Featured Articles

Comrade Krieger and the Kiev Campaign, Part 2: A Small Victory

We pick up where we left off with Comrade Krieger and his unit making their way south during the Kiev campaign. If you want to follow the hero of our story, you can follow him on his freshly-minted Gab account.

The next day, after the counter-attack that never came, we left the field because it was too exposed. In daylight, the enemy could, in theory, see us, but we wouldn’t be able to see the enemy. We moved into another abandoned village nearby and took up residence in an abandoned home. Most villages are generally in a state of dismal disrepair and half-abandoned even in the best of times. It looked like the damage here was done before the war had even reached the village. We fixed up the chimney and then we repaired the old boiler so that we wouldn’t be cold at night. Next, we broke a hole through to the roof and put a ladder through it to set up a sniper nest and observation post. The immediate necessities out of the way, we began to focus on more pressing matters.

The next order of business was to set up an improvised banya. We stuck some long sticks into the ground and wrapped them in a thick black canvas cloth. Then, we made a make-shift oven with bricks in the center of our teepee banya and lit it up. Soon, we were sweating and relaxing and having a good time. After being exposed to the cold out in the open, our little banya felt a godsend.

By the time I got out, the only available sleeping place was in the commander’s quarters. I set up a hammock as if I was relaxing on a Caribbean island between two palms and began to relax. Because of all the time in the cold, I had developed a cough, and I did my best to stifle it as I began to drift off to sleep. Our сommander was very tired and I felt bad that I would be keeping him up if I kept coughing. Neither he nor I got to relax for long though.

I drifted off, but came to as new orders were issued to me to rouse the unit. The enemy had been spotted nearby. I stumbled off to rouse the sleeping soldiers in the make-shift barracks. This was proving to be an impossible task and I was struggling to get them up from their slumber. But then a whistle sounded and the explosion from a mortar rocked the village, causing the windows shaking.

That got them up quick. Even the two that I had tried to wake up with my feet suddenly jumped up, no longer as keen on sleeping. More explosions sounded and I ran up to the roof to get my sniper rifle, which I had left there. Once again, I took off my helmet to peer through the scope. I scanned the fields and woods, but couldn’t find anything. It was darker than dark in the fields and woods that surrounded the village. I could barely see my own hand out in front of me.

I ducked down after I heard a return salvo from our mortars right next to my position.

Dawn was close, but the glow that began to rise up was from nearby fires and not the sun. My commanding officer came up to check on me in my nest, and he had something quite interesting to tell me.

“There’s a 1000-strong company that is moving in to attack our positions!” He said.

I found that I was excited. “Sounds like fun,” I called back to him.

Soon after, mortar shells began to fall around us, and our return fire continued.

Despite the darkness, I saw and felt shrapnel hissing through the air above me like bats, kicked up by the explosion. Then some more news came down the line to me. I was well and truly expecting a colossal pitched battle to start any moment now.

But it turns out that we had misunderstood the intelligence passed onto us. There wasn’t a 1000-strong unit attacking our position. It was a unit with a name that sounded like one thousand…

[NOTE: The word for 1000 is “tisiach” and the name of the unit that they were engaged with was the “tisatski”. It was a miscommunication.]

I realized that I was relieved and I shared a laugh with the others when we heard the news. Morning came eventually, and by 8 am we heard no more shooting in our direction. We finally got some much-needed sleep. The way we figured it, we had held our positions and just won our first small victory.

The patrol we sent out into the nearby town gave us the all-clear soon after.

I should mention that we had a german shepherd with us this whole time. Why did we have this dog, you ask? To this day, I can’t tell you. Apparently, we’re just supposed to have a dog with us according to unit regulations. Anyways, I was assigned to dog-walking duty the next day. So, leash in hand, we went out for a stroll around the town as part of a patrol. This dog, for some reason, simply didn’t listen to me. I immediately regretted letting it off the leash and tried in vain to chase after it and call it to come back.

All of a sudden a huge boom, louder than any I had heard so far, sounded out. In panic, I called out to the dog and this time it listened and came running straight back to me for once. The boom came from nearby, and we rushed back to camp to learn that an airplane had dropped a bomb not too far from our positions. I am unsure whose plane it was.

Other than that, it was quiet for a bit and our soldiers got restless eventually and would go out on patrols around the town from time to time just because they were bored. I never took my helmet when it was my turn for a stroll because it hurt my head. Whenever we passed by a shop, we found that it was always already thoroughly looted. First, by the locals, then by the Ukrainian Army, and then by the Chechens as we understood it.

After one patrol, we were headed back to our camp when a UAZ Patriot civilian car pulled up in front of us. In the driver’s seat was an extremely irate driver. We gripped our weapons and began to spread out, unsure of what to do. But then an officer from the forward headquarters of our sector stepped out of the passenger side. He was apparently driving around and speaking to all the individual commanders in the area. He came up to us demanding to know what unit we belonged to. When we took him to our commander, the superior officer chewed out our commander for allowing us to go out patrolling without our helmets. We stood there in silence for a bit, and we were well and truly ashamed of ourselves. When our commander came out to speak to us again, he told us that we had gotten him in trouble and, truth be told, we all didn’t know what to say so we just mumbled our apologies. He was a good commander, and we didn’t want him getting into trouble for our sake.

“If you’re going to walk around without your helmets, don’t get caught,” he told us.

Soon after, it was time to move south into a larger town on the outskirts of Kiev about 37km from the city proper.

I was shocked by the state of destruction that I saw as we rolled in. The Khrushevki and smaller residential houses and the larger 10-story buildings were in ruins.

We camped out in the local shopping mall near the center. We made a sweep of the facility and found that several of the shops were burnt out. All of them were trashed. Looters, probably.

Our rations were long-gone at this point so we went out on a patrol to look for a grocery store. Next to the shopping center, we found one. The scene that I saw in front of it stuck with me for some reason. There was a truck with an open door and supplies in it with three soldiers from my unit standing guard around it. Next to them was a Ukrainian soldier’s corpse and a cat that had begun to nibble at his face. We found some tasty treats in the truck along with some crates of Promidol — a synthetic pain-killer similar to Tramadol. Luckily, I never had to use any of that awful stuff.

Nearby, we found the storage shed for the grocery store that the truck was bound for. Inside, we found some Turkish Delights, which we immediately began to feast on, along with some other tasty treats. There were also entire crates full of alcohol in the shed, but our commanding officer quickly found out about it and forbade us from touching it.

We were then given orders to set up a sniper nest on top of the abandoned shopping center that we had made our temporary home.

Some PMCs (Private Military Companies) that were in the area joined us and we went up the stairs of the shopping center looking for the roof exit. We found a locked gate and one of the PMC guys asked to use my sniper rifle to blow the lock off the door leading to the roof. The ricochet was potentially lethal, so we took cover while he did his work.

We quickly realized that we weren’t the first ones to have been on the roof. There were fortifications and other signs of a hastily-organized defense. The defenders had even locked the roof as they retreated. We set about blowing the signal cables that were on the roof and the wiring that connected them to the other buildings. We didn’t want our signals to be monitored by the enemy.

Back during the Georgia campaign of 2008, electronic surveillance equipment was used by the Georgians, who were given American equipment that allowed them to perform pin-point strikes against our soldiers. Only after our soldiers got rid of their phones did the missiles stop falling on their positions. In Donbass, without secure communications, many militia men had to rely on regular phones to stay in touch with other units. The same thing happened to them as well until they ditched their phones.

We began fortifying our position on the roof, and I felt that I was finally being put to use as a proper sniper. Once the PMCs helped us set up and pointed out where trouble could be expected to come from, they left and we didn’t see them again. I never found out what unit they were from.

At that point, it was becoming quite clear that the weather was turning for the worse. Already thoroughly chilled, I decided to go down to see if I could find some more warm clothes. I was sure the night would only be worse. I ended up passing by the shed of the grocery store and I decided that I had to get two bottles of vodka, just in case. It was a good thing that I did. We began to freeze on the roof as we continued with our two hour on-and-off shifts. Of course, it takes 10 minutes to actually wake someone up and then another 10 before they’re ready to take up their positions, but that’s just how these things go.

It was becoming harder and harder to maintain the watch from the roof. My arms were shaking from the cold and fatigue at that point. To make matters worse, as the night dragged on, it began to snow. Visibility dropped, but even if it hadn’t, I’m not sure that I could have noticed much in the state that I was in. By about 4 am, even with the vodka and the warmer clothes, we simply had to abandon our watch positions for a few hours. To make matters worse, we were all quite thirsty, but our water had frozen solid. We couldn’t light any fires at night, so we simply had to wait it out.

Morning finally came and we took our knives out to pry the ice out of the bottles that it had frozen in. Our little gas fires popped to life and began to melt it down. Soon, we successfully brewed some tea and gulped it down gratefully while gazing over the ruins of the town, happy for the liquid warmth.

It was a small victory.

Degas and the Jews

Edgar Degas: Self Portrait 1865-66

It is customary in our political circles to link cultural modernism (and its negative social consequences) to Jewish influence. While there are strong grounds for this stance, things are sometimes more complicated than this narrative would suggest. Take, for instance, the group of painters who made up the French Impressionist movement of the late nineteenth century. Considered to be the first avant-garde movement of the Modernist period, Impressionism served as a springboard for many artistic movements of the twentieth century, including Symbolism, Fauvism, and Cubism. Yet among the leaders of the Impressionist movement were artists, like Cezanne, Renoir and Degas, who were notable for their antipathy to Jews.

Of this trio of leading Impressionists, the one who evinced the keenest aversion to Jews was Edgar Degas (1834—1917) who was described by Jewish artist Camille Pissarro as “that ferocious anti-Semite.” Though Degas is regarded as one of the cornerstone founders of Impressionism, he disliked the name and, indeed, many of the artists who made up the movement. He thought of himself as a realist and “pragmatist” painter first and foremost. But this did not stop him from leading the collective and co-organizing their ground-breaking exhibitions from 1874—86.

The label “impressionist’ was coined by a critic who said their paintings looked unfinished, as if they were “impressions” of a scene rather than finished paintings. While many of Degas’ paintings do look spontaneous, they involved intensive planning. He would study his subjects obsessively, making numerous sketches before starting a painting. He once observed: “I assure you no art was ever less spontaneous than mine. What I do is the result of reflection and the study of the great masters.” He seldom considered a painting complete, always striving to improve it. Degas combined the classical methods he mastered as a youth with Impressionistic sensibilities: he liked to experiment with light, angles, and focus. Sometimes subjects would have their backs to the viewer or be cut off by the edge of the canvas. He would paint them doing mundane things like ironing clothes.

Unlike other leading impressionist artists, Degas shunned landscape painting — the result of personal preference and the visual ailments that plagued him from middle age. Retinal problems led to his having trouble recognizing colors and made it hard for him to see in brilliant light. He therefore appreciated the low light of the theater and developed a strong preference for working there. From the 1870s, Degas explored the subject of dance which accounts for a large portion of his work. He is most famous for his paintings of ballerinas at work, in rehearsal, or at rest. He depicted them from various angles in hundreds of different positions. His failing vision doubtless affected his work, prompting more extensive strokes, bolder colors, and experimentation in a wide assortment of media, including pastels, photography, and printmaking. In his last years, Degas had to wear dark glasses outdoors and quit working altogether in 1912. He died in 1917 at the age of 83.

Despite Degas’s reputation as a reactionary bourgeois, for most of his long life he was a democrat and a republican. Degas mostly kept his politics — and his opinions about Jews — out of his art. Despite this, some critics insist that anti-Semitism “pollutes his pictures, seeping in to them in some ineffable way and changing their meaning, their every existence as signifying systems.” Jewish subjects appear recurrently in Degas’ canvases. Particularly noteworthy is his 1871 oil portrait of Rabbi Astruc, a leading figure in the Jewish world who helped establish the Alliance Israelite Universelle before his appointment as chief rabbi of Belgium in 1866. Regarding Degas’ portrait of Astruc, the Rabbi’s son never forgave the artist for “making a wreck of his splendid subject, replacing his tiny mouth with thin, sensual lips and changing his tender, loving regard into a look of greed.” For him, the portrait was “not a work of art — it is a pogrom.”[i] Degas painted Astruc rapidly, accentuating in his subject what “he though were the traits of his race.” Degas was intrigued by physiognomy: the act of judging individuals from their appearance. Some critics contend that this interest is manifest in Degas’ allegedly unflattering depiction of his Jewish subjects.

Portrait or pogrom? Portrait of Rabbi Astruc (left) by Edgar Degas (1871)

Degas also depicted Jews in a series of paintings of Parisian brothels and their customers. These brothel scenes include clients whose facial features are recognisably Jewish. Callen argues that, in doing so, and by implicitly constituting Jews as a “racially impure ‘other,’” Degas was attempting to absolve himself and his audience of any potential charge of voyeurism.[ii]

L’Absinthe (The Absinthe Drinker) (1876) by Edgar Degas

Degas’ most famous painting, L’Absinthe (The Absinthe Drinker) from 1876, is considered a masterful representation of social isolation in Paris during a period of rapid industrial growth. This painting was censured as ugly and disgusting and shut away from viewers for a long time until it was introduced again in 1892. Numerous French nationalists (on the left and right) ascribed the immorality and degeneration of French social life encapsulated in this painting to Jewish influence. Jews were seen as “agents of social change; they were symbols of confusion and alteration. Against them, to be safe from the threat they posed, anti-Semites affirmed and invoked a stable social order, stable moral values, immutable and absolute categories.”[iii]

Widely cited by those eager to prove Degas’ anti-Semitic bona fides is his 1879 painting At the Bourse. It depicts the Jewish banker, speculator, and patron of the arts, Ernest May, on the steps of the stock exchange in the company of a certain Monsieur Bolatre.

