gershom Scholem, Irving Howe, Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Brodsky to Daniel Bell. Although he also mentions several Jews of the Frankfurt school, he claims that it was gentiles such as the Mexicans Daniel Cosío Villegas and Octavio Paz who exerted the greatest influence on Krauze’s ideological journey.

Spinoza in Mexico Park was written in Spanish. I would like to translate for the English-speaking reader some passages of the book and will use the September 2022 Mexican edition printed by Editorial Planeta. On pages 39–41, Krauze writes: “We were raised. In my case, that upbringing was steeped in respect for Jewish traditions, Jewish customs and the Jewish past, the Yiddish language and its literature, but not so much for religion. … In my case, religious observance was limited to the synagogue with my maternal family on the occasion of the major holidays at the end of the year (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). There were several synagogues nearby. … I would sit with my grandfather José Kleinbort and be impressed by the melody of the Kol Nidré.”

A few pages later Krauze states that part of his family was annihilated by the Nazis, among them a maternal great-grandmother and his paternal great-grandfather, and together with them several great-uncles. Spinoza in Mexico Park is written in the form of short questions by his friend José María Lassalle, and long answers by Krauze about the readings that marked him. To the question “Forgive the brutal question, what did the word Hitler awaken in you”, Krauze replies: “As a child, infinite fear. Later, the will to fight absolute power” (page 57). Four pages later, however, he confesses to his imaginary interlocutor that the foul epithets used by Jews in private conversations against Mexican gentiles greatly bothered him.

It was not at all common in Mexico for Jewish émigrés to marry non-Jews. Krauze married Isabel Turrent, a Catholic woman, albeit only civilly. Krauze mentions that his grandmother became a socialist because of the Russian pogroms, and concedes that in the case of the Jewish revolutionaries, they sought “the advent of a world in which there would be no differences of race or religion.” That is why his grandmother became not only revolutionary “but maximalisti, that is, they participated from 1905 in the most radical and violent wing of the Bolsheviks and with religious zeal and conviction that by killing or blowing up police stations they were saving humanity. The passion of these young men had a typically Jewish messianic touch” (pages 75–76). Krauze also mentions that Lenin’s triumph changed, for the better, the condition of Jews in the Soviet Union. But his grandfather Saul seems to have been unaware of the Moscow trials, “or, if he knew of them, he had minimised their importance.” And Jewish involvement in the mass murder of the period is unmentioned. Saul, who died on Yom Kippur in 1976, was only disappointed when in 1948 Stalin had several Jewish Communists killed whose Yiddish literature he had admired.

In the short section of the book devoted to the Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig, Krauze says that Zweig and others who fled the Nazi regime “were Jews who were determined to forget who they were, but society denied them that impossible transmutation.” I have read several books by Zweig and I particularly like his biographies of tormented souls he wrote about—Hölderlin, Kleist and Nietzsche. I also read The World of Yesterday. But Krauze forgets that Zweig, like many Jews at the time, supported the Bolshevik Revolution. No wonder the Austrian authorities under the Third Reich warned him, not very subtly, that Zweig had better leave the country (which he did).

I rarely admire writers or intellectuals who have written in Latin America. The exceptions are the sixteenth-century chronicler Bernal Díaz del Castillo and José Vasconcelos, who died in 1959. The section on Vasconcelos is entitled “The Fallen Hero” (Krauze is not only a historian but a biographer of the most illustrious Mexicans). While Krauze became obsessed with the figure of Vasconcelos, whom he initially admired, he eventually learned that this highly intelligent Mexican was well aware of Jewish power: something no longer seen in any Spanish-speaking intellectual aspiring to fame. Vasconcelos edited the magazine Timón for a time, which was subsidized by the German embassy under the Third Reich regime, and the Mexican government promptly closed it down.[1] Krauze tells us on page 215: “I don’t know if I will understand his descent into Nazism,” so it’s not surprising that Krauze does not mention, the Mexican journalist and revisionist historian Salvador Borrego (1915–2018), author of Derrota Mundial (1953), of 630 pages and 51 editions.

Salvador Borrego (center) at the First International Identity Conference in 2015

Borrego with the umbrella in his hand, who died aged 102, was such a remarkable journalist that on his centenary several personalities that readers of The Occidental Observer will recognise came to Mexico, among them David Duke, E. Michael Jones, Mark Weber, and Ernst Zündel (see photograph above). It is inconceivable that if even these and other international figures recognised Borrego’s work on behalf of Hitler’s Germany, Krauze ignored it. Derrota Mundial was Borrego’s major work, focusing on the origins, development and consequences of the Second World War, and prefaced from the second edition by José Vasconcelos himself. In his foreword, Vasconcelos wrote: “It is one of the most important books ever published in the American continent.”

On page 246, however, Krauze writes of the times when he was disappointed about the communist beliefs of his ancestors. He mentions Solzhenitsyn and the “appalling facts revealed” by the testimonies of The Gulag Archipelago, which Krauze first learned of when he read the March, 1974 issue of Plural, the magazine of the man who would become his friend and mentor, Octavio Paz (with whom he would go on to found another magazine of high culture in Mexico: Vuelta). By mid-1975 Krauze had left his generation, generally enamoured of the Soviet Union and Cuba, to “cross the street to the opposite pavement to join the magazine of our liberal ‘enemies.’”

It was not only Spanish-speaking Jews who were prone to reject Hitler. Krauze devotes a section of his book to the famed Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, “a lucid and early critic of Nazism” (p. 349) and lover of Israel. This chapter surprised me because quite a few Argentines, like the Mexican Vasconcelos were Germanophiles during the brief period of the Third Reich. It was not only this side of Borges that I learned from Krauze’s book. I was also surprised to learn that the Mexican intellectual Gabriel Zaid, of Palestinian origin and Catholic faith, as well as being a close collaborator of Paz  blamed Christian ethics for the revolutionary passion of the Salvadoran guerrillas (which would later infect other Central American countries). “I am certain that it was Zaid who first made explicit the connection between Catholic culture and the Latin American Marxist revolutionary spirit” (page 395). But this topic is beyond the scope of this review.

What matters is to see how Krauze subscribes to the official narrative about European anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust: the hackneyed lachrymose interpretation that sees in Jewry only innocent lambs immolated by depraved Aryans. This is very clear in one of the final chapters of the book, “Memory of the Holocaust”, where Krauze casts the Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt as his Beatrice who guides him through a genocide that seems to him to be unfathomable.

