Featured Articles

Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics

It’s very easy to criticize Boris Johnson, the current prime minister of Britain and leader of the so-called Conservative party. Johnson is dishonest, devious and a dedicated shabbos goy. He serves Jews rather than Whites and Israel rather than Britain.

MP Portraits Project in The Reasons Room..

Sir Keir Starmer, Creature of the Swamp

But there is one pit of depravity that Johnson has never plumbed and one crime against decency that has never besmirched his soul. He’s not now and never has been a lawyer. His dishonesty is natural, not nurtured, and he did at least try to reform Britain’s lawyer-and-humanities-graduate-infested government bureaucracy. He’s surrendered now and appointed a Jewish swamp-creature called Dan Rosenfeld as his Chief of Staff. But he did try. Keir Starmer, the current Labour leader, will never surrender because he’ll never fight. He sides automatically with government bureaucracy and slithered easily to the top of it during the previous Labour government.

Toasting the President of Israel

Starmer became head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Britain’s very politically correct overseers of the law, under Tony Blair. In other words, he is a lawyer. And that’s a very bad sign for working-class Whites whom the Labour party was explicitly founded to defend. Like the lawyer Tony Blair and the lawyer Barack Obama before him, Starmer heads a party that supposedly champions the downtrodden workers against the greedy bosses. But the Labour and Democratic parties long ago abandoned the workers to side with the bosses. And that means that they side with Jews against Whites. Blair and Obama both rose to power on a tide of Jewish money and media support. Starmer hopes to do the same. He’s married to a Jewish woman and has performed the goy grovel enthusiastically at the Jewish Chronicle:

Labour leadership frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer has revealed he participates in Friday-night dinners with his family, at which his proudly Jewish father-in-law says prayers. Speaking to the JC [Jewish Chronicle], the Holborn and St Pancras MP said he felt comfortable attending family and communal “barmitzvahs, weddings, and funerals”.

The married father of two children also said he had “no issue” with standing for the traditional toast to the president of the state of Israel at Jewish weddings. He told the JC: “I don’t have any issue with that — or with any of the traditions.” (Sir Keir Starmer opens up about his family’s Friday night dinners, The Jewish Chronicle, 5th March 2020)

Note that Starmer has a knighthood, which is a sure sign that the hostile elite sees him as no threat. When he spoke to the Jewish Chronicle, he was campaigning to replace Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who will never receive a knighthood because he isn’t interested in Jewish money and has never followed Jewish orders. Indeed, in a well-regulated world Corbyn would never have become Labour leader, because he had little support in the party’s pro-Jewish senior ranks. But he was put on the leadership ballot to make it look more diverse and won an easy but unexpected victory, because he was very popular with ordinary Labour members.

The Unwatched Web: how rich Jewish organizations control British politics

When he became Labour leader, Corbyn didn’t end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly against the interests of Whites. But he did end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly for the interests of Jews. And that’s why he was demonized as an “anti-Semite” and finally driven from office. Starmer isn’t going to make Corbyn’s mistakes. Not only is he married to a Jew, he has happily accepted money from at least one very rich Jewish businessman. In April 2020, the Jewish Chronicle reported that Starmer “had been targeted by hard-left activists after it emerged that Sir Trevor Chinn, a Jewish philanthropist, had donated £50,000 to his leadership campaign.” The activists were making the horrific allegation that Starmer would somehow be influenced by the Zionist Chinn simply because Chinn had given him large sums of money and helped him become Labour leader.

Jewish Philanthropist Sir Trevor Chinn

As all decent people know, that isn’t how rich Jews operate. They give money to politicians out of pure goodness of heart and with absolutely no expectation of return. Who but a vile anti-Semite would think that Chinn was trying to control or influence Starmer in any way? As the Jewish Chronicle pointed out, Chinn is a “philanthropist.” He works for the greater good of humanity, just like the Jewish “property developers” Zak Gertler and Richard Desmond, who have given large sums to the Conservative government. It’s pure coincidence that Tories “accepted a donation from Richard Desmond shortly after Jenrick approved plans for a £1bn housing development by the property developer.” In his previous incarnation as a pornographer, Desmond also donated large sums to Tony Blair’s Labour government.

Buying both sides

Desmond’s donations to both Conservatives and Labour are further proof that rich Jews are impartial philanthropists — Desmond obviously ignores politics and gives for the love of giving. Of course, no-one accused Jeremy Corbyn of being influenced by Jewish money because he didn’t accept any. But that’s precisely why he had to be demonized and driven out of the Labour leadership. Unless Jewish millionaires like Chinn, Gertler and Desmond are funding both sides of British politics, how can people be made to understand that Jewish money comes with no strings attached?