At the Bourse by Edgar Degas (1879)

Regarding this painting, Brown insists “there is a nasty, if subtle, suggestion of anti-Semitism in the depiction of May’s physiognomic traits,”[iv] while for Armstrong, Degas’ “dark slovenly depiction of moneylenders might certainly be inflected with anti-Semitic racism.”[v] Jewish art critic Linda Nochlin claims this painting depicts Jewishness in an “unflattering, if relatively subtle way,” and “draws from the same polluted source of available visual stereotypes.”

It is not so much May’s Semitic features, but rather the gesture that I find disturbing — what might be called the “confidential touching” — that and the rather strange, close-up angle of vision from which the artist chose to record it, as though to suggest that the spectator is spying on rather than merely looking at the transaction taking place. … What is “revealed” here, perhaps unconsciously, through May’s gesture, as well as the unseemly, inelegant closeness of the two central figures and the demeanor of the vaguely adumbrated cast of characters, like the odd couple, one with a “Semitic nose,” pressed as tightly as lovers into the narrow space at the left-hand margin of the picture, is a whole mythology of Jewish financial conspiracy.

That gesture — the half-hidden head tilted to afford greater intimacy, the plump white hand on the slightly raised shoulder, the stiff turn of May’s head, the somewhat emphasized ear picking up the tip — all this, in the context of the half-precise, half-merely adumbrated background, suggests “insider” information to which “they,” are privy, from which “we,” the spectators (understood to be gentile) are excluded. This is, in effect, the representation of a conspiracy. It is not too farfetched to think of the traditional gesture of Judas betraying Christ in this connection, except that here, both figures function to signify Judas; Christ, of course, is the French public, betrayed by Jewish financial machinations.[vi]

This kind of speculative analysis of Degas’ work to establish his anti-Semitism is ultimately superfluous given the artist’s catalogue of statements critical of Jews. Toward the end of his life, Degas, for instance, declared without equivocation: “I detest them, those Jews! An abominable race that ought to be shut up in ghettos. Or even totally eradicated!” Ostensibly unable to conceive of the existence of rational and valid criticisms of Jews, Nochlin insists that “although Degas was indeed an extraordinary artist, a brilliant innovator, and one of the most important figures in the artistic vanguard of the 19th century, he was a perfectly ordinary anti-Semite. As such, he must have been capable of amazing feats of both irrationality and rationalization, able to keep different parts of his inner and outer life in separate compartments.”[vii]

Nochlin draws on the (now venerable) Jewish apologetic trope of characterizing anti-Jewish sentiment as akin to a virus. The fact that Degas, “stubbornly nationalistic, and blinded by fanaticism,” produced ‘At the Bourse’ while still friends with the Jewish author and playwright Ludovic Halévy, suggests, she claims, that this “virus was in a state of extreme latency, visible only in the nuances of a few works of art and intermittently at that. Or perhaps one might say that before the period of the Dreyfus affair, Degas … was anti-Jewish only in terms of a certain representation of the Jew or of particular ‘Jewish traits,’ but his attitude did not yet manifest itself in overt hostility toward actual Jewish people, nor did it yet take the form of a coherent ideology of anti-Semitism.”[viii]

It was the Dreyfus Affair and the writings of Eduard Drumont that supposedly crystalized Degas’ nascent anti-Semitism into a fully delineated ideology. Through such influences, the “virus” of anti-Semitism “mutated” in the 1880s and 1890s from “stereotyped prejudices diffused all over Europe” into an organized movement and ideology (accompanied by the emergence of anti-Semitic literature, leagues and groups). By 1895 the artist was, “in addition to being a violent nationalist and uncritical supporter of the army, an outspoken anti-Semite.”[ix] According to some accounts, he had his maid read aloud from Drumont’s La Libre Parole and Rochefort’s L’Intransigeant. It was these publications that, according to Kleeblatt, “constructed the anti-Semitic identity of men like Degas.”[x]

Despite the conclusion to the Dreyfus affair, there are no signs, according to a biographer, “that he ever thought he had taken the wrong side in the great clash of the two Frances.”[xi] Chrisci-Richardson ascribes his anti-Semitism to his economic vulnerability — as an “inexcusable symptom of his life-long struggle for money and his uncertain social position.”[xii] Born into a well-off family, Degas suddenly experienced financial difficulties in 1874 with the death of his father and the closure of his brother’s business. He was forced to sell his home and started living with the subjects he was painting, offering his paintings as payment. According to Nochlin:

There was a specific aspect of Degas’ situation in the world that might have made him particularly susceptible to the anti-Semitic ideology of his time: what might be called his “status anxiety.” According to Stephen Wilson: “The French anti-Semites’ attacks on social mobility, and their ideal of a fixed social hierarchy, suggest that such an interpretation applies to them, particularly when these ideological features are set beside the marginal situation of many of the movement’s supporters.” Degas was precisely such a “marginal” figure in the social world of the late 19th century and had ample reason, by the decade of the ’90s, to be worried about his status.[xiii]

Degas was adversely affected by the crash of the Union Générale Bank in 1882. This event was widely interpreted as “the result of deliberate action against the Catholic finance house by its Jewish rivals, led by Rothschild.” The crash of the Bank was only one of the financial and business scandals attributed to Jews in France. Others included to Panama scandal (1892), and the failures of Comptoir des Metaux and the Comptoir d’Escomptes. In the aftermath of these scandals, Jewish financiers like the Halevys, the Hasses, the Schlumbergers, the Camondos, the Ephrussis and the Rothschilds, were “viewed with suspicion and thought to be working for the ruin of France.”[xiv]

For Chrisci-Richardson, as well as being a response to “Jewish capitalists monopolizing the wealth of France” and “Jewish workers taking the jobs from French workers,” Degas’ anti-Jewish outlook was also a response to his vision of Jewish immigrants as “carriers of revolution.”[xv] By the 1880s various Jewish revolutionaries had established themselves in Paris, forming revolutionary circles, whether anarchist, anarcho-communist, or, later Bolshevik. Thousands of politically-radical Jews migrated to France, particularly to Paris, between 1880 and 1925. At the time of the Dreyfus trial, 40,000 of the 75,000 Jews in France were concentrated in Paris.

Fellow impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir also denounced Jews as vectors of political radicalism. According to Nochlin, Renoir was “openly anti-Semitic, a position obviously linked to his deep political conservatism and fear of anarchism.”[xvi] Capps laments that Renoir was an artist “who appeared to embrace the methods of early modernism but none of its revolutionary goals.”[xvii] Renoir maintained there was a good reason for Jews having been repeatedly expelled from countries throughout history, and warned “they shouldn’t be allowed to become so important in France.” He observed that “the peculiarity of the Jews is to cause disintegration.”[xviii]

In her diaries, Renoir’s daughter Julie regularly records her father expressing a variety of anti-Jewish views. In January 1898, during a discussion of the Dreyfus Affair, she quotes Renoir as saying. “[The Jews] come to France to earn money, but if there is any fighting to be done they hide behind a tree. … There are a lot of them in the army, because the Jew likes to walk about wearing a uniform.” Renoir also “let fly on the subject of Pissarro, ‘a Jew,’ whose sons are natives of no country and who do their military service nowhere.” Renoir goes on, “It’s tenacious[,] the Jewish race. Pissarro’s wife isn’t one, yet all the children are, even more so than their father.”[xix]

Renoir’s famous 1880–81 painting Luncheon of the Boating Party, features more than a dozen figures and a dog. One of these figures, a man wearing a hat with his back turned to the viewer, is Charles Ephrussi, a Jewish art critic and collector. From a wealthy Jewish banking family, Ephrussi, the stereotype of the wealthy Jewish banker exemplified by the Rothschilds, played a key role in Renoir’s career. Ephrussi rubbed elbows with the Parisian elite and was an unrelenting networker and social climber. The writer Edmond de Goncourt once observed that “Ephrussi the Jew went to six or seven parties a night, so that he could climb to a position in the Ministry of Fine Arts.”[xx]

Luncheon of the Boating Party (1880–81) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Ephrussi helped Renoir find buyers in the French Jewish community — where he gained popularity as a portraitist. Degas was particularly disappointed with what he saw as Renoir’s transformation into a Jewish-society portraitist. In 1880, he wrote: “Monsieur Renoir, you have no integrity. It is unacceptable that you paint to order. I gather you now work for financiers, that you do the rounds with Charles Ephrussi.” Shortly after Degas’ missive, Renoir ended his activity as a society portraitist. Aside from Degas’ chastisement, Renoir became exasperated with his Jewish patrons — especially the Cahen d’Anvers family. Writing to a fellow artist, he protested: “As for the 1,500 francs from Cahens, I must tell you that I find it hard to swallow. The family is so stingy; I am washing my hands of the Jews.” Over the following year, Renoir penned a succession of letters expressing his disdain for Jewish patrons, and severed all ties with the Ephrussi patronage circle. Melanson notes that:

As he renounced his Jewish patrons, and his anti-Semitic remarks became more frequent, Renoir’s wrath was directed at the artist most commonly associated with Jewish high society. [Léon] Bonnat painted almost every member of the salons juifs, including Albert and Louilia Cahen d’Anvers, Charles Ephrussi, Marie and Edouard Kann, Louise Cahen d’Anvers, Mme Leopold Stern, Mme Bischoffsheim, Countess Potocka, Joseph Reinach, Abraham de Camondo, and Henri Cernuschi. Like many society portraitists, Bonnat and his wife became members of high society, particularly the world of the salons juifs.

In the twentieth century, Jacques-Emile Blanche recalled the affinity of “wealthy Jewish financiers” for Bonnat. Blanche was correct in asserting that it was Bonnat, and not Renoir, who was truly the portraitist of Jewish high society. Blanche explained that Renoir’s Jewish patrons were “not at all convinced of [Renoir’s] talent” but were promised by Ephrussi “enormous returns on the sale of Impressionist pictures.” Accusing Jewish art patrons of speculation was a common trope of anti-Semitic discourse, and Blanche’s tone was demeaning when he described Ephrussi’s circle as “rather proud of their audacity” in commissioning portraits from Renoir that ultimately “ended up in the laundry room or were given away to former governesses.”[xxi]

Despite their anti-Jewish views, Jewish patrons and art dealers avidly bought up the work of Degas and Renoir. While Jewish artists of the first rank were few and far between (Pissarro perhaps excepted), Jews still dominated the art scene in Paris in the late nineteenth century as publishers, collector-patrons and dealers. They were, moreover, absolutely committed to the modernist movement, even to the point of making excuses for artists who, like Degas, Renoir and Cezanne, were anti-Dreyfusards and even openly anti-Semitic. Laufer notes that:

At the end of the long nineteenth century, the [non-Jewish owned] Parisian press often described French Jews as greedy, cosmopolitan, materialistic traitors — and avid collectors of modern art. While several of these characterisations are mere anti-Semitic stereotypes, French Jews did make up a disproportionately large number of the supporters of modern artists (particularly of the Impressionists and the Symbolists).[xxii]

In his exposition of the political significance of the widespread Jewish involvement in cultural modernism, the Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that: “Something more profound and structural was involved in the Jewish role in the modernist revolution than this sociological phenomenon of the supersession of marginality. There was an ideological drive at work.”[xxiii] This ideological drive was the urge to subject Western civilization (deemed a “soft authoritarianism” hostile to Jews) to intensive criticism. The late Jewish artist R.B. Kitaj concurred with this assessment, equating anti-Semitism with anti-modernism. “Jewish brilliance”, he said, “made the modern world.” Jews were agents of change, architects of human unease.[xxiv]

Degas’ status as a Modernist master therefore sits incongruously, for today’s establishment critics, alongside his political conservatism and anti-Semitism. For Brody, the problem of Degas’ legacy “isn’t a matter of anti-Semitism or bigotry per se, but of a bilious repudiation of the world as it runs, or, in a word, modernity.” Echoing Jewish responses to Richard Wagner, critics have, in recent decades, confronted the “problem” of Degas’ legacy by character assassination — recent articles about the artist abound with epithets like “cruel,” “misanthropic,” “misogynist,” and “embittered man as well as a bigot.” Criticism inevitably centers on his adherence to a “virulent belief system” which, it is argued, is unredeemed by the sublimity of his art.

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

[i] Gabriel Astruc, La pavillon des fantomes: souvenirs (Paris, D. Grasset, 1929), 98.

[ii] Anthea Callen quoted in: Washton-Long, Baigel & Heyd (Eds.) Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation, (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2010), 166.

[iii] Roberta Crisci-Richardson, Mapping Degas: Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces and Invented Spaces in the Life and Work of Edgar Degas (1834-1917) (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015), 31.

[iv] Marilyn R. Brown, Degas and the Business of Art (University Park: Penn State Press, 1994), 130.

[v] Carol M. Armstrong, Odd Man Out: Readings of the Work and Reputation of Edgar Degas (Getty Research Institute, 2003), 282.

[vi] Linda Nochlin in: Maurice Berger (Ed.) Modern Art And Society: An Anthology Of Social And Multicultural Readings (New York: Basic Books, 1994), 30.

[vii] Linda Nochlin, “Degas and the Dreyfus Affair: A portrait of the artist as anti-Semite,” Tablet, January 4, 2019. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/degas-and-the-dreyfus-affair

[viii] Nochlin, Modern Art and Society, 35.

[ix] Linda Nochlin, The Politics of Vision: Essays on Nineteenth Century Art and Society (Taylor & Francis, 2018),

[x] Norman Kleeblatt, “The Dreyfus Affair: Art Truth and Justice,” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry Volume 5: New Research, New Views (United Kingdom: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2008) 425.

[xi] Roy McMullen, Degas: his life, times, and work (London: Secker & Warburg, 1985), 444.

[xii] Roberta Chrisci-Richardson, Mapping Degas: Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces and Invented Spaces in the Life and Work of Edgar Degas (1834-1917) (United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015), 12.

[xiii] Nochlin, Modern Art and Society, 39.

[xiv] Stephen Wilson, Ideology and Experience: Anti-Semitism in France at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair (United Kingdom: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982), 170.