The first thing that strikes one about the renowned historian Krauze is that he does not seem to have the slightest interest in the historical Hitler, but quite the opposite with the Hitler of dogmatic mythology sold to us by Allied propaganda. On page 605 he writes: “Hitler knew The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by heart and applied them to the letter. The myth of the Jewish conspiracy…,” and then quoting his beloved Arendt.

I wonder if Krauze is familiar with the scholarly work of another Jew. I refer to Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 1997). If there is one thing that emerges from Esau’s Tears, it is that the Jewish problem is not a gentile hallucination. Lindemann shows how Jewish subversion, throughout the nineteenth century (i.e., before the publication of the Protocols), exasperated Austrians and Germans to the point of producing rational anti-Jewish reactions. Given that Esau’s Tears received good reviews, even from Jews, it is inexcusable that Krauze would have written such things as the one quoted above. Then Krauze quotes Hans Frank, Himmler, and Hitler himself without taking into consideration the historical context, so well explained in Esau’s Tears. I mention Lindemann’s book instead of TOO authors because, Lindemann being a mainstream academic historian, the very erudite Jewish Krauze has no excuse for ignoring him. And he also ignores Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together, even though Krauze mentions the great Russian writer throughout Spinoza in Mexico Park.

Instead of the historian investigating the root causes for the so-called Holocaust through, say, Lindemann and Solzhenitsyn, Krauze writes: “It is impossible to represent the Holocaust. The Holocaust is ungraspable, inexpressible, incomprehensible. Me ken nisht (‘It can’t be done’), Israeli writer Aharon Appelfeld told Irving Howe in Yiddish when he asked him if it was possible to make literature out of the Holocaust. He concluded that you could write about what happened before, during and after the Holocaust, but not in the Holocaust” (page 618). On the next page Krauze shows us a picture of one of his aunts who survived Nazi persecution and died as a very long-lived elderly woman; and how, when he met her and her husband, they showed him their arms, tattooed in concentration camps. Toward the end of his book, Krauze recounts a 1989 pilgrimage with his father to Wysków (Poland)—the town where his family had lived before emigrating to Mexico.

It seems elementary to me that I should answer the question with which I titled this review in the negative. Spinoza in Mexico Park boasts a veritable galaxy of personalities from the intellectual world who shaped Krauze’s worldview. But only a dishonest historian can omit fundamental readings that could potentially help him to understand “the ungraspable, inexpressible and incomprehensible.”

César Tort (1958-) lives in Mexico City. He has devoted most of his intellectual life to researching the psychological toll of domestic abuse on children and teenagers. In recent times he has devoted himself to writing about the darkest hour of the West, from the point of view of the interests of the White man.


[1] Vasconcelos is the only Latin American intellectual of renown who dared to speak out frankly about Mexico’s racial history. Eleven years ago Counter-Currents published a short text that I translated: “A Mexican Lesson for Americans: An Excerpt from José Vasconcelos, A Brief History of Mexico”.

 

Punching Back Weakly: William F. Buckley’s “In Search of Anti-Semitism”

In Search of Anti-Semitism
William F. Buckley
Continuum, 1992

Introduction

A conservative who doesn’t care to fight against the Left is useless. He might as well be a leftist himself, because, over time he becomes more a symbol of capitulation than a leading light of the Right. As a twentieth-century conservative icon, pundit, and National Review publisher, William F. Buckley certainly wasn’t this bad when it came to the Jewish Question—but it was close.

In 1992, shortly after his retirement as National Review’s editor, Buckley published In Search of Anti-Semitism. This is a collection of essays, letters, speeches, and column excerpts which first appeared in National Review and dealt with four contemporaneous incidents which may or may not have been anti-Semitic in nature. These include Joseph Sobran’s criticisms of Israel and the disproportionate Jewish/Neocon control of American foreign policy; Patrick Buchanan’s similar complaints—especially as they relate to the neocons; the mysterious interpolation of a sentence from Mein Kampf into the credo of an issue of The Dartmouth Review (on the day before Yom Kippur, no less!); and Gore Vidal’s snide attacks on Israel and on neocons Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter from the pages of The Nation.

As its title suggests, In Search of Anti-Semitism chronicles Buckley’s quest to determine which of these are anti-Semitic and which are not. Buckley flexes his vocabulary and vast mental repository of American politics as he mulls over these events, all the while hampering himself with the following restriction: Because of the Jewish Holocaust, Jews as a group possess a unique and inherent innocence as well as retain a unique and inviolable right to an ethnocentric homeland. White people seem to lack these attributes in Buckley’s eyes, given how he insists that they “understand the nature of sensibilities in an age that coexisted with Auschwitz”1 while not insisting that Jews embrace similar sensibilities in an age that coexisted with the Holodomor and Gulag Archipelago.2 He describes the taboos regarding The Jews and Israel as “welcome,” and explains that this sensitivity exists “for the best of reasons.” Buckley also dismisses the proto-dissident journal Instauration as a “wild racist-nativist publication” and its editor Wilmot Robertson as “deranged.” Buckley condemns the 1950s pro-American publication, The American Mercury, for its “advanced nativism” and its editor Russell Maguire for being anti-Semitic.3 So, clearly, he ascribes to his fellow Whites neither the ethnocentrism nor the homeland rights that he so freely ascribes to Jews.

Buckley then sallies forth as a dignified umpire upon this uneven playing field. Given his pro-Jewish, anti-White parameters, he doesn’t do a half bad job. In fact, In Search of Anti-Semitism offers an (dare I say it) enjoyable glimpse into the man’s prodigious mind. His erudition, his facile control of language, his gift for analogy, his adroit application of paradigmatic argument, as well as the artfully cruel digs he takes at his opponents (especially Gore Vidal) all remind us of why he was a conservative icon for so long. People know right away that they are dealing with a first-rate intellect. A bit pompous and stuffy perhaps, but his sparkling prose makes it easy to overlook all that.

Problems arise like the eyes of a submerged alligator, however, when it becomes clear that anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question are just too thorny to fit neatly anywhere in Buckley’s wheelhouse. He cedes too much moral ground to the Jews (as well as a distinct ethnocentric edge), such that evaluating anti-Semitism objectively becomes almost impossible unless one side of the argument is cartoonishly wrong. For example, if a Jewish leftist shrieks anti-Semitism with little cause or in bad faith, as James Freedman, the Jewish president of Dartmouth college, did against The Dartmouth Review, then Buckley is reliable. And when dealing with someone the neocons also dislike, such as Vidal, Buckley can be fearless (and fun to read). However, when things are less clear cut—as in the cases of Sobran and Buchanan—then his fighting spirit begins to crumble, knowing that he will have to face the poison pens of his neocon colleagues (his “natural allies”) who know how to use the anti-Semitism charge like a weapon when gentiles like Buckley get out of line.