During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.

“Israel first, Britain second!” — Tory Party Treasurer Sir Ehud Sheleg

Despite the importance of his role as Conservative Party Treasurer, the Jewish millionaire Ehud Sheleg is almost unknown to the general public. Few people would even recognize his name. Even fewer know that he is an Israeli citizen, born in Tel Aviv, and has openly stated that Britain takes second place in his affections: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.” But why should anyone be interested in such biographical trivia? Only a vile anti-Semite would suggest that Sheleg might seek to influence government policy for the benefit of Jews and Israel, rather than for the benefit of Whites and Britain.

Keir Starmer certainly isn’t going to raise any uncomfortable questions about Sheleg’s role in the Conservative government. He would be denounced as an anti-Semite if he did, of course, but that doesn’t explain Starmer’s silence. He’s silent because he doesn’t see anything wrong in Israel-firsters like Sheleg and Chinn being in control of British politics. Starmer has a Jewish wife and is funded by Jewish millionaires. Like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Zionism Inc. I don’t think he will ever become British prime minister, but if he does, we will hear a familiar refrain: “Meet the new boss — same as the old boss!” Britain’s anti-White and pro-Jewish politics will proceed as before. Gold guides goyim and Jewish money controls British politics. See above.

2030 Vision: Part I

“Having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.”—Yuval Noah Harari, From Animals into Gods: A Brief History of Humankind

The “elites” promise to have turned Earth into an Edenic paradise by the year 2030—the year their Messiah, FM-2030, will be reincarnated. Joking aside, FM-2030 was a real person and the year 2030 does seem to have some deep significance, although it is somewhat obscure. Regarding the man FM-2030, his real name was Fereidoun M. Esfandiary. He was a transhumanist who served on the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and was a corporate consultant for JC Penny and Lockheed. He chose the name FM-2030 as he believed he would celebrate his hundredth birthday in 2030 (at present, his corpse is being cryopreserved at the Alcor Life Extension facility in Arizona), and because, as he stated, “Conventional names define a person’s past: ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, religion. … The name 2030 reflects my conviction that the years around 2030 will be a magical time. In 2030 we will be ageless and everyone will have an excellent chance to live forever. 2030 is a dream and a goal.”

Indeed, the desire to rub out all distinctions between and among people is a common theme with the ruling class—with some obvious exceptions—and 2030 has become almost this mythical endpoint for all of the various globalist projects such as the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum’s 2030Vision. For what it’s worth, the latter project’s partners include Salesforce, Google, Facebook, two arms of the United Nations, the Government of Botswana, Microsoft, Amazon, the Overseas Development Institute (a kind of Chatham House/USAID-type entity), and more.

2030 is also 2+3=5—five points or pentagram (Pentagon, etc.). Maybe a stretch, and maybe eminently silly to the reader, but rest assured a great many of the “elites” actually believe in things like astrology and numerology, and are deeply in invested in the occult. Why do you think the powerful individuals who attend the bizarre rituals in places like Bohemian Grove and give praise to Moloch while sacrificing an effigy of a child do what they do? Moloch, for the record, was a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice, through fire or war. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21).

This 2030 vision is reflected pretty much across the board of most all globalist institutions (irrespective of “public” or “private”), from the aforementioned lot to the Government of Saudi Arabia to the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030. The planning has long been in the works, and the infrastructure and regulatory framework is being brought on line as we speak.

Writing for the MIT Sloan Management Review in 2019, Andrew S. Winston discussed the “mega-trends” the “elites” have in store for the global population in 2030, which include at least two-thirds of the world’s projected 8.5 billion people shoved into cities, where “effects will include the need for more big buildings with better management technologies (big data and AI that makes buildings much more efficient).” Additionally, Winston writes, “The amount of information collected on every person, product, and organization will grow exponentially, and the pressure to share that information — with customers and consumers in particular — will expand. … But all these tools will shatter privacy in the process.” Technology is clearly the accelerant toward this globalist Panopticon whatever the justification, be it climate change, “inclusion,” or COVID-19 contact tracing and vaccine passports, which are already being tied to financial services, such as Samsung Pay and CommonHealth’s Vaccine Pass, “a digital version of your COVID-19 vaccine record you can conveniently add to Samsung Pay.”  Other similar apps include CLEAR Health Pass and Excelsior Pass. Why would this be necessary? And think longer-term, not the short-term justifications.