[xv] Chrisci-Richardson, Mapping Degas, 297.

[xvi] Nochlin, Modern Art and Society, 25.

[xvii] Kristin Capps, “Why Absolutely Everyone Hates Renoir,” The Atlantic, October 15, 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/why-everyone-hates-renoir/410335/

[xviii] Manet, Julie, Growing up with the Impressionists: the diary of Julie Manet (London: Sotheby’s Publications, 1987), 129.

[xix] Ibid., 124.

[xx] Menachem Wecker, “Was Renoir Anti-Semitic?,” National Review, November 18, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/renoir-and-friends-exhibit-phillips-collection-was-renoir-anti-semitic/

[xxi] Elizabeth Melanson, “The Influence of Jewish Patrons on Renoir’s Stylistic Transformation in the Mid-1880s,” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide, Vol. 12(2), 2013.


[xxii] Mia Laufer, Jewish Taste: Modern Art Collecting, Identity, and Antisemitism in Paris, 1870-1914 (St Louis: Washington University Open Scholarship Institutional Repository, 2019), Abstract. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/1814/

[xxiii] Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews (New York, HarperCollins, 1994), 303.

15 Norman Lebrecht, Why Mahler? How One Man and Ten Symphonies Changed the World (London: Faber and Faber, 2010), 155-6.

The Great Russian Restoration X: A Purge in the Russian Orthodox Church

The Russian Orthodox Church has been affected by recent events as much as the rest of Russian society has. Now, more than ever, the Church is being asked to support the government and this has had ripple effects on church politics. The biggest story is the unceremonious demotion of Metropolitan Hilarion. Once the Russian Orthodox Church’s ambassador to the West and Ecumenist-in-Chief, Metropolitan Hilarion has now been stripped of his official positions. This is almost certainly because he refused to support the special operation in Ukraine. While we don’t have conclusive proof of this yet, we can piece together the story by looking at recent events in context and then puzzle out the implications that this will have for the Russian Orthodox Church going forward.

The Hilarion Controversy 

Metropolitan Hilarion is an outspoken and liberal-minded priest who formerly occupied very high positions in the Church hierarchy.

When he was a much younger man, he was a vocal anti-Soviet activist clergy member. There is an interesting 2020 interview of Hilarion where he shared highlights from his career in the faith. An interesting episode that he brought up was the time he spent serving in Vilnius. He, apparently, personally went on TV to call on the Soviet soldiers to disobey their order to put down the independence protesters in Lithuania. The protestors had decided to seize the TV stations as part of their coup and the Soviet troops stationed at these communication hubs had been given orders to defend them, with deadly force if necessary. Hilarion publicly called on them to stand aside and let the protestors seize the towers and thereby prevent blood being spilt. When asked about this rather interesting display of loyalties in his youth, Hilarion justified his actions by stating that the protestors were anti-Soviet and not anti-Russian and that he was always loyal to Russia, just not the Soviet Union.

In more recent times, Hilarion has vocally come out against Russians’ right to own firearms by claiming that no Christian can use deadly force to defend their lives. I do not know whether or not this is theologically correct, but I find that theology often has very little to do with official Church positions on various social issues. But, the most questionable public position that Metropolitan Hilarion took was when he came out vocally against anti-vaxxers. You may have heard of this:

Now, one individual priest is entitled to his opinions, but Metropolitan Hilarion was serving as the Church’s official PR spokesman at the time. So, when speaking to the press, the question was always whether or not the position being expressed was the Church’s or just Hilarion’s personal opinion. The PR guy is a very important position in the Church and one that was formerly occupied by the current patriarch Kirill. Hilarion and Kirill were always considered to be close and there were persistent rumors that Hilarion would eventually become the new face of the Church. With all that context out of the way, it should become clearer why people kept such a close eye on Hilarion and his various activities. Hilarion was far more important within the Church than, say, the hapless and irrelevant Press Secretary Dimitri Peskov is in the Kremlin hierarchy.

Anyway, Hilarion declared that people who refused to get vaxxed were sinners, or rather, his specific words were, that if someone refused to get vaxxed, and then got someone sick because of that decision, that it would be a sin on the part of the anti-vaxxer. Hilarion also encouraged his congregation to get vaxxed and to not entertain any conspiracy theories about COVID. Knowing what we know about the WEF agenda and the ever-shifting narrative around COVID, it’s hard not to look at Hilarion with suspicion after he so blatantly laid his cards out on the table in favor of Corona-mania.

Finally, Metropolitan Hilarion was constantly being accused of working to promote ecumenism i.e., the merger between the various Christian churches and the project to create a one-world religion. He would often go abroad, most often the Vatican, and talk about the common values of Orthodoxy and other Christian denominations and even other religions. While the Orthodox Church officially cannot even entertain a passing interest in Ecumenism, as it would be an unthinkable, un-canonical and deeply unpopular position to take, the Catholic Church does not seem to be bound by such constraints. Many Catholic websites, including the official Vatican one have an “Ecumenism” page, tab or category where they share stories about meetings with other religious leaders and their progress in promoting interfaith dialogue. During these meetings, they outline points of congruence that Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and the most powerful religion of our time, Liberalism, have in common. If the goal is to create a one world religion to go along with the one world government, as many believe it is, then the final product would resemble the Noahide Laws. After all, if we are to approach the question logically, and ask what both Christianity, Islam and Judaism have in common, the answer would have to be the Old Testament. But that’s a topic for another time.

Now, the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church to the ecumenist, one-world religion project is complicated. The Russian Orthodox Church was allowed to join the World Council of Churches, the premiere ecumenism-promoting organization, by the Soviet authorities. The WCC was reliably left-wing and there was an interest on the part of the Soviets in using it to promote their interests. This story is difficult to summarize and explain, as it has to do with various spook agendas and scheming on the part of everyone involved in the project. But, recently, the WCC threatened to expel the Russian Orthodox Church from its organization because of the operation in Ukraine. This is welcome news. It is unclear why the Russian Orthodox Church is still involved with the organization; for one thing, it leads to conspiracy-minded people asking uncomfortable questions.

In summary: Metropolitan Hilarion’s pro-protester, anti-gun, pro-vax and pro-ecumenist views put him squarely in the Liberal wing of the Russian Orthodox Church. But he has now been stripped of his positions and sent to Hungary, where he won’t be able to cause any trouble in Russia, which is welcome news indeed.

The Ukrainian Church Crisis in Orthodoxy 

The Orthodox world is in turmoil over Ukraine. But, to understand what is going on, some more background on Church tradition is necessary.

The Church is divided along canonical territories in most of the territories of the Soviet Union, or, if you prefer, the Russian Empire before it. These demarcations are not built around national boundaries, but they approximate them. There has always been a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church that historically fell under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church. They were granted semi-autonomy following the collapse of the USSR, but still remained part of the overarching Russian structure. In other words, the two Churches remained in communion and that meant that one could take part in the services of both interchangeably at no mortal risk to one’s soul.

As a result of the war, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church hierarchy has decided to break with the Russian Orthodox Church and has declared autonomy. Autonomy is a complicated topic. For example, there is a Russian Orthodox canonical territory in North America, but the Russian Church granted them autonomy a long time ago. In Ukraine, the situation is more complicated because there were already several major splits within the Church leading up to this moment. According to the rules of Russian Orthodoxy, autonomy can be granted, as was the case with North America, but it cannot be declared on the part of the secessionists. The Russian Orthodox Church has not called this an official split as of yet, because it’s considered a grave sin for the Ukrainians to act as they have, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has, essentially, condemned the souls of the people under it. Also, on account of the current crisis in Ukraine, allowance is being made to Metropolitan Onufriy considering that there might be SBU agents breaking priests’ thumbs and forcing the split.

Metropolitan Onufriy, however, is an interesting personality. There are people in his congregation in Ukraine who consider him a living saint. This is a problem because Russian Orthodoxy generally frowns on the concept of living saints. This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, or at least this used to be one of the main points of contention between the East and the West centuries ago. The case of St. Francis of Assisi is a good example. The Orthodox Church considers him to be a fake saint because he acted like a rock star during his day and basically overdid his whole act. Naturally, the Catholics beg to disagree. But even extremely popular and influential Orthodox monks and priests like Father Seraphim (the American) who basically introduced America to Russian Orthodoxy with his popular books have to spend decades in clerical purgatory before the Church decides whether or not to grant them saint status.

Following the news from Ukraine, there was a gathering of higher-ups in the Church who demanded that Metropolitan Onufriy and his Church be declared schismatics and therefore no longer saved by the light of the canonical Church. Although, even here, there is some nuance. Officially, in the end, God decides who goes to Heaven or not, not the Church. So, basically, there is some wiggle room, but not much and being considered a schismatic is a big deal in the Orthodox world.

After the aforementioned council in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church decided to go its own way, and at the meeting gathered by the Russian Orthodox Church to discuss the situation, Metropolitan Hilarion decided to defend Metropolitan Onufriy. In other words, he claimed that Onufriy and his people weren’t schismatics and he counter-signaled the position of other bishops who stated that Onufriy and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were as good as damned. This may have been the final strike against Hilarion.

Church Politicking in the Orthodox World

Here, we should say a few words about the other schismatics in Ukraine. Before the very recent split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there was already a splinter organization that calls themselves the Orthodox Ukrainian Church (the order of the words is reversed) and they are led by Filaret Denisenko.

Back in the 90s, Denisenko wanted to become the Patriarch in Moscow, but he lost his bid for power to the now reigning Patriarch. After that, he decided to go his own way and created his own autonomous Church. He was supported in this endeavor by the Ukrainian government, and the West, naturally. He and his church were always considered schismatics by the Russian Orthodox Church.

But the situation is even more complicated by the existence of yet another key player in the world of Orthodoxy.

Enter Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, an ambitious man, and a priest who clearly wants to become the Pope of Orthodoxy:

The Constantinople Church claims that it is the first among equals among the Churches because of historical reasons. Bartholomew supported Denisenko and his schismatics back in the day. But, more recently, in 2018, he officially granted autonomy (autocephaly) to the Orthodox Ukrainian Church and this led to a final, formal split between Moscow and Constantinople. In other words, the faithful are no longer allowed to take communion in each other’s Churches — it is considered a grave sin. Bartholomew believes that the Constantinople Church has the right to grant autonomy to other Churches and this was his justification for acting as he did. However, he also refuses to recognize the separateness of the Greek Orthodox Church.

In other words, he pursues his own politics and acts as he sees fit in his own interests and the interest of his Church. Another example: in Macedonia, there used to be a Serbian Orthodox Church that was the official canonical church in the region. But then, a split occurred in the aftermath of Yugoslavia — a move that was supported by the Macedonian government, of course. After negotiations, the Macedonians agreed to rejoin the Serbian Orthodox Church with the understanding that they would then be granted autonomy, making the split canonical. Bartholomew, claiming the exclusive right to grant autonomy, encouraged them to declare themselves autonomous without the blessing of the Serbian Church. In this instance, he failed to cause an even deeper split between the two Churches.

More than any other Patriarch, Bartholomew is very enthusiastic about the ecumenical effort and always rushes to support The Current Thing™. Nowadays, he supports mass migration into Europe, the Kiev government and the Green Agenda, which earns him fawning praise from the world press.

The Agenda of the Russian Orthodox Church 

In the 90s, the Church was concerned with returning its stolen property from the government. It was only under Putin that the Church started receiving support from the government. Most recently, the famous St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg was returned to the Church. It used to be a museum and large revenue generator for the city, and so the decision was protested. But the problem of property restitution has largely been solved in Russia at this point and the situation for the Church has stabilized.

Within Russia, there are schismatic Orthodox movements, but they do not have an organized structure. Mostly, it’s individual priests who have pulled away from the canonical Church for one reason or another and taken their congregations with them. Russia’s Old Believers, who refused to go along with the Nikonian reforms back in the 17th century, were partially brought back into the fold in the 90s. They struck a deal whereby they could keep their traditional pre-Nikonian rites in exchange for recognizing the official Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy. These Old Believers are called Единаверы (United Faith). Solzhenitsyn praised them and supported their recognition and reintegration into the Church, critiquing the original genocide and persecution that was unleashed on them by Church authorities centuries ago. Also Dugin, who used to be more interested in right-wing esotericism, now attends an Old Believer Church in Moscow.

Also, the position of the Church is, officially, against blood-letting in general. But, this year, an official decision was made to re-institute the official chaplain role in the military. In other words, military units will now have a priest assigned to them. This is an old Russian tradition from pre-Soviet times that has been restored and it is a very promising sign that Russia is moving past its Soviet legacy, at least in the military, where Orthodoxy is taken seriously by many soldiers and officers. Patriarch Kirill recently stated that “the Russian military in Ukraine is driven by an inner moral sense based on the Orthodox faith.”

Other than the effort to strengthen Orthodoxy’s place in Russian society, the Church is also deeply involved with the politics of the Orthodox world, which we briefly touched upon above. Much time is spent debating and discussing the development in Ukraine and the larger Orthodox world. For obvious reasons, the Russian Orthodox Church believes that it should take a leading role in the Orthodox world. This puts them at loggerheads with the various schismatic movements and competing centers of influence.

The war has only exacerbated the political struggle between the various Church’s, which is not good news for the Russian Orthodox Church’s ambitions.

But, for conservative-minded people who were concerned about the course that the Church would take in the coming years, the recent developments are cause to rejoice. The Russian Orthodox Church will be forced to harden-up, turn away from cooperating with the West and clamp down on liberal-minded clergy like Metropolitan Hilarion. As I have stressed before in previous essays, the sanctions and the aggression of the West against Russia have led to improvements across the board in various institutions and an embrace of patriotic ideas by society at large.