All Buckley can do is punch back weakly, which in the end convinces no one.

­Joe Sobran

By the mid-1980s, Joe Sobran, who was a senior editor of National Review, had written a series of articles in his syndicated column that hit the Jewish Question just right. As a result, he was smeared as an anti-Semite. Buckley summarizes:

In the columns, Mr. Sobran, among other things, has declared that Israel is not an ally to be trusted; surmised that the New York Times  endorsed the military strike against Libya only because it served its Zionist editorial line; and ruminated that the visit of the Pope to a synagogue had the effect of muting historical persecutions of Christians by Jews. In that last column, Mr. Sobran, exasperated, wrote, “But it has become customary recently to ascribe all Jewish-Christian friction to Christians. If a Jew complains about Christians, Christians must be persecuting him. If a Christian complains about Jews, he is doing the persecuting—in the very act of complaining. It simply isn’t fair.”

But faced with Sobran’s tendentious criticisms of Israel and Jews in general—criticisms that eschewed superficialities and hinted at something nefarious within the Jewish psyche—Buckley embarked upon a long march along the squishy middle ground. After invoking his split with The Mercury thirty years prior, he disassociated himself and National Review from Sobran’s offending articles—but not with Sobran personally. He then declared that his dear friend and colleague was not an anti-Semite, yet granted that claims that he was an anti-Semite might not be unreasonable.

Saying nothing would have been preferable to such cowardly equivocations.

Smelling weakness, the censorious Norman Podhoretz responded by scolding Buckley for giving Sobran space in National Review to respond to this bruhaha. He would have been happy with never seeing Sobran in National Review again. He also subtly threatened to lend more credence to Marty Peretz of The New Republic, who hated Sobran as an “unabashed bigot” and Buckley nearly as much for being so chummy with him.

After a snippy back and forth between the two pundits (in which Buckley, to be fair, holds his own), Buckley dives into the Sobran Question and unearths all the reasons Joe Sobran might be considered an anti-Semite. Buckley does deserve credit for at least airing out Sobran’s ideas—something the philo-Semitic neocons would be loath to do. To the Dissident Right today, the following four quotes from In Search of Anti-Semitism is vintage stuff—Sobran’s reputation only grows, while Buckley’s only grows stale in comparison.

  1. Buckley says that the people Sobran criticizes “[feel] victimized even when they have considerable power and aren’t using it very creditably.”
  2. Philo-Semitism can overgeneralize as preposterously as anti-Semitism. The fact that one has replaced the other only means that the Jews’ corporate fortunes have improved, not that people really appreciate them as they deserve to be appreciated. Real appreciation includes a certain amount of criticism, but even that has to rest on the assumption they have the same rights as other people.
  3. The ancient pagan charge against the Jews was that they were “misanthropes.” At any rate, however the Jews now may differ from the Jews then, they’ve always been aloof debunkers of what they took to be the idolatries of people around them, including Christianity. This naturally irritates the natives—or maybe I should say the nativists. At times it irritates me.
  4. “Anti-Semitism” only seems to show up nowadays in the context of discussion of Israel. Jews aren’t beaten in the streets, snubbed, denied entry to Harvard, etc. By every other index, anti-Semitism is defunct. Yet the Zionist Apparat wants to convince us it’s raging, “just beneath the surface.” It talks about “polite” and “sophisticated” and “thinly veiled” anti-Semitism. For some reason the stuff never gets overt.

Of course, Buckley does his level best to debunk Sobran, and nitpicks here and there. Most often, he is less than convincing (for example, pointing to how Sobran “never spent a lot of time blasting apartheid” as evidence for how his anti-Israel stance might be anti-Semitic).4 He ends his Sobran chapter by wearily admitting that he cannot defend his friend from the hysterical anti-Sobran chorus. The best he can muster is to call some of these people hysterical and complain about the double standard in which no one on the Left is pressured to disavow their zealots in the way that Buckley had been pressured to disavow Sobran.

Like I said: punching back weakly. What Buckley doesn’t understand is that the Jews are aware of this double standard, and they do their best to maintain it.

Patrick Buchanan

In the early 1990s, during the first Iraq war and around the time Patrick Buchanan was starting his run for the presidency, the former Nixon aide made the following unkind comments in the media about Jews and Israel.

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.

The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don’t care about our relations with the Arab world.

Buckley doesn’t find these statements anti-Semitic, but admits that they arouse suspicions. As is his wont, he nitpicks by mentioning the strong non-Jewish support for the war, but for the most part withholds judgment. Then, like the author of a first-rate pot-boiler, Buckley reveals Buchanan’s crack that the US Congress was “Israeli-occupied” territory.

Oof. Harder to defend, but Buckley takes a swing by bringing up how 1950s Senator William Knowland was once dubbed “the Senator from Formosa” for his staunch support of the Chiang Kai-shek government in Taiwan. Only Buckley can come up with analogies which, while superficially apt, are staggeringly inapt once we compare the miniscule influence over America’s Taiwan policy in 1953 versus 1992 Israel. (Again, punching back weakly.) Still, Buckley admits that Buchanan’s words could be construed as “encouraging resentment against the Israeli lobby.”

Then Buchanan offered the names of the worst warmongers, all of them Jewish: A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and Henry Kissinger. Now suspicious himself of Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, Buckley reminds his readers of four Christian pundits (James Jackson Kilpatrick, Frank Gaffney, George Will, and Alexander Haig) who were equally hawkish regarding the war, and doesn’t remind his readers of the mere two percent of the American population made up by Jews. And for the coup de grace Buckley reports Buchanan’s claim that in the war against Iraq, the fighting would be done by “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.”

This Buckley surmises to be a dig at Jews, as it most likely was. As such, he is willing to recount the resulting fallout of the Buchanan affair and let Buchanan and his allies fend for themselves. Curiously, he spends more mental effort adjudicating the anti-Semitism of Buchanan’s language (which he calls “clumsy forensic manners”—whatever that means) than whether there’s any truth behind it. Not surprisingly, Buchanan’s enemies—who are, to a man in In Search of Anti-Semitism, Jewish—do the exact same thing in the ensuing pages.

This leads Buckley to ramble at length about the nature of anti-Semitism and how not anti-Semitic a person can be and still be critical of Israel. Meanwhile, he does not object as Rosenthal, David Frum, Joshua Murvachik, Alan Dershowitz, Jack Newfield, and others called for Buchanan’s expulsion from polite society rather than prove that kids with names like Cohen, Goldstein, and Mandelbaum would serve proportionately in battle. It seems that for these people (and for Buckley himself to some extent) it matters more to not be deemed anti-Semitic than to tell the truth.