Heretics and Halfwits: Furedi’s Freedom-Fighters and the Lethality of Libertarianism

Enigmas. I’ve been beset by them recently. Last week, I added six piranhas to my big tropical-fish tank. The piranhas were going to look magnificent, sliding in a sleek silver school between the gleaming, multicolored shoals of gentle neon tetras and guppies. But I didn’t have time to watch the piranhas right then. No, I had to rush off to a “Moderate Muslim March” organized by my libertarian heroes at Spiked, the online forum for disciples of the Jewish freedom-fighter Frank Furedi. The march was intended to oppose the “shameful censorship” of the film The Lady of Heaven, which “Islamist mobs” have intimidated off all cinema screens in the UK because they regard it as heretical and blasphemous.

Islam + Freedom = Islam

Spiked were expecting a big turn-out at their Moderate Muslim March. After all, as that great libertarian intellect, the Spiked editor Tom Slater, has so ringingly put it: “I’m sure” that “the vast majority of [British Muslims] would have no truck with this extremist fringe.” Well, for technical reasons I can’t disclose exactly how many moderate Muslims turned out for the Spiked march in defense of free speech. Let’s just say that the turn-out was a big disappointment. And an enigma. But not as big as the disappointment and the enigma that awaited me back home. To my horror, I discovered that my tropical fish-tank was ruined. Only the piranhas were left alive in a haze of blood, scales and fish-fragments. What on earth had happened? I still don’t have a clue. Perhaps I should ask the libertarians at Spiked whether it was a good idea to introduce piranhas to a tank full of gentle neon tetras and guppies.

Two bad mixes: piranhas and guppies; Muslims and free speech

Well, satire and sarcasm over. I’m sure that even the libertarians at Spiked would tell you that it isn’t a good idea to house piranhas with guppies. In fact, I’m sure they would tell you that it’s a fucking stupid idea. But it’s nowhere near as stupid as an idea that Spiked and other libertarians have supported for many decades: the idea that Muslims should enter and inhabit Western nations without limit or restraint. Muslims are cultural piranhas and they devour free speech. They also devour every other freedom that libertarians claim to be passionately concerned about. But Spiked won’t admit this or be honest about the true nature of Islam. I was joking above when I said that Spiked had organized a “Moderate Muslim March” in defense of free speech. They’ve done no such thing, because they know it would be a complete failure. When Tom Slater, the current head halfwit at Spiked, expresses his certitude that the great majority of British Muslims would never think of limiting free speech what he means is: “I’m not sure at all and I have no intention of finding out.” In the rest of his editorial, Slater alternately postures about being tough on Islamism and plugs an even stupider version of the old “Anti-racists are the real racists” line. According to Slater, it’s “racist” to think that Muslims can’t handle free speech and need protecting from offense.

Muslims need no guidance from bluehairs

This halfwitted argument will have precisely no effect. As a not-so-former Trotskyist, Slater should recall Trotsky’s polemics against Stalin. How effective was Leon in arguing that Uncle Joe wasn’t a true Leninist? Spoiler alert: Not effective at all. Leon ended up with an ice-ax in his head while Uncle Joe sat snug in the Kremlin, supreme ruler of a mighty empire. But the halfwitted rhetoric of the Spiked collective is made worse by their dishonesty about Islam. Here’s Brendan O’Neill, former head halfwit at Spiked, first being dishonest about the Lady-of-Heaven controversy, then refuting his own dishonesty:

What is most striking about the noisy protests outside the cinemas showing this supposedly sinful film is how much the protesters sound like the godless woke mob. … Radical Muslims who believe they should have the right to crush culture that offends their religious sensibilities have clearly learned a thing or two from the secular cancel-culture brigade. They’ve dispensed with the fire-and-brimstone case for punishing those who blaspheme against their faith. Instead they’ve embraced the very modern idea that we all have the right to be protected from offence. Which we don’t, by the way.

This confirms that today’s censorious culture, in which everyone from gender-critical feminists to pro-life societies on campus are being cancelled for causing offence, has emboldened regressive elements in society. The cancellation frenzy has resuscitated ideas that really ought to have died out in the 20th century, if not earlier. This includes the idea of blasphemy, the notion that it ought to be a punishable offence to mock or simply just depict gods and prophets.

Alarmingly, cinema managers have capitulated to the theocratic mobs that have gathered outside their premises. In one of the most disturbing video clips I have seen so far this year, a cinema employee in Sheffield uses a megaphone to tell protesters that the film has been withdrawn from the schedule. ‘Allahu Akbar!’, the crowd yells in victory.

This is chilling. Call me an old-fashioned secular democrat, but isn’t it completely wrong, and morally perverse, to allow small numbers of religious hotheads to determine what the rest of us can see and watch? This grants a veto to fundamentalists, allowing them to shape public culture to their own tastes and prejudices. It is profoundly illiberal.

… It isn’t The Lady of Heaven that is shocking (and anyway, moviemakers should be perfectly at liberty to shock as much as they please). No, it’s the fact that in modern Britain, small numbers of Islamic activists can compel an entire cinema chain to dump a movie that they don’t like. This suggests our culture is being held hostage to intolerant minorities. And people say cancel culture is a myth. …

The Lady of Heaven controversy hasn’t caused much media or political traction yet, but it really should. This feels like a sequel to the Salman Rushdie affair. Cinemas ditching a film at the behest of furious theocratic protesters? What have we become? More importantly, what has become of freedom? (Shame on Cineworld for cancelling The Lady of Heaven, The Spectator, 7th June 2022)

So the libertarian Brendan O’Neill is “alarmed,” “disturbed,” “shocked” and “chilled” by the sight of Muslims behaving like Muslims, as Francis Carr-Begbie put it at the Occidental Observer in 2014. But Brendan isn’t just “alarmed” and “chilled”: he’s also deeply dishonest. Muslims have not “learned from” or been “emboldened” by the “godless woke mob” and “secular cancel-culture brigade.” Brendan knows perfectly well that “the Salman Rushdie affair” began in 1988, long before those censorious battalions of blue-haired SJWs and bearded transwomen became a noisy part of Western culture. Brendan also knows perfectly well that the death-sentence on Salman Rushdie was proclaimed from Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini (1900–1989). The “godless woke mob” had no influence on Khomeini and the illiberalism of modern Iran owes nothing to Western secularism and everything to Islam. It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran, after all, not the Trans-Friendly Safe Space of Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini, not much influenced by the “godless woke mob”

I also recommend that Brendan and Spiked investigate the culture of Pakistan, where “Islamist mobs” have often imposed impromptu death-sentences on alleged blasphemers and rallied in support of Islamic heroes like Mumtaz Qadri, who machine-gunned a Pakistani politician to death for daring to question Pakistan’s harsh anti-blasphemy laws. I can assure Brendan and the other libertarians at Spiked that Islamist mobs in Pakistan are not influenced by the “godless woke mob” in the West. But I think Spiked already know that, which is why, despite their incessant posturing about “free speech,” they ignore very interesting (and unpleasant) stories like this:

A mob in Pakistan tortured, killed and then set on fire a Sri Lankan man who was accused of blasphemy over some posters he had allegedly taken down. Priyantha Diyawadana, a Sri Lankan national who worked as general manager of a factory of the industrial engineering company Rajco Industries in Sialkot, Punjab, was set upon by a violent crowd on Friday.

In horrific videos shared across social media, Diyawadana can be seen being thrown on to the floor, where hundreds began tearing his clothes, violently beating him. He was tortured to death and then his body was burned. Dozens in the crowd can also be seen taking selfies with his dead body. The incident began when rumours emerged that Diyawadana, who had been manager of the factory for seven years, had taken down a poster bearing words from the Qur’an. By the morning, a crowd began to gather at the factory gates and by early afternoon they had charged into the factory and seized Diyawadana. (Man tortured and killed in Pakistan over alleged blasphemy, The Guardian, 3rd December 2021)

The “godless woke mob” in the West had no influence on those righteous incinerators in Pakistan or on the Pakistan-born Muslim hero Tanveer Ahmed, who murdered a heretic called Asad Shah on British soil in 2016.  However, Brendan O’Neill and other libertarians would doubtless be very puzzled by the recommendation that they investigate the cultures of Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries that have supplied millions of vibrant new citizens to the West. Libertarians would ask: What possible influence could culture in Muslim countries have on the behavior of Muslims in the West? Muslims would have long ago embraced the Enlightenment and bought “I ♥ Liberty” T-shirts if it weren’t for “multiculturalism” and the “godless woke mob” leading them astray. Or so libertarians like Brendan O’Neill keep on saying. If Brendan really believes that, he’s halfwitted. If he doesn’t really believe it, he’s deeply dishonest.

The Second Hungarian Uprising

I go for the second option myself. And I think that Brendan is deeply dishonest whether he’s condemning censorship or celebrating contrarianism. Here, for example, he celebrates the contrarianism of some Hungarian schoolchildren:

It’s only June and already we’ve had the funniest news story of the year. Following some iffy behaviour by Hungarian football fans during Euro 2020, UEFA instructed Hungary to play its next few games behind closed doors. No crowds, no fans, no noise — this was to be Hungary’s punishment. But Hungary, in its clash with England in Budapest on Saturday, exploited a UEFA loophole to allow 30,000 schoolkids to attend the game. After all, what kind of trouble could a few thousand fresh-faced under-14s cause? Well, a lot, it turns out. As soon as the England players took the knee — as they’re still robotically doing, more than two years after George Floyd was murdered 4,000 miles away from England – a chorus of boos filled the stadium. It was an extraordinary noise: an army of children registering their disdain for the puffed-up performative virtue of 11 adults from overseas.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. The tutting moralists of UEFA who thought that banishing the gruff men of Hungary from football games would make for a safe, sanitised experience clearly hadn’t reckoned with the rebellious streak in Hungary’s youth.  …

[But the] booing of those Hungarian schoolkids was entirely rational, and even quite heartening. It was not a crescendo of racial prejudice. It was a statement of youthful revolt against lofty outsiders who seem to have gone to Budapest as much to educate the rabble as to play some football. Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán has a point when he says the taking of the knee is a ‘provocation’ and that it has ‘no place on the pitch’. For a while now it has been clear that knee-taking is less an anti-racist gesture than a signifier of moral supremacy. … Football fans, contrary to the prejudiced delusions of the chattering classes, are not dumb. Neither, it seems, are Hungarian schoolchildren. They know when they are being demeaned, when they are being reduced to problematic creatures requiring neo-colonial correction. And guess what? They don’t like it. … Those Hungarian kids were not being brattish hooligans – they were simply rebelling against the colonising instincts of the West’s woke elites. Good on them. I wish we had more kids like them in the UK. (The cultural imperialism of taking the knee, Spiked, 6th June 2022)

Brendan celebrates in that article but doesn’t explicate. So tell me, Brendan: What explains the “rebellious streak in Hungary’s youth” and their “youthful revolt” against “cultural imperialism”? Why don’t we have “more kids like them in the UK,” ready to resist the “diktats of identity politics” and “rebel” against the “woke elites”? Well, Brendan made no attempt to answer those questions. After all, if he’d answered honestly, he would have exploded his own libertarian lunacy. So I’ll explain on his behalf. Hungary’s youth is “rebellious” and resists the “diktats of identity politics” for one very simple reason. It’s because Hungary’s youth is stale and pale. That is, Hungary’s youth is White.

No anti-White Blight

So are Hungary’s grown-ups, of course. This is because Hungary hasn’t been enriched by mass immigration by non-Whites from the Third World. Consequently, there is no pressure from non-Whites and their leftist allies to create a cult of minority-worship in Hungary that blames all non-White failure on racism by Hungarian Whites. It’s the large numbers of Black players in English soccer that justify the “robotic” anti-racism of the “woke elites.” Unlike children in England, Hungarian children aren’t taught to idolize Black players who could never have created soccer for themselves and contribute nothing to soccer but their athleticism. Just as in American football, the brainpower and tactics in soccer are supplied by Whites, not by Blacks. Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a big thing in Britain because Blacks are a big thing in Britain.

But Black Lives Matter is not a big thing in Hungary because — guess what? — Blacks themselves aren’t a big thing in Hungary. Suicide-bombing and rape-gangs aren’t a big thing in Hungary either, because — guess what? — Muslims aren’t a big thing in Hungary. It’s that simple. With no non-Whites, Hungary has no anti-White blight: no identity politics, no rape-gangs, no suicide-bombers, no acid-throwers and no non-White schoolchildren hacking at other schoolchildren with machetes. Instead, Hungary has White schoolchildren booing a Black-enriched England soccer-team as it “takes the knee” in worship of Blacks before playing the overwhelmingly White Hungarian soccer-team.

V for Viktory

Whoever could have guessed that not having non-Whites would enable Hungary to avoid the endless cultural and social problems caused by non-Whites? Well, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — approvingly quoted by libertarian Brendan in his article — guessed that very thing. But get this: Orbán isn’t a libertarian. In fact, he’s an illiberal reactionary and the “godless woke mob” in the West call him a racist. But if Orbán were an anti-racist libertarian and had followed the Spiked recipe for societal bliss, he would have opened Hungary’s borders long ago and allowed non-Whites to flood in. After that, Hungary would have swiftly acquired all the cultural pathologies so loudly and often condemned by the freedom-fetishists at Spiked. And Hungary would also have had a suicide-bombing or two by now, even as vibrant rape-gangs flourished in enriched cities like Budapest, Szeged and Pécs.

Fortunately for Hungary, Viktor Orbán isn’t a libertarian. And if an illiberal reactionary like him defends Hungary’s freedom and independence so successfully while libertarianism fails completely in Britain, I can reach only one conclusion: that libertarianism is lethal for liberty. Libertarianism is, in fact, far more stupid than putting piranhas into tanks of neon tetras and guppies. Piranhas will only devour other fish. The core principles of libertarianism, like love of open borders and belief in racially mixed societies, will devour entire nations. And they are indeed devouring entire nations, because — surprise, surprise! — those core principles of libertarianism are also the core principles of the “woke mob.” It’s almost as though libertarianism and leftism are allies in the war on the West.