Buckley does give some space to Buchanan’s defenders, many of whom, such as Murray Rothbard and Paul Gottfried, were also Jewish. These people essentially attest to Buchanan’s sterling character because they knew him personally. A tepid argument, on par with Buckley’s claim at the end of this murky and disjointed chapter that Pat Buchanan may be an anti-Semite, but at least he’s not as bad as David Duke. Here we go again, punching back weakly.

The Dartmouth Review

In probably the most entertaining chapter in the book, Buckley sticks to his goyish guns and comes out on top. But this is hardly cause for victory laps since The Dartmouth Review affair reveals exactly how hysterical, stupid, and wrong the philo-Semitic Left can be, which is a ridiculously easy point to make. Basically, an unnamed writer for The Dartmouth Review thought it would be a clever prank (or insidious act of sabotage) to insert a little of Mein Kampf into the journal’s credo on page one. The rest of this sordid story involves Dartmouth’s Jewish president James Freedman and the college administration going scorched earth against the Review despite profuse apologies, the destruction of all offending issues, and the Review’s Black editor volunteering to take a polygraph test (which he passed) attesting that he was unaware of the text insertion.

Freedman organized an anti-hate rally. He publicized the affair in the national media. He charged that the Review “attacked blacks because they are black, women because they are women, homosexuals because they are homosexuals, and Jews because they are Jews.” He also, without any reason at all, ruled out the possibility of sabotage. The New Hampshire District Attorney was asked to do an investigation. Naturally, the Anti-Defamation League performed their own as well (in which they ultimately exonerated the Review).

Really, this chapter is mostly about strident philo-Semitism, and makes one question whether it belongs at all in book purportedly about anti-Semitism. It features screeching leftists desperately searching for anti-Semitism and not finding it. Nothing was ever proven beyond the complete idiocy behind this anti-Review witch hunt. Some college kid either played a wicked prank or had a warped sense of humor. That was it. Yet Freedman, the Dartmouth administration, the student body, national Jewish groups, and many in the national media could not stop baying like lunatic wolves around the stricken Review, likely as an example to show that any hint of anti-Jewish attitudes would be met with ruthless suppression.

Buckley, of course, sees through all of this. He did his own investigation, and after demonstrating that The Dartmouth Review had no record of anti-Semitism, was indeed pro-Israel, and had a history of Jewish writers and editors, he refused to disavow his protégés at Dartmouth. Buckley, who always liked to shift the charge of anti-Semitism leftward, also showed how the Dartmouth student journal Stet, which was openly Marxist and university-supported (unlike the Review), was far more anti-Israel than anyone was claiming The Dartmouth Review to be.

So, in this case, William F. Buckley stood up against the mob—but only when victims were as philo-Semitic as he was. In hindsight, hardly a triumph.

Gore Vidal and The Nation

In 1986, leftist and longtime Buckley nemesis Gore Vidal penned a piece in The Nation entitled “The Empire Lovers Strike Back,” which Buckley describes as “genuinely and intentionally and derisively anti-Semitic.” So, here it is at last. Anti-Semitism. No need to search for it anymore, apparently. And it is coming from the Left, Buckley is careful to note.

In his essay, Vidal characteristically hurls ad hominems like hand grenades and accuses Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter of shilling for Israel. They support American wars for Israel’s sake, they promote anti-Soviet paranoia for Israel’s sake, and they do everything they can to siphon billions out of the US Treasury for Israel’s sake. Of Podhoretz, he writes:

[H]is first loyalty would always be to Israel. Yet he and Midge stay on among us, in order to make propaganda and raise money for Israel—a country they don’t seem eager to live in. Jewish joke, circa 1900: A Zionist is someone who wants to ship other people off to Palestine.

There’s more:

Since spades may not be called spades in freedom’s land, let me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus-Christers. To show that their hearts are in the far-right place, they call themselves neoconservatives, and attack the likes of . . . me, all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon and Israel as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis whom they disdain. There is real madness here; mischief too.

Well, this take might be a tad schismatic and over the top, but is it wrong?5 Buckley, it seems, is too distracted by the schadenfreude of describing his longtime enemy being torn apart by neocons to even bother with such a tiresome question. Instead, he cheerfully reports how Norman Podhoretz blasted Vidal’s “foul anti-Semitic outburst” on the pages of Commentary, and then tried to elicit support from the Left against him. The Commentary editors sent out 29 letters to writers, journalists, and pundits in order to drum up outrage. The result was nearly comical. They received only eight responses, with only five criticizing The Nation or Vidal and the others either defending Vidal or attacking Commentary.

As if to cleanse himself of the distaste of having to discuss Gore Vidal, Buckley concludes this chapter with another winding treatise on to what extent anti-Zionism is indeed anti-Semitic (and to what extent should Zionism be considered racism). He includes a heated debate between Podhoretz and writers William Pfaff and Edwin Yoder, as well as a response to Podhoretz from the Jewish editor of The Nation. Buckley largely stays out of this dispute (unlike in the Sobran chapter in which he himself was a central figure). But he is aware of its central thesis, which is as applicable today as it was then:

The conviction among some Americans, such as Yoder and Pfaff, is that US policy is manipulated by Jewish Americans who are hell-bent on serving Israeli interests and are prepared to use the weapon of alleged anti-Semitism to immobilize their opponents. The other position is that there resides, in some people’s criticisms of Israel, an animus; that that animus is traceable to anti-Semitic dispositions; and that these dispositions need hosing down by moral exposure, for fear that that great fever might be rekindled which once gave us the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, Buckley does not clearly resolve this conflict, and his long march through the squish ends nowhere. It’s as if he is reluctant to decide for which side to support, and instead tries to clear out some swampy middle ground upon which he can defend regarding anti-Semitism. He does retain a person’s rights to make generalizations about groups as long as the motivation behind the generalizations is not to disparage. He also retains a person’s rights to speak out against perceived injustice. So, as long as someone is painstakingly polite and sensitive when criticizing certain Jews—who, of course, are acting as individuals and not as part of group—then that should be fine. Buckley includes several passages in which he had done exactly that in National Review.