But how can libertarianism be so harmful to the West, when libertarianism is such a heavily Jewish movement? I’ll leave you to ponder that enigma as I go to feast my eyes on the guppies and neon tetras in my piranha-free fish-tank. And while I feast my eyes, I’ll dream of the day when the West is free again of piranhas in human form.

Jews and Their Long History of Hysteria and Overreach

If you’ve been around Jews for any period, you’ve likely discovered their tendency to exaggerate whatever they feel passionately about. Hyperbole seems to come easy to them. The sky is always falling. Doom is right around the corner. And, of course, it’s always directed at them because of their ethnic identity.

This powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance is associated with a hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s comment that “any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated dimensions” is particularly important. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’ ”23 Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, a premier neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee, provides an example:

 [M]y own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson. . . . The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Street law firms, could end in mass murder.24

This is a “slippery slope” argument with a vengeance. The schema is as follows: Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because “the survival of Israel” is at stake. (“Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” p. 12).

As an example of this, it’s common for Jews to view all personal criticism of them as individuals as collective criticism of them as a people. It’s not that other ethnic groups don’t also engage in exaggeration and overreach at times, but only that Jews seem to have uniquely strong proclivities toward this sort of thing. One could say they have even perfected it.

There’s a long history of non-Jews noticing it too. Many Jews even concede this habit of theirs. They make no apologies for it either. It’s perfectly natural to them.

Yet like the Old Testament proverb that describes the evil man who is in continual fear that someone is chasing after him even though there isn’t (28:1), so also Jews often make whatever negative circumstances they find themselves in to be worse than they are or turn out to be. Their paranoia invariably leads them to faulty conclusions about the motivations of others. They are quick to impugn the character of anyone at the slightest perceived offense. This often leads to the most unfair and grossest of accusations, “anti-Semitism” being the most common.

For instance, the Jewish host of Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman) in 2002 asked the former Israeli Minister, Shulamit Aloni, what she thought about people in the U.S. who are critical of the Israeli government being called “anti-Semitic.” Her response illustrates precisely my point: “Well, it’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe somebody’s criticizing Israel, then we bring out the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic . . . They are not ready to hear criticism.”

This reaction and strategy among Jews are perhaps understandable due to their tiny demographic in the U.S. comprising only about 1.8% of the overall population. This leads them to use their historic victim status and small numbers to blow things out of proportion in order to gain sympathy and approval from a gullible public.

Jews can be confident that their strategy will be supported by the U.S. government because “the Tribe” disproportionately influences much of the federal government, including society’s most important secondary institutions such as the news media, Hollywood, academia, and an array of social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Congress on both sides of the political aisle is unabashedly committed to the Jewish people and Israel.

In fact, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has even gone on record to declare: “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid — and I don’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are” (Conference of the Israel-American Council, December 2, 2018).

History for at least the past 140 years is replete with examples of Jewish hysteria and overreach. Let’s look briefly at a few of them.

(1) Jews have claimed that great atrocities were committed against them in both Russia and Poland simply because of their Jewish ethnicity or religion. These ‘pogroms’ were instituted by the Russian and Polish governments, and they targeted Jews in the most inhumane ways. The persecutions were also carried out by local villagers. As a result, Jews were driven from their homes and businesses, and it’s claimed they suffered greatly at the hands of Russian and Polish Christians.

An article published in The Occidental Observer written by Andrew Joyce carefully examined such claims and found them in large part to be unfounded (“A Critical Look at the Polish ‘Pogroms’ of 1914–1920,’ May 1, 2022). Joyce cites the words of William Hagen (Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920 [Cambridge University Press, 2018]) who assiduously investigated the matter: “Jewish reports tended toward exaggeration” (p.173).

Joyce notes that “From the outset, Hagen is skeptical of contemporary Jewish accounts that alleged spontaneous mass shootings. He opens the book by making it clear the documentary record has “gaps or blindspots” and “doubtless exaggeration occurred. . . . I have sought out multiple accounts so as to minimize bias.” He later argues that “resentment-laden animosity colored many such [Jewish] reports, which tended, in an atmosphere heavy with collective paranoia and hysteria, to exaggerate Jewish losses.” He even cites one brief but telling remark from Henry Morgenthau himself, who, although promoting atrocity propaganda, once admitted that “there is also no question but that some of the Jewish leaders [in Poland] had exaggerated” (A Critical Look at the Polish ‘Pogroms’ of 1914–1920).

This is not merely Hagen’s investigative conclusions, but also that of several other authors who discovered that Jewish reports of intense sufferings and prolonged mistreatment by the Polish people against them to be largely inflated and embellished.

The common assumption is that persecution of Jews always stems from irrational hatred when, in fact, the evidence strongly suggests that most of it is due to tensions between competing ethnic groups. Usury, fraud, various forms of thievery, and the multiple financial schemes that Jews engage in invariably provokes a backlash, one that sometimes leads to violence. Jews like gypsies are parasitical, and both groups often get the boot when people are angered and fed up with their deceitful ways. There is nothing irrational about it.

Andrew Joyce addressed the so-called Russian ‘pogroms’ in a series of articles also published in The Occidental Observer in May of 2012 (“Revisiting the 19th-century Russian Pogroms“). Joyce pulled his information from a wide variety of sources. One author stood out—the late John Doyle Klier and his monumental works: Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History [Cambridge University Press: 2004] and Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–82 [Cambridge University Press: 2011]. Like the previously mentioned author, William Hagen, Klier is led to the same conclusions – namely, that Jews grossly exaggerated the events they declared to the world.

(2) Jews claim that “six million” of their people were murdered in the Holocaust and that this ‘liquidation’ of Jews was allegedly official Nazi policy ordered by Hitler himself. Jews were then systematically rounded up and forced to live in “death camps” where millions of Jews were gassed, tortured, and medically experimented on.

Given the exaggerations apparent in other Jewish claims of persecution, it would not be surprising to find similar exaggeration for the holocaust. Comparably few people are aware that the “six million” figure does not have its origin exclusively in the events of the Holocaust. The expression, in fact, was repeatedly employed by Jews as having symbolic, mystical, and kabbalistic significance prior to the outbreak of WW1. Interestingly, while Jews are allowed to interpret the “six million” number in a symbolic or allegorical way, this is not permissible for non-Jews. They must interpret it literally. No deviation is permitted. The double standard should be obvious.

The expression was routinely used by Jews beginning in 1850 among various newspapers, articles, and books which sought to highlight the sufferings of Jews in Russia. Over 250 separate pre-WW2 references to the “six million” can be documented in The New York Times, The Jewish Criterion, and a plethora of other American and Jewish newspapers and periodicals. American-Zionist leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and Zionist pressure groups such as The World Jewish Congress and The American Jewish Congress made sure that Jews were always portrayed as innocent victims and just on the verge of complete annihilation.

The constant call was for the world to recognize the plight of Jews and to rescue them from the hands of their oppressors. For those interested in reviewing the documentation for this, two books are, in my opinions, required reading: Don Heddesheimer, The First Holocaust: The Surprising Origin of the Six Million Figure (Castle Hill Publishers: 2021); and Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015).

Whether one agrees with the Jewish narrative of the Holocaust or not, there is little doubt that the “six million” figure is but one more example of Jewish exaggeration and overreach.

(3) Along with the “six million” number, there are also numerous outrageous claims made by Jews during and after World War II. For instance, that the Nazis made  bars of soap and lampshades from Jewish skin. Nazis were alleged to have routinely committed the most unimaginable atrocities against Jews. Only later was much of it discredited and shown, once again, to have originated from Allied and Jewish propaganda.

Some of the most bizarre and unbelievable claims made by Jews as to what occurred inside the Nazi work camps are common (portable gas chambers, throwing Jewish babies into the air and bayoneting them, “masturbation machines” in which Jewish males were masturbated to death, etc.).

Jewish survival stories tend to be particularly fanciful, and many of them have been discredited upon closer examination. Behind them all are motives of greed and gaining sympathy for Jewish people. One such story involves Misha Defonseca (real name: Monique de Wael): “Desperate to be reunited with her parents, Misha travelled through war-torn Europe, becoming trapped in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. After escaping over a wall, she travelled thousands of miles to Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, Italy, France and back to Belgium. During her arduous journey Misha said she stayed with a pair of wolves she named Maman Rita and Ita. . . . I was like the wolves — a hunted animal, and one that would be killed on sight. . . . Later she said she joined a pack of six adult wolves and four pups” (Grant Rollings, The U.S. Sun [8/4/2021]).

Turns out her wolf pack story was just a pack of lies. Misha reluctantly confessed her fakery when the matter was later investigated. She also had to return the millions she had profited from the story she weaved.

A good many of these Holocaust stories are so far-fetched that it’s hard to believe that intelligent people would take them seriously. Yet when it comes to the industry and religion of the Holocaust, one must bypass all critical thought and exercise only blind faith.

The Holocaust and spreading its message to the world is so important to Jews, in fact, that many of them believe it’s the key to their ethnic solidarity. It’s integral to who they are. Their belief in it is what holds them together, perhaps for some of them even more so than their belief in Yahweh and the Talmud.

Again, fanciful stories and claims about the Holocaust serve as examples of typical Jewish hyperbole. Mind you, I’m not saying that many Jews did not suffer and die during WW2 (so also did many non-Jews – even more so!). There were atrocities committed by almost all the involved parties (some more than others). Yet the Holocaust illustrates how deeply wedded Jews are to propaganda, and how they are largely unable to restrain themselves from spreading the most hysterical claims to the world that we are expected to believe without question. A good many Jews are offended when the same reviews and critical investigations that are applied to other historical events are applied to the Holocaust story. This event alone cannot be challenged. It’s not subject to the critical eye, and those who think otherwise soon discover the power of influential Jews. It shows again the religious nature of the Jewish Holocaust narrative.

(4) Additional examples of Jewish hysterical claims can be seen in more recent events, such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how it’s reported in the pro-Jewish American press. Israelis are almost always portrayed by Western media as innocent victims, while the Palestinians are always portrayed as terrorists and instigators. Since Jews largely control and influence our media, there is little nuance and context given.

(5) The Israeli government has claimed for over a decade that Iran has manufactured nuclear weapons and that a strike against Israel and America is surely imminent. Remember when Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed a joint-meeting of congress in March of 2015 – you know, the one where he was given 29 standing ovations? He warned against what he called a “bad deal” that was being negotiated at the time between the Obama administration and Iran to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu argued that any deal with Iran would lead it to create nuclear weapons within “about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.” Well, almost eight years has elapsed since that speech, and there is still no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons and intends to use them against Israel or any other nation. Netanyahu’s exaggerated claims and congress’s willingness to lap it up validated the former Israeli prime minister’s claim in 2001 when he said, “America is a thing you can move very easily.”

(6) That same level of Jewish-fueled hysteria occurred after 9-11 when a brood of Jewish neocons in the Bush administration persuaded President Bush that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” It was later discovered to a be bold-faced lie, one that led to the complete ruin of the Iraqi nation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. These same Jewish neocons along with their compliant stooge, George W. Bush, led the U.S. to also invade Afghanistan. The foolishness and devastation of that two-decade quagmire should be obvious to all. Our withdraw from Afghanistan in August of 2021 leaving behind billions in military weapons only served to confirm it.

Israel and its subservient puppet, the U.S., has also engaged in a series of unjustified military strikes against Syria. The U.S. opposes Syria not because it poses a threat to the American people, but because the Israeli government perceives it to be an enemy-state, a regional threat to them.

The pattern seems to always be the same in all these conflicts. Anytime Israel feels threatened, it declares to the world a series of hysterical allegations all which spell doom to the Jewish people. Same as the hyperbolic claims by Jews prior to and during WW2, Jews are again about to be annihilated. It’s another Holocaust, but this time nuclear bombs will be used instead of poisonous gas.

(7) Consider also how Jews react to even slightest attempt on the part of Whites to unify in terms of their racial identity and cultural interests. Jews have always responded negatively to this sort of thing because they view it as potentially leading to the rise of another leader like Hitler who might unite Whites. Those same Whites could, as a result, turn against Jews and ‘voila!’ we’ve got another Holocaust on our hands. When you peel back the many layers of sophistry by Jews on why they oppose White people racially uniting, this is what you eventually discover.

This explains partly why Jews will never support even the mildest forms of White Nationalism. Politically conservative Jews might agree that illegal immigration is bad for the U.S., and they may even speak out now and then about Black criminality, but don’t ever expect them in any large number to declare that Whites have a right to be the dominant demographic in their own countries; that Whites have legitimate racial and cultural interests that ought to be preserved.

It should come as no surprise, then, why Jews will engage in the most extreme hyperbole and lies when assessing White racial identity. They are unable to treat the subject fairly because discerning Jews realize that when the goyim begin to grasp the ‘Jewish Question’ and its implications, it will invariably have an impact on Jewish hegemony over Europe and America. And so Jewish advocacy groups such as the ADL will continue to publish articles on its website and other platforms such as what Jonathan Greenblatt wrote in March of 2019: “White Supremacy is a Transnational Threat. Here’s why.”

Our current U.S. Attorney General who not-so-surprisingly happens to be Jewish, Merrick Garland, has recently parroted the same nonsense before Congress describing white supremacists as “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” Such a statement would be laughable if it wasn’t so false and contrived.

(8) Consider also the gross exaggerations by our Jewish-dominated media when it comes to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict. Once again, complete lies, distortions, half-truths, and mythology abounds in reporting these events. The U.S. news media simply cannot be trusted, and it staggers the mind when one considers how many Americans are still unaware of this.

That overreach is such a prevalent trait among massive numbers of Jews suggests that it’s deeply rooted in their psyche, their character, and how they see the world around them. It’s largely part-and-parcel of who they are. One can reliably predict how Jews will react and what sort of extreme claims they will make when non-Jews start to wake up and ‘notice’ certain patterns about them. A circle-the-wagons reaction is almost always their collective response.

Yet we must ask ourselves: What kind of people are these who have such a habit of overreacting and grossly inflating every perceived criticism into something it’s not? Why would so many Jews react in this way? How does it help them or even work against their collective interests?

A couple of possible reasons could be given to such questions, but I must admit that these are only opinions drawn from historic patterns and are largely anecdotal in nature. Still, I believe those who are perceptive of Jews will mostly agree with the following two points:

Firstly, it’s the kind of response indicative of liars and conmen who discover that they are about to be exposed. More lies are compounded, and the hysteria ramps up in order to throw off their opponents or anyone else who might be observing. This helps to explain why Jewish advocacy groups like the ADL come down hard on any person or group that dares to challenge Jewish power structures in America. Noticing the same patterns of conduct by the same ethnic group — and then making it known to others — threatens America’s entrenched Jewish cabal. If too many were to discover it, uncomfortable questions would arise that could have devastating monetary consequences.

One must remember that Jews largely succeed and maintain disproportionate influence and power because they keep a low profile (at least mostly). They tend to work behind the scenes. They are not quick to draw attention to their ethnicity. Their last names are often no different than that of non-Jews so it’s not always readily apparent who they are.

This is, admittedly, not always the case. There are occasions when Jews speak openly of their ethnic and collective motives against their host country and its people. They will sometimes get caught boasting of who and what they control. This occurs when their ‘chutzpa’ is unable to restrain itself, and they more or less spill the beans.

Joel Stein in an L.A. Times article published in 2008 is one such example: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day. So, I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all . . . But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them” (‘Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon’).

But for the most part, Jews prefer to work in ways that are not so obvious, choosing instead a more low-key and subtle approach, yet still retaining their same power and influence over society.

Secondly, Jews have a long history and persistent pattern of engaging in fraudulent monetary schemes and in creating vice industries. If it were widely known, for example, that Jews played a disproportionate role in the modern porn industry, including their dominant role in Weimar Germany in the years 1918-1933, it would not look favorable for them. Their reputation could be tarnished. An excellent book by Benjamin Garland, Merchants of Sin (2017), extensively documents this intriguing history. Jews were also major players in the gay rights movement as well as the recent Transexual movement in America. This includes the Civil Rights and the Feminist movements, all of which helped to destroy the social and moral fabric of the country.

Thus, for the public to discover that Jews were the main promoters of so much of the over-sexualization of this once great nation, it would certainly raise some eyebrows – although little would be done about it now when one considers how morally bankrupt the nation has become.

Most Americans generally perceive Jews as people who are deeply religious with a strong moral base (actually, great numbers of Jews are secular atheists). Such realities as noted above would be troublesome for many Americans. Jewish success, it must be remembered, is in large part due to the kind of image they project upon society. They are masters of propaganda, and this must always be remembered when dealing with them. Jews could not have created the motion picture industry in Hollywood if they did not have a seemingly innate ability to deceive, to create smoke and mirrors, and distort reality.

Their long history of relying on deception, trickery, including endless monetary schemes to get them through the centuries has perhaps given Jews an upper hand in some ways over gentiles. Thus, the kind of social problems and hysteria that Jews create in the U.S. should serve as a warning to other western countries. When Jews are allowed to burrow into a nation’s most important institutions and gain a permanent foothold, it’s just a matter of time before societal strife and division takes root. The pattern is undeniable.

Looking Over the Wall to See What a Stranger is Up To

These days, very near the end, images from long ago pop into my head, seemingly on their own; I don’t know what prompts them, and I let them take me where they will.  A couple of days ago, it was of a moment from the mid- to late-1980s in Burlington Vermont.

In another life, I did a lot of theater as a director and actor.  At the end of a play, you’ve seen it, the actors come down stage (near the audience) and form a line and take bows for thirty seconds or so.  During curtain calls. as they are called, I would scan the audience, quickly moving from one face to the next.

It was a final-bows moment that came to mind a couple days ago—I don’t remember the name of the play.  There was an elderly, balding man in the middle of the house (audience) of around one hundred people looking straight at me and smiling and applauding.  He radiated gentility and peacefulness, and kindness and respect and affirmation directed at me or so it seemed.

I stopped scanning.  For me, it became just the two of us; he was in focus and everything else out of focus. I nodded to him, though he didn’t nod back, or I didn’t pick it up.

Those few seconds at the end of the play, that special human connection, stayed with me and later that same night it hit me, “Oh, I know who that man in the audience was.  He’s aged, but that was David Dellinger!”

I don’t know if David Dellinger’s name means anything to you, but for a time back in the late 1960s, he was very prominent in the national news as one of the Chicago Seven, as they were called.  The Chicago Seven were anti-Vietnam war protestors put on trial for conspiring to incite a riot and crossing state lines to incite one at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago that nominated Hubert Humphrey as its presidential candidate. (President Lyndon Johnson had declined to run for a second full term amid the national upheaval over the legitimacy of the war.)  The riot, to call it that—the term may not fit—was marked by live television coverage of Chicago police ferociously clubbing demonstrators or rioters, whatever the best term for them.  I watched it on television in Minneapolis horrified.

The trial became a highly publicized platform in which the seven defendants managed to put the war itself on trial.  The proceedings were tumultuous, with one of the defendants, Bobby Seale, a Black Panther Party leader, put in shackles by the judge, Julius Hoffman, for being disruptive.  (Seale’s case was eventually separated from the others and the Chicago Eight became the Chicago Seven.) There was intense and personal sparring between the defendants and Judge Hoffman, with Dellinger prominent in that. All seven were acquitted of the conspiracy charge; five, including Dellinger, were convicted of crossing state lines to incite a riot.

Here is a picture of the Chicago Seven.  Jerry Rubin seated (I don’t know who the woman is) and standing from our left to right, Abbie Hoffman, John Froines, Lee Weiner, Dellinger, Rennie Davis, and Tom Hayden.

Only Froines and Weiner are still alive.  You might want to check out the 2020 movie, “The Trial of the Chicago 7.”  John Carroll Lynch plays Dellinger.  I’m not a fan of its writer and director Aaron Sorkin but gave it a try.  I didn’t connect with it.

In 1993, Dellinger, then 77, wrote his autobiography, From Yale to Jail: The Life Story of a Moral Dissenter. It was around this time when I read it.  From the book, it turns out that this is David Dellinger.

He was imprisoned twice during the World War II period, before and during the war, for refusing to register for the draft.  A divinity student at the time, Dellinger was eligible for a deferment, but he rejected preferential treatment.  While in prison, he was abused to the point of torture, force-fed when he went on hunger strikes, and for weeks at a time put in a tiny pitch-black “hole” with only a toilet, but he never broke.

I don’t remember the details of the Yale-to-Jail book, but I was strongly affected by it, that I know.  One major influence, and it remains with me to this day, was Dellinger’s anti-war posture.  A recent example of it, in a 2019 article I wrote on Calvin Coolidge, U.S. president from 1924–1929:

Something close to my heart, The Kellogg-Briand Pact was formulated during Coolidge’s years.  Frank B. Kellogg was Coolidge’s Secretary of State and Aristide Briand was the French Minister of Foreign Affairs.  It was also known as The Pact of Paris.  Its official title gets at its thrust, The General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.   I say close to my heart, because I’ve had it up to here with one government program in particular: mass destruction and killing.2

Incidentally, as a boy, Dellinger met Coolidge in the White House; his Republican Party bigwig father was a friend of Coolidge’s.  Coolidge is reported to have rubbed David on the head and said, “He’s a smart one.  He’ll go places.”

In 2006, Canadian academic Andrew E. Hunt wrote a biography of Dellinger, David Dellinger: The Life and Times of a Nonviolent Revolutionary, which I read around the time of the book’s publication and liked.3

To set the stage for my commentary on Dellinger, here’s The New York Times obituary of him by Michael T. Kaufman, dated March 27, 2004.  It does a much better job that I could summarizing Dellinger’s life.


David Dellinger, whose commitment to nonviolent direct action against the federal government placed him at the forefront of American radical pacifism in the 20th century and led, most famously, to a courtroom in Chicago where he became a leading defendant in the raucous political conspiracy trial of the Chicago Seven, died Tuesday in a retirement home in Montpelier, Vt. He was 88.

His death was reported by Peggy Rocque, the administrator of the home, Heaton Woods. An avuncular figure among younger and more flamboyant mavericks, Mr. Dellinger emerged in the 1960’s as the leading organizer of huge antiwar demonstrations, including the encirclement of the Pentagon that was immortalized in Norman Mailer’s account ”Armies of the Night.” At the same time, making use of his close contacts with the North Vietnamese, he was able to organize the release of several American airmen held as prisoners and to escort them back from Hanoi.

In the often-turbulent world of the American left, Mr. Dellinger occupied a position of almost stolid consistency. He belonged to no party, and insisted that American capitalism had provoked racism, imperial adventures and wars and should be resisted.

A child of patrician privilege, he had since his days at Yale learned and practiced strategies of civil disobedience in a variety of causes, steadfastly showing what he called his concern for ”the small, the variant, the unrepresented, the weak,” categories he cited from the writings of William James.

In the federal courtroom in Chicago in 1969, when Judge Julius J. Hoffman presided over the trial of opponents of the Vietnam War charged with criminal conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention a year earlier, Mr. Dellinger loomed over his co-defendants in age, experience, heft and gravitas.

The next oldest of the defendants, Abbie Hoffman, was 20 years his junior. Mr. Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were Yippies who mocked authority in star-spangled shirts; Mr. Dellinger favored quiet business suits. Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John R. Froines and Lee Weiner had led student movements; Mr. Dellinger had not.

Within this radical bouquet of representatives from what was called the New Left, Mr. Dellinger stood out as a link to a homegrown pacifist strain that had its roots within America’s Old Left.

Paul Berman, who wrote about the radicals and revolutionaries who rose to prominence in the years around 1968 in ”Tale of Two Utopias,” said that Mr. Dellinger ”came of age in one of the tiniest currents of the American left — the Rev. A.J. Muste’s movement for World War II pacifism, a movement based on radical Christian values and vaguely anarchist instincts. No rational person observing that movement during the 1940’s would have predicted any success at all, and yet during the next two or three decades, Mr. Dellinger and his pacifist allies transformed whole areas of American life.”

Mr. Berman said that they ”did it by supplying crucial leadership in the civil rights revolution and by playing a central role in the mass movement against the war in Vietnam.”

”Dellinger, himself,” Mr. Berman said, ”became the single most important leader of the national antiwar movement, at its height, from 1967 through the early 1970’s. You could quarrel with some of his political judgments, but he was always sober, always resolute, always selfless and always brave.”

If his co-defendants in Chicago captured most of the attention of the news media, in the eyes of Judge Hoffman, it was Mr. Dellinger who had been the most guilty. The jury had acquitted all seven on conspiracy but found all but Mr. Weiner and Mr. Froines guilty of inciting to riot. Of the convicted, Mr. Dellinger was given the harshest penalty by Judge Hoffman, five years in jail and a $5,000 fine. He was also sentenced to two years and five months on the basis of 32 citations of criminal contempt for comments he made during the five-month trial, which ended in February 1970.

Two years later, with all the defendants free on bail, an appellate court, citing prejudicial conduct by Judge Hoffman, voided the convictions for inciting to riot. The next year another court upheld Mr. Dellinger’s contempt conviction, but declined to impose sentence.

Mr. Dellinger was by his own lights more radical than many of his like-minded compatriots, a figure who often found the strategies and tactics of close colleagues like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mr. Muste, his mentor in radical pacifism, too conciliatory.

When Mr. Dellinger was a young man, he had, for the experience, ridden boxcars with hobos during the Depression. Soon after, he drove an ambulance behind Loyalist lines in the Spanish Civil War and he traveled through Germany to witness the rise of Nazi power. He resisted the draft and in prison took part in hunger strikes to integrate the mess hall of Danbury prison. He edited Liberation magazine, which Mr. Mailer once described as ”an anarchist-pacifist magazine of worthy but not very readable articles in more or less vegetarian prose.”

In the 1940’s Mr. Dellinger met Elizabeth Peterson at a Christian students’ meeting, and they married. She survives him, as do two sisters, Nancy Marshall, of Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cushman, of Sarasota, Fla. Also surviving are three sons, Patchen, of Seattle, Daniel, of St. Johnsbury, Vt., and Howard Douglas, of Nazareth, Pa.; two daughters, Natasha Singer, of Schnevus, N.Y., and Michele McDonough, of Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.; nine grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

David Dellinger was born in Wakefield, Mass., on Aug. 22, 1915. His father, Raymond, was a lawyer and chairman of the town Republican Party, influential enough to take his son to a private White House lunch with Calvin Coolidge. His grandmother was active in the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Like his father he went to Yale, where he did well in his studies and was elected captain of the cross-country team. He also became close friends with Walt W. Rostow, who years later would face him from the other side of the barricades as a senior adviser on Vietnam to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He was drawn to pacifism through readings of Tolstoy and most particularly of ”The Power of Nonviolence,” by Richard Gregg, an American who had spent years working with Mahandas K. Gandhi.

But his personal commitment to nonviolence came after a football game in which Georgia beat Yale. New Haven ”townies,” who resented the Yale students, swarmed onto the field and tore down the goal posts. Mr. Dellinger joined in the melee and chased one young man, whom he hit and knocked unconscious. He recalled: ”I shall never forget the horror I felt the instant my fist struck solid flesh. When my victim fell, I dropped to my knees, lifted his head and I cradled him until he came to. I walked him home. I never saw my enemy again.”  He pledged he would never hit anyone again and forswore all violence.

In ”Armies of the Night,” Mr. Mailer’s account of the famous antiwar protest march on the Pentagon in 1967 that Mr. Dellinger helped to organize with Mr. Rubin, the writer compared the radical leader in nonviolent action to an alumni officer at a Yale reunion. ”He had the hard-working, modestly gregarious, and absolutely devoted sense of how mission and detail interlock, which is so necessary to good class agents, that rare vintage mixture of New England incorruptability and good fellowship.”