This is what I call punching back weakly. A person can do this, but it will have likely little impact on the problem he is trying to solve. On the other hand, punching back hard, which is what Sobran, Buchanan, and Vidal did, will more likely produce results. They essentially treated Jews not as fellow Americans but as outgroup members, which makes it much easier to recognize patterns when such people act against American interests. Sobran, Buchanan, and Vidal put America’s interests first—even above their own reputations as writers. This is why they said something when a certain group of people with big noses and little hats kept picking American pockets and browbeating them whenever they had the temerity to notice. The inescapable conclusion, which is not lost on the neocons: the best way to serve American interests, therefore, is to have a sterner policy regarding people with big noses and little hats. But since Buckley is adamantly against this behavior (because Holocaust), he is de facto taking the latter, pro-Jewish position above without actually saying so. You have to slog through a lot of prose to get a concrete idea of where the man stands on all this. This is why In Search of Anti-Semitism is ultimately so disappointing despite its many elucidating virtues.

Conclusion

What does Buckley actually say regarding his true feelings on anti-Semitism? Four passages are most relevant, and lead one to conclude that he did possess a mild anti-White mindset and a much less mild pro-Jewish one. In one, eschewing anti-Semitism on the Right is a way to make the Left look bad (at least in the eyes of Jews).

The movement of anti-Semitism from unexamined prejudice of the political Right to inchoate agenda of the political Left is of epochal significance. The call, on the Right, fully to excrete its old prejudices is, accordingly, of first strategic and tactical importance.

Of course, Buckley doesn’t flip the scenario and wonder why Jews like Norman Podhoretz rarely try to prove their pro-gentile bona fides to people like Buckley.

In the second, he raises an argument often used to justify Israel’s special claims on America’s support and doesn’t refute it: that of the “religio-moral obligation of Christians to ensure the survival of the Jews.” We can assume that Buckley supported such an argument to some extent, and paid no attention to the lack of reciprocal concern of Jews for Christians.

In the third, he advises Joe Sobran to simply accept the double standard of Jewish racism in Israel and Jewish anti-racism everywhere else [emphasis mine]:

But any useful commentary on the Israeli phenomenon has got to begin by understanding that an explicitly Jewish state isn’t going to be a multicultural state. Much that goes on routinely in Israel, and certainly in the West Bank, would be forbidden under the US Constitution. Accept this, and much else is merely derivative.

This is coming from the man who condemned The American Mercury and Instauration for nativism and who sniffed that the “scientific racism” of Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain was “an atheistic bastard child of late-nineteenth-century rationalism.” It appears that for William F. Buckley, some racism is better than others.

Finally, he truly believes that any kind of anti-Jewish feeling in a person’s heart could potentially lead to genocide without any external factors (such as the aggressive and malicious anti-White attitudes of many Jews) playing a role.

We have heard people distinguish between “country club” anti-Semitism and naked anti-Israelism and genocidal indifference. The pain comes from the historical knowledge that prejudice of the first kind can metastasize—and has done so, to be sure by mutation—into Auschwitz.

Like original sin, Buckley’s anti-Semitism is sui generis. It exists alone in the hearts of Whites and must be suppressed, or else the horrors of Hell will be unleashed.

This is his greatest mistake. He refuses to consider the sound historical reasons why the Nazis in the 1930s had anti-Jewish and anti-Leftist attitudes. He refuses to consider the disproportionately Jewish-controlled gulags and terror famines of the early Soviet period. He refuses to look at the prominent Jewish leadership of the 1920s–30s USSR and of leftist causes worldwide at that time. He refuses to look at the influential Jewish warmongering which helped cause the Second World War. He also refuses to connect the dots between Jewish culture movers such as Sigmund Freud, Franz Boas, and the Frankfurt School and the disastrous effects they had had on White gentile civilizations. Couldn’t it be that at least some of this was a deliberate attempt to harm gentile populations which were weakened by the philo-Semitism promoted so cogently by Buckley?

Most importantly, Buckley refuses to attribute the causes of Nazi atrocities to the obvious fact that the Germans were waging war on three fronts against three superpowers—as if such atrocities could have just as easily manifested during peacetime. Anyway, what war was the Jewish-dominated Soviet Union waging when it perpetrated terror famines in the 1920s and 1930s and murdered tens of millions?

Yes, In Search of Anti-Semitism was written pre-Culture of Critique and pre-200 Years Together. But it was not pre-Russophobia; it was not pre-Icebreaker or pre-Gulag Archipelago. The information was out there in 1992. Ignorance is no excuse for a man as erudite William F. Buckley. Anyway, I’m sure much of this was covered on the pages of The American Mercury and Instauration. So Buckley could have gone there if he had wanted to.

But he didn’t want to. He was too afraid to be called an anti-Semite.

Notes

  • Buckley was referring specifically to Pat Buchanan in this quote, but I generalized to Whites as a group since only White people could possibly be blamed for whatever happened as Auschwitz. Furthermore, all of the individuals Buckley adjudges in In Search of Anti-Semitism are White. We should remember that this book was published at a time when Black anti-Semitism in America was enjoying a renaissance, yet Buckley largely ignores this. The deadly Crown Heights riots of 1991 get only a passing reference in In Search of Anti-Semitism, while the widely reported anti-Jewish remarks of Professor Griff of the popular rap group Public Enemy—and his subsequent dismissal from the group—remained beneath Buckley’s notice (or contempt).
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn appears once in the pages of In Search of Anti-Semitism, and not by anything written by Buckley. In Part Two of the book, Buckley features responses by friends and critics on the topic of anti-Semitism, and includes an open letter to him penned by Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz in equal parts congratulates and chides Buckley for the perceived strengths and limitations of his essay and brings up Solzhenitsyn as an example of a supposed anti-Semite who is indeed pro-Israel. How anti-Zionism converges or does not converge with anti-Semitism is a question Buckley agonizes over at length in In Search of Anti-Semitism.
  • Buckley describes his break with The American Mercury, which was the first of many purges of the Right that he initiated:

After reading a particularly blatant issue of the Mercury (this was about 1958), I thought the time had come to act decisively, and accordingly addressed a note to the writers on the masthead of National Review and told them that those of them who were also on the masthead of the Mercury would need to choose from which masthead to retire. In almost all cases (there was only one exception), they stayed with us.

Buckley made this pronouncement regardless of the guilt or innocence of his writers—and boasted about it in In Search of Anti-Semitism. For more on Buckley’s purges of the Right, see my review of The Great Purge, published by the Radix Journal in 2015.

  • Sobran answered this charge in his sparkling response to Buckley’s original “In Search of Anti-Semitism” essay, which Buckley (to the eternal discomfiture of his Jewish neocon colleagues) included in this volume. Sobran’s contribution is easily the clearest, most direct, and most convincing section of the book. In it, he writes:

The South African analogy fails on several key points.

  1. We aren’t taxed to support South Africa. We are taxed to support Israel. We’re usually free to find fault with that which we are forced to pay for.