Mr. Dellinger graduated magna cum laude from Yale in 1936 with a degree in economics. He received a fellowship that enabled him to attend Oxford, where his interest in pacifism deepened. Returning to the United States, he entered Union Theological Seminary in New York, intent on becoming a minister, though he never got around to choosing a denomination. In 1940, as war clouds gathered, the United States required men to register for the draft. Mr. Dellinger and seven other seminarians announced that they would refuse to do so, despite assurances that as candidates for the ministry they would not be inducted into the Army. He wrote that accepting such a de facto exemption would in Gandhian terms amount to complicity with violence.

Mr. Dellinger, who was president of his class at the seminary, was expelled with the other dissenters and denounced from the pulpit by prominent churchmen across the country for what they contended was his doubtful patriotism. Mr. Dellinger had been living in a black neighborhood in Newark with several other draft resisters. Mr. Dellinger was tried for draft evasion, convicted and sent to Danbury prison for a year. In 1943, with America at war, Mr. Dellinger returned to Newark and was again summoned to report for a preinduction physical examination. Again he refused to report. He was arrested and convicted of draft evasion and sent to Lewisburg, a maximum security prison, for two years.

In 1956 along with Mr. Muste and Dorothy Day, the Catholic anarchist, he founded Liberation, eventually becoming its editor and publisher. It was the escalating war in Vietnam that brought Mr. Dellinger into heightened prominence. In 1965, he helped to sponsor the first major antiwar demonstration in New York, which took place in October, involving liberal and radical groups. Mr. Dellinger, along with a few other opponents of the war, sent invitations to antiwar groups to join in another protest against the war during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 1968, focusing on what was anticipated as the renomination of President Johnson. Although Johnson declined to run again, groups massed in Chicago, where violent clashes with police led to the indictments of the Chicago Seven and Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers. For a while it was the Chicago 8, but Judge Hoffman had Mr. Seale removed from the trial and the courtroom after ordering him bound and gagged after he insisted that he was being denied his right to a lawyer of his own choice.

Even before the trial ended, Mr. Dellinger, who had earlier established close contacts in North Vietnam, flew to Hanoi in August 1969 to escort home three American servicemen who had been held as prisoners. He made a similar trip in 1972, and during much of the war he served as a conduit to North Vietnam, advising the Hanoi government which Americans should be permitted to visit there and making travel and visa arrangements. During the peace talks in Paris, he was a consultant to the North Vietnamese delegation.

In the 1970’s, Mr. Dellinger and his family moved to a house on a dirt road in Peacham, Vt., where he made what he described as a precarious living teaching in the adult education program at Vermont College in Burlington and writing. In addition to his autobiography, he wrote ”Revolutionary Nonviolence” (Anchor Books, 1971), ”More Power Than We Know” (Anchor Books, 1975) and ”Vietnam Revisited” (South End Press, 1986).  The dedication of this last one read, ”To all veterans of the Vietnam War; those who fought in it and those who fought against it.”

I’ve spent time the last couple of days making sense of what difference my contact, limited as it was, with David Dellinger has made to my life.  This is what I came up with:

I’ve noted how seldom in my life I have experienced affirming, loving connections with people and concluded it was too seldom.  If I had the chance to do it over, I would have made it a priority to seek out positive, uplifting contacts with other people.

Connecting with Dellinger has discouraged a simplistic us-them, good-guys/bad-guys mindset I can get into.  Understandably, particularly in recent years when my leaning-right views have solidified, I could write off Dellinger, a left-wing radical, as the other, them, the enemy.  Coming to know him, even indirectly through reading about him, while I don’t see him as a comrade in arms, still, he is basically us to me.  While I don’t agree with Dellinger in a lot of ways (which means in some ways I agree with him), I acknowledge that he wasn’t a fool or evil.  In racial terms, he was a White man and a good, laudable, one.  I was around Jerry Rubin when I was in California in the ‘70s working with George Leonard, a prominent figure in what was called the human potential movement.  Rubin was married to Leonard’s daughter at the time.    Little guy.  Bright.  Funny.  Well-intentioned.  Refreshingly candid (he wrote about his small penis).  He was Jewish, as was Leonard.  I liked and admired them both then and hold them in high esteem now.  Life is complicated, and I’ve concluded that I will do best by it if I ground myself in that complexity.

Looking into Dellinger’s life got me clearer on what I consider to be the measure of a man.  From an affluent background, educated at Yale and Oxford, Dellinger had every advantage, but he gave them up for principle and what he saw as justice, enduring financial hardship, prison terms, hunger strikes, physical assaults, and death threats for what he believed in.  I picked up on how others described Dellinger: “Sober, resolute, selfless, always brave.” “Hard-working, modestly gregarious, an absolutely devoted sense of how mission and detail interlock.”  “A gentle man of great courage and rare integrity.”  “He treated everyone with respect, including his adversaries.”  He affirmed a skittish and hurting actor thirty-five years ago who remembers it to this day.  Dellinger married a woman in 1942 and stuck with her through thick and thin until the end.  He was a devoted parent to his five children. In sum, Dellinger’s example keeps me from putting someone on a pedestal just because they have a  successful podcast, if you get my drift.

Engaging Dellinger’s outlook helped me get me out of my intellectual comfort zone.   Alain Benoist’s ideas are fine, don’t get me wrong.  But the Sermon on the Mount, which greatly influenced Dellinger, might have something important to say too.   Being encouraged to learn about Christian pacifism and secular anarchism and A.J. Muste and Dorothy Day has been healthy for me.

Looking into Dellinger’s life underscored that I can learn from those whom I consider to be on the other side of major issues   For example, he was very effective in organizing, direct action, and getting tangible things accomplished.   Especially with the 2006 biography, it was helpful to get a sense of how someone unfriendly to my outlook might see me.  In a 2018 article, I advised the reader (and myself) to

do less talking and more listening, including to people who disagree with you.   Hear them, see things from their side, see yourself from their perspective.  If somebody is accomplishing something you’d like to achieve—such as approval, encouragement, support, and good results—look into how they are doing it.4

Reading about Dellinger’s (sorry to report) intellectual narrowness, shallowness, and rigidity has invited me to think about my own tendencies in those directions.  He kept things at a superficial level—America is a racist, sexist, oppressive place, case closed—and ran with it, albeit effectively.   As far as I can tell, it never crossed his mind that Whites might have issues, that Jews and gentiles might be adversaries, or that problems might have individual as well as collective causes and solutions.  He remained entirely confident that he had things figured out; no need for self-analysis and self-criticism.  Observing Dellinger’s life has prompted me to be vigilant against thinking I’ve got everything wired.  With reference to the White racial movement, I questioned

the degree to which white racial activism links the wellbeing of Western culture and white people to certain immutable and unquestioned orthodoxies in religion, ideology, politics, sexuality and gender relations, art, lifestyle, work and leisure, and schooling.  Are we overly collectivist, authoritarian, male-dominated, closed-minded, hero-worshipping, exclusionary, and intolerant of anybody who is different from our central spokesmen?5

Reading Dellinger’s biography reminded me that this isn’t going to last.   Dellinger, so engaged with life, busy here, there, and everywhere, ended up in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s.   He’s gone, forever; eternity is a long time.   Life doesn’t end well.   I have one shot at getting whatever it is done—work, love, pleasure, responsibility to others—and the clock’s ticking.


  1. Poseidon Press.
  2. Robert S. Griffin, “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?The Occidental Observer, posted March 19, 2019.
  3. New York University Press.
  4. Robert S. Griffin, “Don’t Give People a Club to Hit You Over the Head With,” The Occidental Observer, posted March 11, 2018.
  5. Robert S. Griffin “The White Racial Movement and Gays,The Occidental Observer, posted May 20, 2018.

Joseph Goebbels’ Battle for Berlin: The Beginning (1934)

Translated and with an introduction by Alexander Jacob

Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was born in Rheydt, near Düsseldorf, in a Roman Catholic family and studied literature and history at the universities of Bonn, Würzburg, Freiburg and Munich. He obtained his doctorate in philology from the University of Heidelberg in 1921. He became interested in Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist movement from 1924, when Hitler was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment after the failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923. Goebbels first worked for the socialist-minded Gregor Strasser, who headed the north-western districts of Germany, as editor of the party newspaper and secretary of the regional party offices. In 1926, When Hitler decided to dissolve the north-western district offices of Gregor Strasser, Goebbels was appointed Gauleiter of Berlin.

Goebbels produced a newspaper for the Berlin Gau called Der Angriff in 1927 and developed his public speaking skills in the several mass meetings organized by the NSDAP. However, the party itself was banned by the Jewish Police Commissioner of Berlin, Dr. Bernhard Weiß, on 5 May, 1927. Weiß was the object of several sharp critiques penned by Goebbels, whom Weiß repeatedly sued and prevented from speaking at National Socialist meetings. The Berlin ban on the party was, however, lifted for the election campaign of May 1928 and Goebbels himself was elected National Socialist representative in the Reichstag. In 1930, Hitler appointed Goebbels propaganda leader of the National Socialist party, a position formerly occupied by Strasser, who left the party that year.

In 1932, Goebbels published an account of the party’s struggles for political victory in the German capital in his Kampf um Berlin, Band I: Der AnfangThis was the first volume of a planned two-volume work. However, a second volume was not published, and when the work appeared in 1934 in the Zentralverlag der NSDAP (Munich: Franz Eher Nachfolger), it continued to be called Kampf um Berlin: Der Anfang. It contained illustrations by ‘Mjölnir’ (Hans Herbert Schweitzer).

Goebbels’ commitment to the National Socialist movement is clearly evident in the concluding remarks of his Introduction to the work:

The one who wrote these pages was involved in a significant and highly responsible way in the course of things. He therefore represents the party in every sense of the word. He only cherishes the hope of recording in this presentation, from the heart, what was placed as a heavy responsibility on it during the five-year long battle. It should be for those who participated in and fought for the glorious rise of the Berlin movement a consolation and incentive, for those who stood aside doubtful and indifferent an admonition and reminder to their conscience, and for those who opposed our victorious march a warning and declaration of war.

Ch.8, Part 1: “Agitation and Persecution”

The victorious course of the young National Socialist movement in the Reich capital had now temporarily received a short and sudden end through the party ban declared by the Police Commissioner. The public effectiveness of the party was prohibited, the organization was smashed, the propaganda crippled, the bands of followers scattered in the winds and every direct contact of the leadership with the party comrades broken off. The prohibition of the party was implemented by the authorities with a bullying severity. It was of course not declared on the grounds of the law of the republic and therefore impossible to penalise individual transgressions with harsh financial and imprisonment penalties. It was based on the Prussian Civil Code dating already from the time of Frederick the Great and was, on well considered grounds, motivated not by political but by penal code arguments. It was imposed by the Police and not by the Ministry and was for that reason easier and less dangerous to circumvent than a political ban that is decreed normally with the threat of severe political penalties.

Already in the ban the Police Commissioner had overstepped his authority in a flagrant manner. He had declared the ban for Berlin and the Margraviate of Brandenburg even though he clearly lacked any authority for that, at least as regards Brandenburg. The Police Commissioner could at best prohibit the party for Berlin; and if, in justifying it, it were said that the party had become guilty of punishable offences, one could in this case—presuming that that corresponded to the facts—rightly speak of a party ban only if the public peace and security were endangered by the continued existence of the party.

But that did not seriously come into question. Our party comrades had been attacked by political opponents and had put up a fight. They had thereby claimed for themselves also the most original right that pertains to a citizen, the right to self-defence. Our people had never been the attackers but always only the attacked. Nowhere could one speak of excesses on our side. We used brute force only to the extent that we defended with it our life and our health.

Besides, nowhere could the evidence be brought forth that the party itself had encouraged such activity or taken responsibility for it; that every party comrade should save his skin where that was necessary was clearly understandable and did not have anything at all to with the party as such. The Police Commissioner was also perhaps fully aware of the tenuousness and indefensibility of his legal argument in the establishment of the ban. We immediately lodged complaints against the ban with the Prefecture and later with the Upper Administrative Court. But the trial was protracted—through the fact that the Police Commissioner constantly sought a delay of the deadline for the procurement of the necessary materials—for years and came to a verdict only when the ban had already long been revoked. The Upper Administrative Court then tried to hide behind a small legal ruling which would apparently have turned out to be devastating for the Police Commissioner since it stated that the deadline had not been maintained and the complainant lacked the necessary standing for a suit. But even the fact that the Police Commissioner was not in a position to make available the necessary materials for the trial was evidence enough that the party ban represented a political act and had little to do with the objective conduct of his office.

In the meanwhile, however, all conceivable chicaneries were effected against us. They sought to fully stop the pubic activity of the party and to rob it too of its last financial means through the destruction of the organization. We still had at that time no party press in Berlin. The propagandistic work of the movement consisted almost exclusively in the organization of mass meetings. One could not, even with the broadest interpretation of the clauses, forbid canvassing for any worldview under any name in the Reich capital. There was always the possibility of convening meetings under assumed names in which people spoke about National Socialism. At first we tried that too, but the Police Commissioner struck back and forbade all meetings on a case by case basis under the provision that they disturbed public peace and safety and were to be seen as the continuation of a forbidden organization.

That was clear arbitrariness but it did not fail to achieve its aim. Therewith it was made impossible to bring into public discussion the concept of National Socialism; the police authorities intervened immediately when there was even the remotest reference to it.

Our next attempt sought to allow our representatives in parliament to speak before the Berlin electorate. On me personally a prohibition of public speaking was soon imposed. In my place an entire series of parliamentary representatives of the party came into action. Mass meetings were convened in which our delegates spoke. There, comments were made on the contemporary questions of politics and naturally the opportunity was not missed to appropriately denounce the persecutory methods of the Berlin police against the NSDAP.

The prohibition of public speaking affected me personally very badly. Indeed, I had no other possibility of maintaining the necessary contact with my party comrades. We still lacked the press with which I could conduct agitations with my pen. All meetings in which I wished to speak were forbidden. If representatives were to appear in our meetings, these too were very often met with express bans at the last minute and the party comrades that had remained faithful were thereby driven into a steadily increasing fury and indignation.