  2. There is no shortage of critics of apartheid; whereas Israel has not only a powerful lobby in America, but a big claque in the press constantly repeating its propaganda claims.

  3. Most pertinent here, no journalist takes a risk to his career by criticizing apartheid. The power of the pro-Israel forces not only siphons off American tax money, but seriously impedes free discussion of Israel in this country.

As usual, Joe Sobran is spot on when it comes to the Jews.

  • Of all the curious takes in this curious volume, one stands out as prescient, perhaps almost as much literally as in spirit—and it was made by Gore Vidal. It must have seemed utterly ridiculous at the time, but not so much today. Buckley summarizes:

The two-page piece by Vidal was entitled “The Empire Lovers Strike Back.” Ostensibly the essay was animated by Vidal’s concern to strengthen a point previously made by him, namely that the white races of the world needed to band together to meet the economic challenge of the yellow races by calling off the silly cold war that divided us and the Soviet Union, with which we should be allied (this was three years before the liberation of Eastern Europe).

So in 1986 Gore Vidal, homosexual left-wing gadfly and decades-long bête noir of the Right, proposed imperium for the White race to fend off the Yellow peril—and in the same breath called out treachery from the Jews. I never thought I would use the words “Gore Vidal” and “Dissident Right prophet” in the same sentence, but there you are. It makes me wonder what kind of dimension-bending, irony-resistant crystal ball this man was gazing into at the time, and if he had ever read Francis Parker Yockey.

The Bigotry of Borders: How Leftism Welcomes a Sea-Invasion by Savages

Caterpillars are racist. Fact. When a caterpillar is fully grown, its body is packed with tasty nutrients. But the caterpillar doesn’t want to share those nutrients with other insects, no matter how needy they are. This is ignorant and irrational xenophobia. Science teaches us that all insects have a common ancestor and are essentially the same under the cuticle. But caterpillars reject these plain scientific facts, embrace outdated separatism, and cling bitterly to crypto-fascist concepts like “species,” “family” and “order.” When a caterpillar meets a humble wasp that just wants a better life for itself and its offspring, the caterpillar will refuse to share its nutrients with its fellow insect.

Wasps on the waves: illegal migrants crossing the English Channel

Or at least, the caterpillar would refuse if it could. Fortunately, wasps are well-trained in the insect equivalent of antifa. They know how to overcome bigotry and hate with their stings. A well-judged dose of neurotoxin paralyzes the caterpillar’s xenophobic nervous system; the wasp lays its eggs without resistance; and wasp-larvae are soon happily sharing the caterpillar’s bounty. They’re also preventing the caterpillar from spreading its bigotry in its adult form. In the end, rather than one racist butterfly, there will be dozens of anti-racist wasps, all eager to fight hate and bring more xenophobic caterpillars to the right side of history. It’s a beautiful sight, isn’t it?

The Brotherhood of Birds

Well, it’s a beautiful sight from the wasp’s point of view. But not from the caterpillar’s. The same is true of cuckoos and their hosts. If birds had language, cuckoos would be passionate universalists, proclaiming the Brotherhood of Birds and condemning the bigotry of borders whereby reed-warblers and rock-pipits seek to keep their nests for their own offspring. If the Marxist biologist Stephen Jay Gould had been a cuckoo, he would have cooed the following: “Avian equality is a contingent fact of history. Equality is not true by definition; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for avian history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn’t happen.”

A cuckoo chick celebrates the Brotherhood of Birds

In other words, if Stephen Jay Gould had been a cuckoo, he would have been a liar. But he wasn’t a lying cuckoo: he was a lying Jew. He didn’t falsely claim that species does not exist and that all birds are the same under the feathers. Instead, he falsely claimed that race does not exist and that all humans are the same under the skin. When wasps want to exploit caterpillars, they use neurotoxin to paralyze the caterpillar’s resistance. When Jews want to exploit gentiles, they use words like “racism” and “xenophobia” and “hate.” The effect is the same: paralysis and the collapse of resistance to predation and parasitism.

In Britain, we can see this process playing out very clearly as illegal migrants flood across the English Channel and begin feasting on the bounty that awaits them on British soil. In 2019, there were about 1,800 such crossings, which was bad enough. In 2022, there will be about 40,000, which is considerably worse. By saying that, I am of course being racist and xenophobic and hate-filled. I’m also being truthful: the migrants all come from failed states where nothing flourishes but corruption and crime. They bring that corruption and crime with them, neatly stowed in their culture and in the genetics that underlies their culture. But these truths are treated as “hate-speech” by Jews and by the leftists who apply Jewish ideology as they pursue the all-important leftist goals of power and punishment. The power will be for themselves and the punishment will be for their enemies.

“Vote for us, you racist scum”

And whom do leftists regard as their enemies? Take the leftist Labour Party, whose name proclaims its founding purpose: to defend the working-class and promote its welfare. But Labour is now led by a lawyer, not by a labourer, so you shouldn’t be surprised that it has become an Orwellian party. In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” Orwell’s satire is modern British reality: the Labour Party now concerns itself with attacking its working-class voters and harming their interests. The Jewish Labour peer Maurice Glasman admitted in 2011 that his party opened Britain’s borders with malice aforethought, seeking to harm its own voters. He said: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

Decades too late, trusting and traditionally minded Labour voters got the message and finally understood that Labour had trashed tradition and turned against them. That’s why millions of them switched their votes to Boris Johnson’s Conservative party in 2019, handing him a big majority and trusting him instead to defend their interests. Once again their trust was betrayed. The Tories had no more interest in stopping mass migration than Labour had. They postured about stopping the ever-growing numbers of illegals crossing the channel and the results are plain to see: as noted, about 1,800 crossed in 2019 and about 40,000 will cross in 2022. Meanwhile, much larger numbers of non-Whites are entering the country legally from corrupt and crime-filled nations like India, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Muslim male, misogynist murder

And what happens to those who object to this flood of harmful non-White migration? They’re attacked by furiously buzzing leftists, who sting them with accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” and “hate.” Take the leftist Rachel Youngman, a possibly Jewish physicist who is also “chair of charity Hibiscus which supports migrant women.” Ms Youngman was horrified when the non-leftist Nigel Farage accurately described the channel-crossers as “illegal migrants” and said that most of them are Albanian men “coming to join criminal gangs.” She said “the assumption of illegal actions by virtue of a nationality is a very dangerous route to take” and condemned Farage for “making an assumption that all people on boats are from Albania.” He’d assumed no such thing, of course, but Youngman is a leftist and not interested in the truth. Most illegal migrants are fit young men of low social value and high criminal potential, but Youngman didn’t want to talk about them. No, she wanted to talk about the small numbers of women among the illegal migrants. She said that these “women are at high risk of gender-based violence and trafficking.”

And yes, she was perfectly correct to say that. The women are indeed at high risk of “gender-based violence” and “trafficking.” And who will be committing the violence and carrying out the trafficking? That is a question that leftists do not want to face, but it was in fact answered by the world’s greatest leftist newspaper at the same time as Ms Youngman was attacking Nigel Farage:

A domestic violence victim who was stabbed to death by her former partner felt too scared to tell police the full extent of his abuse over fears that social services would take her baby away, an inquest has heard.

Raneem Oudeh, 22, was killed along with her mother, Khaola Saleem, 49, in Solihull in August 2018 by Janbaz Tarin, who had subjected Oudeh to a campaign of abuse and stalking in the run-up to the attack. The inquest heard Tarin once carved Oudeh’s name into his arm with a razor and would spend days sleeping in his car outside her house. …

Oudeh came to the UK in 2014 from Syria to escape war and join her mother. After befriending Oudeh at Solihull college, Tarin began “stalking and hassling her”, and she married another man in 2015, partly due to fears over her safety as a result of Tarin’s harassment. The marriage broke down and Oudeh brought up their son alone. By the summer of 2016, she was “down, upset – a single mum at the age of 20”, and still being “stalked” by Tarin, Norris said. Tarin harassed and frightened Oudeh into a relationship and the couple had an Islamic marriage ceremony in April 2017, Norris said.

Oudeh told her family that hours after the marriage, Tarin said to her: “We don’t have divorce in our culture. The day that you will be free from me is the day I will kill you.” … On 27 August 2018, Oudeh and her mother had gone to a shisha bar where Tarin accosted them and slapped Saleem. They rang the police but their response was delayed because of a firearms incident in the city, the inquest heard.

The pair then returned to Saleem’s address in Solihull where Tarin stabbed them both to death. He was convicted of the double murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 32 years after a trial in 2018. (Woman killed by ex feared losing access to child after reporting abuse, inquest told, The Guardian, 31st October 2022)

Rachel Youngman postures about her opposition to “gender-based violence and trafficking,” but she is actually working hard to increase both of them in the UK. As the no-nonsense male-supremacist Janbaz Tarin said: “We don’t have divorce in our culture. The day that you will be free from me is the day I will kill you.” He was referring to Muslim culture, where male supremacism, misogyny and “gender-based violence” all flourish. And here’s something else from the article: “the police response was delayed because of a firearms incident in the city.” The “incident” almost certainly involved more ethnic enrichers, just like this further example of “gender-based violence” from the same time as Ms Youngman’s attack on Nigel Farage:

Detectives are appealing for witnesses after a woman was raped in Bournemouth town centre. Dorset Police received a report at around 3.05am on Sunday October 30 that a woman was approached by four unknown men in Wootton Gardens and was raped. The men are described as Turkish with black beards and were all wearing black. The victim – a woman aged in her 20s – is being supported by specially-trained officers. (Woman raped in Wootton Gardens in early hours attack, The Bournemouth Echo, 30th October 2022)

Bournemouth is a genteel town on the English channel and once famous as a place where colonial officials retired after working hard to uphold White civilization in what is now called the Third World. At least, Bournemouth was a genteel town. Nowadays it’s enriched by ever-growing numbers of non-Whites who have migrated to Britain both legally and illegally. What would the colonial officials have predicted about that? They would have predicted exactly what has happened: the destruction of peace and prosperity. Whites once went by sea to civilize savages. Now savages come by sea to uncivilize Whites. Like America and France and many other Western nations, Britain is a juicy caterpillar offering no resistance as it is eaten alive by hungry larvae. Our paralysis is explained by the power of leftist rhetoric our own cowardice and desire to be seen as morally upright citizens in tune with elite thinking on race. But the recent success of “far-right” and anti-migrant parties in Italy and Sweden is proof that leftist rhetoric is losing its paralytic magic.

As rhetoric recedes, reality rises. The iron law of leftism is that it always most harms those it claims to care about most. For example, leftism claims that “Black Lives Matter” even as it sends the rates of murder and traffic-death soaring among Blacks all across America. Leftism claims to defend women and fight rape-culture, even as it opens the borders to uneducated and illiberal rapists from the most misogynist and male-supremacist cultures on earth. But that iron law of leftism will also apply to something that leftists genuinely do care about: their own power and privilege. Leftism is an ideology of lies that is now lying itself to death.

Is the Golden Age for Jews Coming to an End? Some Jews Think so.

A recent article published in The Jerusalem Post by Adam Milstein laments what appears to be the end of the Jewish golden age: “Why the Golden Age for Jews in America is Coming to an End” (10/19/2022).

Milstein attributes this apparent end to an array of factors, such as rising anti-Semitism, a fading memory of the Holocaust, ideological polarization and liberalism, growing support for the Palestinian people, resulting in an increasing number of personal attacks on Jews.

The author is concerned that American Jews are starting to experience the same type of violent attacks that European Jews have been experiencing for the past decade—with no apparent decline in Jewish power in the media and political arena. Nevertheless, Jews are fearful of wearing their kippot in public or anything that might identify them as Jewish.

Milstein also seems to view anti-Zionism as no different than anti-Semitic hatred of Israel, and he blames the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for much of it (presumably by those of “the Squad,” including outspoken Muslims such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib):

The “New Antisemitism,” also known as anti-Zionism or hatred of Israel as an acceptable stand-in for the classical hatred of Jews, initially gained currency in universities and in leftist intellectual circles. It has since metastasized to much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Today, several U.S. congresswomen have claimed that Jewish Americans have dual national loyalties. These elected leaders call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions of Israel with a vehemence they reserve solely for the state of the Jews.

Milstein even blames some of his ethnic brethren who have become “useful idiots” for groups that oppose Israeli State policies:

Meanwhile, many American Jews serve willingly as useful idiots for groups that despise us, divided our community, and weaken our resolve, under the pretext of legitimate critique of the Israeli government policies. [my emphasis]

Milstein apparently thinks that any “legitimate” criticism of Israeli policies is just a pretext or ruse for expressions of anti-Semitism or as a means of weakening Jewish solidarity. Is it any wonder, then, why Jews and the State of Israel are so politically tone-deaf, especially when any legitimate or constructive criticism is immediately denounced as “anti-Semitic”?

The author urges Jews to “not give up,” and adds: “Now is the time to stand up, fight back with all our remaining might and hold antisemites accountable.”