It was not the fact that we were persecuted, but how and with what methods the movement was suppressed and beaten down produced in our ranks a mood of hatred and anger that occasioned great concern. The Police Commissioner apparently derived pleasure in always forbidding our meetings at the last moment, clearly with the transparent intention of removing from the party the possibility of informing the meeting attendees of the ban in time. Most often hundreds and thousands set out and encountered at the meeting venue only closed doors and a tight cordon of police officials.

Therewith it was made easy for numerous informers and provocateurs to instigate the leaderless masses and to incite them to assaults against the police and political dissidents. Often small attack squads separated themselves from the enraged masses that sought their political pleasure by going to the Kurfürstendamm Street and giving vent to their rage by boxing and beating harmless passers-by with a Jewish appearance.

That was naturally presented in the press in the most demagogic manner into an accusation of the party, which was however banned and therefore had no possibility of influencing its masses of followers in any way. The public space resounded with the noise and outcry of the threatened Jewry. They sought to produce the impression in the entire country that pogroms against the Jewish population were organized every evening in Berlin in the midst of the most profound peace, that the NSDAP had established a secret headquarters from which these excesses were organized.

Put an end to these Kurfürstendamm riots!

It must be made impossible that the brutal acts of the National Socialists on the Kurfürstendamm become a customary entertainment of these youths. Berlin West belongs to the most prestigious areas of Berlin, its discrediting by such despicable, base scenes gives Berlin the worst reputation. Now that the preference of the swastika group for the Kurfürstendamm is now sufficiently known to the police it must crack down not merely after riots that have taken place but take precautionary measures beforehand on every day of a National Socialist rowdy meeting.

Thus did the Berliner Zeitung am Mittag write on 13 May 1927.

The blame for these events, insofar as they actually took place, was borne solely by the Police Commissioner. It was in his power to give us the possibility of meeting with our mass of followers and of influencing them in a pacifying manner. But since he removed this from us on every occasion, deliberately or not, he caused precisely those excesses of the political battle that were the necessary consequences of such a procedure.

Perhaps he was also quite glad to see that matters developed in this manner. There were not sufficient grounds to justify the further prohibition of the party to the public. So they sought to create an alibi for themselves. The public had to point a finger at us. The opinion had to consolidated that this party was only a riotous collection of criminal elements and that the authorities only did their duty when they kept them away from every further possibility of life.

The National Socialist movement is centred like no other party on the idea of the Führer. In it, the Führer and his authority are everything. It lies in the hands of the Führer to maintain the party in discipline or to let it sink into anarchy. If one takes away the leaders from the party and thereby destroys the fount of authority that its organization maintains, then one makes the masses leaderless and stupidities are always the consequence. We could no longer influence the masses. The masses became rebellious and one could not in the end complain that they proceeded to bloody excesses.

The ruling system in Germany can in general, and on the whole, be thankful—as absurd as that may sound—to the National Socialist movement that it exists. The rage and indignation against the consequences of the insane reparations policy conducted since 1918 is so great that, if they were not subdued and disciplined by our movement, they would in the shortest time plunge Germany into a bloodbath. The National Socialist agitation has not led our nation into a catastrophe, as the professional catastrophic politicians would repeatedly like people to believe. We have only recognized the catastrophe in the right time and have never made a secret of our opinions on the chaotic situation in Germany. It is not the one who calls a catastrophe a catastrophe who is a catastrophic politician but the one who causes it. And one cannot indeed say that of us. We had never yet participated in any government coalition. We had, as long as the movement existed, stood in the opposition and fought the course of German politics in the most severe and relentless manner. We had predicted from the beginning the consequences that began now to be apparent in ever clearer contours on the political horizon.

Our insights were so natural and compelling that the masses sympathised increasingly with them. So long as we had the onrush of the people against the reparations policy in control and rendered it extremely disciplined at least the danger did not exist that the waves of rage did not batter the ruling government in forms that could no longer be controlled. Without doubt, the National Socialist agitation was, and is, the spokesman for the national adversary. But, so long as it is tolerated, one can control the rage of the populace and thereby ensure that it is expressed in legal and tolerable methods.

If one takes away from the people the representatives and interpreters of their suffering, then one opens the door to anarchy; for, it is not we who declare the most radical and ruthless verdict on the ruling government. More radically and ruthlessly than us do the masses themselves think and also the small man of the people who has not learnt how to mince his words, who speaks his mind, and expresses his increasing rage in increasingly sharper forms.

The National Socialist agitation is in a way a safety outlet for the ruling class. Through this safety outlet the indignation of the masses finds some ventilation. If one blocks it, then rage and hatred will be driven back into the masses themselves and seethe there in uncontrollable swirls.

Political criticism is always oriented towards the failures of the system that is to be criticised. If the mistakes are of a slight sort and if one cannot withhold goodwill from the one who makes them, the criticism will always be conducted in civilised and fair ways. But if the mistakes are of a fundamental sort, if they threaten the very bases of the state system, and if, beyond that, one has reason to suspect that those who commit them are not marked by goodwill at all but, on the contrary, place their own persons above the state and the common good, then the criticism will also become more massive and unrestrained. The radicalism of the agitation stands always in direct proportion to the radicalism that the ruling system is guilty of. If the mistakes made are so disastrous that they threaten finally to plunge the people and the economy, indeed the entire national culture, into ruin, then the opposition can no longer be satisfied with denouncing the symptoms of the disease and demanding their removal, then it must proceed to attack the system itself. It is then radical insofar as it searches out the mistakes to their roots and strives to remove them radically.

Before the prohibition of the party, we had our masses of followers firmly under control. The Police Commissioner had the possibility of supervising in the sharpest manner the party in its organization and propaganda. Every party-political excess could be immediately and directly punished. It had now become different after the party ban. The party itself did not exist any longer, its organization was destroyed, one could no longer make the leaders of the party responsible for what took place in their name, since every possibility of influencing their followers had been taken away from them. I was now a civilian and did not in any way have any intention of assuming the responsibility for the bad concomitant effects of the political battle that the Police Commissioner produced through his repeated chicaneries. In addition, it happened that the Jewish tabloid journals seemed to derive special pleasure in increasingly attacking me personally, when I had no possibilities at all of defending myself against attacks of a political and personal sort, perhaps in the hope of alienating the masses—with whom I had lost all contact—from the movement and from me and to making them therewith vulnerable to the shrewd demagogic blandishments of, especially, Communist agents.

I experienced then for the first time what it means to be the chosen favorite of the Jewish press. There was simply nothing that they did not complain about with regard to me, and everything was, so to speak, dreamed up. Obviously, I did not have the time or the inclination to undertake anything at all against it. The uninitiated person often wonders why National Socialist leaders react so seldom to Jewish slander with legal means. Surely, one can send in corrections to the tabloids, one can sue them for defamation, one can take them to court.

But that is easier said than done. In some Berlin newspaper a lie appears and then makes its rounds through hundreds of provincial newspapers that are dependent on it. Every single provincial newspaper adds its own commentary to it and, if one begins making corrections, there is no end to it. That is precisely what the Jewish press wishes to achieve. For, in the invention of lies, the Jew, whom Schopenhauer indeed characterised as the master of lies, is inexhaustible. Hardly has one corrected a false piece of news today than it is tomorrow surpassed by a new one and, if one proceeds against the second lie, who can prevent such a reptilian press from inventing a third one the day after tomorrow? And then go to court? Are National Socialist leaders there only to drag themselves around to criminal courts against Jewish libellers? In all cases, the state attorneys avoid interventions in our favor stating a lack of public interest. One is directed to private suits. That costs much time and even more money. One would have to spend an entire life and huge sums of money in order to restore one’s reputation before the courts of the republic against Jewish hacks.

Such a trial takes at least half a year, and often much longer. In the meantime, the public has long forgotten the object of the trial; the Jewish hack then simply declares before the judge that he has been the victim of a mistake and gets at most a penalty of fifty to seventy marks for it, and that is naturally gladly compensated to him by the publishers. But the newspaper itself issues on the next day a report about the trial from which the reader must suppose that the Jewish liar was absolutely in the right, that perhaps there must have been something true about the slander, which can readily be concluded from the fact that the court had let the accused off with such a lenient penalty. And thereby the Jewish press has indeed achieved everything that it wanted to achieve. It has first of all discredited and tarnished the honor of the political opponent before the public; it has robbed him of time and money. It makes a triumph out of the defeat in court, and sometimes an insensitive judge, granting the protection of eligible interests, even helps the libeller to go scot-free.

There are no suitable means to counteract personal libel by the Jewish press. A man in public life must be clear of the fact that, when he tackles a criminal politics, the latter very soon defends itself with the cry, “Stop the thief!” and now tries to replace the lack of powerful objective evidence with personal slanders. He must therefore develop a thick skin, must be entirely indifferent to Jewish lies, and above all, in times when he strikes with hard political blows, be cold-blooded and strong-nerved. He must know that every time that he becomes dangerous to the enemy the enemy attacks him personally. Then he will never experience unpleasant surprises. On the contrary! In the end, he is even glad that he is insulted and besmirched by the tabloids, for that is for him, finally, the most infallible proof that he is on the right track and has wounded the enemy in his vulnerable spot.

I was able to reach this stoic point of view only with difficulty. In the early times of my Berlin work I had to suffer extremely under attacks of the press. I took all of it much too seriously and often despaired that there was clearly no possibility of maintaining one’s political honor pure and clean in the political battle. In time that changed fully. Especially the excessive number of press attacks killed in me all sensitivity to them. When I knew or suspected that the press besmirched me personally, I read no Jewish newspaper for weeks and thereby preserved my calm deliberation and cold determination. If one reads the lie-machine some weeks after it is printed, it totally loses all significance. Then one sees how empty and purposeless all this ado is; and above all one gradually obtains thereby also the ability to perceive the true backgrounds of such press campaigns.

Today there are in Germany, in general, only two possibilities of becoming famous: either toady utterly to the Jew, if I may say so, or fight him ruthlessly and with all severity. While the former comes into question only for representatives of democratic civilisation and career-minded intellectual chameleons, we National Socialists have decided on the latter. And this decision should also be carried out with complete logicality. Up to now we have not had to complain about success. In his senseless fear of our massive attacks, the Jew has lost all his composure. When it comes to harshness, he is just a stupid devil. One often exaggerates, especially in the circles of the German intelligentsia, the so-called farsightedness, cleverness and intellectual acumen of the Jew. The Jew always judges clearly only when he is in possession of all instruments of power. If a political opponent accosts him severely and ruthlessly and makes it quite clear that now it is a matter of life and death, then the Jew immediately loses all calmness and sobriety of deliberation. He is— and this perhaps represents the distinguishing mark of his character—infused to the depths of his personality with a feeling of his own inferiority. One could even describe the Jew as the repressed incarnation of the inferiority complex. One therefore does not wound him more deeply than when one recognises him in his essential character. Call him a scoundrel, a rascal, liar, criminal, murderer and killer—that will hardly affect him inwardly. Look at him in the eye for a while and then say to him: ‘You’re just a Jew!’ And you will notice with astonishment how unsure, embarrassed, and self-conscious he immediately becomes.

Herein lies the explanation of the fact that prominent Jews always resort to criminal justice when they are called Jews. It will never occur to a German to complain that he has been called a German, for the German always feels only honor, and never shame, in membership in his ethnos. The Jew complains when he is designated as a Jew because he is convinced in his innermost self that that is something despicable and that there can be no worse insult than to be designated as such.

We have never occupied ourselves much with opposing Jewish libel. We knew that we were being slandered. We adapted ourselves in time to that and did not see our task in the refutation of individual lies but in the undermining of the credibility of Jewish tabloid journalism.

And we succeeded fully in that too in the course of the years. If one lets a lie remain undisturbed, then it will soon fizzle out in its own excessive charge. The Jew nowadays invents in his desperation such outrageous insults and perfidies that even the most credulous educated philistine is no longer taken in by them.

‘They lie! They lie!’ With this battle-cry did we confront the Jewish cannonade of filth. Gradually we withdrew ourselves from the entire libellous heap of individual lies in which one could concretely point to the baseness of the tabloid journals. And from that we concluded: Do not believe anything from them! They lie because they must lie, because they have nothing else to bring forward.

It produces a grotesque effect and is nauseating when a Jewish tabloid professes that its mission is to snoop around the private lives of National Socialist leaders in order to find there some dark facts. A race that for two thousand years has brought upon itself a veritable Atlas-burden of guilt and crime, especially against the German people, really possesses no mandate to venture on the cleansing of public life among decent men. First of all, it is not a matter for debate whether occasionally a National Socialist leader conducted himself in this or that manner. The sole matter of debate is who has led the German nation into its unspeakable misfortune, who paved the way to this misfortune with catch-phrases and hypocritical promises, looked on with folded arms when an entire nation threatened to sink into chaos. When this question has been solved and the guilty have been brought to justice, then one may research where we failed.

We cannot bypass without comment the cowardly lack of character with which the bourgeois press up to the present day bows down without resistance to the shameless journalistic activity of Jewish hack writers. The bourgeois press is otherwise always ready at hand when it is necessary to wipe out a nationalist politician or to denounce so-called excesses of the National Socialist press. Compared to the Jewish tabloid journalism, on the other hand, it is of an incomprehensible, even irresponsible broadmindedness. They are afraid of the publicist-sharpness and ruthlessness of the tabloid journalism. They clearly have no desire to enter into the danger zone. With regard to the Jew, they are filled with an insurmountable inferiority complex and leave no stone unturned to live in peace with him.

If the bourgeois press plucks up courage even once to mention a mild critical word against Jewish libellers that is already a lot. Most often it perseveres in staid indifference and polite silence and withdraws into the safety of the saying, “One who handles filth dirties himself.”