Yet how does Milstein plan to “hold antisemites accountable”? Shall Jews continue to censor and de-platform anyone who says things they don’t like? Shall they continue to wield their monetary power and influence to drive their critics to the unemployment line? The recent Kanye West example once again shows their power to destroy people with ideas they don’t like—truth is irrelevant. Milstein never bothers to offer a serious analysis of Jewish power and how they use it, although I assume they will continue to use the same methods Jews have been using against those who dare to notice for the past century.

Milstein further writes:

We must form alliances with groups that share the same Judeo-Christian values of freedom and democracy, inspire today’s Jewish youth to be proud of their people and the Jewish homeland, and bring Israel back to the center of our Jewish life in the diaspora.

I think what he really means is that Jews need to persist in duping American Christians into thinking that Jews and the State of Israel are their best friends and that it’s totally in the interests of the U.S. to continue bankrolling Israel and supporting it to the hilt diplomatically. It’s somewhat deceptive as well for him to use the expression “Judeo-Christian values” when Jews today are almost always leading the charge against “freedom,” “free speech,” and “Christian values.”

Milstein hopes to inspire Jewish youth “to be proud of their people and the Jewish homeland” — the very thing he probably would never wish for Whites! Jewish ethnic solidarity is permissible for them but frowned upon and seen as “dangerous” whenever Whites do the same. Many Jews are unable see their own hypocrisy on such matters. They argue that Jews are a unique people who wish to preserve their ethnic identity, cultural traditions and religious distinctiveness. But so are the many unique peoples and distinct cultures of Europe and America. Why are only White countries expected to take in the millions of Third-World migrants?

Conservative Jew, Ben Shapiro, is one glaring example of what I write about. He publicly stated on his Twitter account: “And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called ‘browning of America.’ Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does” (June 16, 2017). Yet Shapiro would most certainly care if that same “browning” were occurring in his beloved Israel. He along with most Jews would protest loudly against any “open borders” policy or mass Third-World immigration when it comes to the State of Israel. He’d change his tune in a New York minute and suddenly give a “good damn” about any such “browning.” But not so when it comes to the Whites in America.

Throughout Milstein’s article there is not the slightest hint of any honest introspection. Not once is there any reflection that critics of Jews and Israel might have a point or that non-Jews could possibly have any interests that might conflict with Jewish interests. Milstein, of course, blames some Jews for not being pro-Zionist enough, and rebukes other Jews for siding with the enemies of Israel. He laments that “American Jewish communities are divided, disengaged, and declining in membership.” Yet nothing is said about how a disproportionate number of Jews have worked tirelessly to secularize America for the past 70 years, to promote mass immigration policies that displace White Americans from their own land, and to fund and foster movements that create moral decay within the U.S. (e.g., the civil rights movement, gay rights, feminism, porn industry, Transgender rights, soft-on-crime policies, etc.).

Typical of Jews, Milstein never stops to consider that hostility toward Jews might be the result of the kinds of liberal social engineering powerful Jewish organizations and individuals have engaged in for the past several decades. American Jews have largely used their wealth, power and influence to make America “safe” for themselves, but not for Whites. By means of anti-White propaganda and government racial policies, Jews have managed to turn Blacks and Hispanics against the founding stock of this nation.

Do Jews seriously think that Whites will forever cower and shut their mouths when they are continuously blamed for all the woes of the world? Why do Jews feel it’s a good policy to bite the very hand that feeds them? Did Jews ever stop to think that all those hostile and non-assimilating Muslim migrants they helped to flood Europe with might one day turn on them? Do they really believe their lives will improve when whitey’s gone, and they are left alone to fend off Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Middle Easterners who don’t have an ounce of the racial guilt that Whites carry? Yes, I suppose they could fly to the promised land of Israel and escape the consequences of their own doing. But are most American Jews ready and willing to do this?

The reader’s comments to Milstein’s article are interesting. Many of them concede that their “golden age” has come to end. Some of them continue to express a typical perpetual victimhood mentality while others place the blame on themselves. One example is Joel Pachter who says the end of their golden age is due not to persecution, but to their rejection of Torah, and their support for progressive politics, and virtue signaling:

Indeed, the end of the second Jewish Golden Age has come about. But this time it is not due to pogroms. It is our own hands that have wrought this end. We have willfully replaced Torah with Progressivism as the sine qua non of our faith. Having elevated virtue signaling to the most important commandment, and kicked pride in Judaism to the curb, we have signed our own death warrant. This time, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Kanye West’s recent Tweets about Jews has helped to further open discussion on these matters. To the chagrin of many Jews, his claims and their consequences have only served to prove the very point he was making in his Tweets. He complained about the hugely disproportionate influence and power that Jews have in Hollywood and in corporate media. Though Jewish advocacy groups tried to sway public opinion by describing such notions as “old anti-Semitic canards,” their actions demonstrated the very truth of West’s claims when one corporation after another cut all financial ties from him.

Jews could have sought to refute Kanye’s words rather than censor him. They could have engaged him in a public debate rather than destroy him financially. But this is not who Jews are. They claim, as does Milstein, to support “values of freedom and democracy,” but then turn against such ideas when anything unfavorable is said about them, and their treatment of the Palestinians certainly doesn’t suggest much concern for those values.

Besides, Jews know that to openly challenge the claims of West in a public forum would be self-defeating because Jewish dominance over the media, Hollywood, entertainment corporations, academia, the pharmaceutical industry, print media, and a sizable amount of the federal government could be easily proven. It’s only Jews who go off the reservation that admit what is commonly known and recognized about Jewish power.

So, is the “Golden Age” for Jews in America coming to an end? Perhaps, but as yet there is no sign that Jewish power in the media (witness what happened to Kanye West) and in political culture is waning. But if so, it’s because of persistent Jewish hostility to the White founding stock of this nation.

It’s another historic occasion of Jews overplaying their hand. Their paranoia of nationalism, especially of White racial solidarity, has driven them to the very problems they presumably sought to avoid – namely, anti-Semitism and an increasing number of Americans and Europeans who have recognized a pattern of Jewish cultural subversion. Jews don’t want people to ‘notice,’ but how can they not when Jews react in such a predicable fashion? What has been seen cannot be unseen.

The awakening among a growing number of people concerning Jewish power and subversion is a good sign for White Americans. Granted, we are only at the beginning stages, yet there are reasons to be hopeful that it will culminate in a greater and widespread acceptance of the very things we’ve said for so long. When Jews themselves start to worry that their best days are behind them, it’s a clear indicator that our efforts have not been in vain.