By the way, CLEAR Health Pass’s catchphrase is “Come Back Better,” reminiscent of Joe Biden’s campaign phrase “Build Back Better,” which is not an accident: the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Councils section of their website states explicitly that:

Global Future Council members provide strategic insights, scientific evidence, forward guidance and multidisciplinary understanding of major issues that will shape the post-COVID world through: Identifying and monitoring the latest trends, scientific research and frontier technologies with significant potential to transform societies, industries and regions. …Contributing their expertise and knowledge, sharing key lessons and developing innovative ideas to “building back better” initiatives of industry, regional and solution platforms.

We can see that the Establishment is priming the population for the continued Fourth Industrial Revolution and the AI-driven future. Despite its sheen, this agenda will subjugate and degrade humanity, and make no mistake, it is not just society but humanity itself that will be modified to fit the vision, not the other way around. As Klaus Schwab (founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum) himself notes:

The ability to edit biology can be applied to practically any cell type, enabling the creation of genetically modified plants or animals, as well as modifying the cells of adult organisms including humans. … In fact, the science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical. The list of potential applications is virtually endless. … It is in the biological domain where I see the greatest challenges for the development of both social norms and appropriate regulation. We are confronted with new questions around what it means to be human, what data and information about our bodies and health can or should be shared with others, and what rights and responsibilities we have when it comes to changing the very genetic code of future generations.

The answer of what can and should be shared for Schwab and his ilk is, of course, everything. The use of surveillance technology as it pertains to COVID-19 is very much a part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda, as Head of Corporate Governance and Trust Daniel Dobrygowski calls this “crisis relevant tech.” Much as 9/11 ushered in an ever-expanding era of mass surveillance in the United States, COVID-19 is serving a similar purpose (among many other insidious purposes) both in the US and abroad—both engineered events have been major catalysts in dragging the public along the road to the globalists’ future utopia by playing on their fears and using propaganda to mold and shape the narrative.

Klaus Schwab has discussed the possibility of AI-shaping narratives, and given the number of sheer coincidences (or not), and the fact that AI does in fact now generate a significant number of news features as opposed to articles by human authors, this is not all that much of a stretch, especially given the advances in quantum computing. With velocity as a key feature of the modern world, as Schwab is quick to acknowledge, the power of AI to simply overwhelm the human mind in a deluge of data is becoming more of a possibility than ever. Indeed, as the Israeli author and proponent of this agenda Yuval Noah Harari states:

It is all about the data. … When power is concentrated and hierarchical and you inject AI, it’s much easier for algorithms to take it over. It’s a gradual shift. More and more decisions are taken by the algorithms that humans don’t understand. They trust their algorithm but they don’t understand the decisions they are taking and they find increasingly that they become like puppets in the hands of these algorithms.

As far as “crisis relevant tech” is concerned, Tim Hinchliffe writes:

The WEF openly supports the development of so-called “crisis-relevant tech” as evidenced by its backing the development of health passports, which act as digital records of your health status to determine whether or not you are free to travel or even go outside. Earlier this year the WEF announced it was supporting the development and launch of CommonPass — a platform whose mission is “to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private.” The WEF also lent its support to another health passport initiative called CovidPass, which was built by one of the WEF’s own “Young Global Leaders,” Mustapha Mokass, who used to be an advisor at the World Bank. CovidPass “uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.” In supporting both CommonPass and CovidPass, the Davos elite have made it clear they want “crisis-relevant tech” like health passports to be part of the great reset solution.[1]

People are obviously reticent to have themselves tracked and traced, as the WEF readily acknowledged in July 2020: “Non-mandatory contact tracing apps have met with only limited success so far due to privacy concerns.” Consequently, larger carrots and sticks have been needed to coerce the population into compliance, such as bribing them with stimulus checks/UBI and/or framing those who do not accept this foreign material being injected into their bodies as public health threats. And because concepts such as the COVID-19 “health passport” are conspiracy theories (like the Great Reset itself, as The New York Times will remind you, even though there was an issue of Time magazine dedicated to it, and the entire World Economic Forum website centers around it, and Schwab has published books on it), Denmark rolled out its coronavirus digital passport in early 2021, available on the Danish digital health portal, sundhed.dk. Estonia began experimenting with a “digital immunity passport” in 2020, and as of February 2021, the UK government was funding at least eight firms to develop a similar platform. Many airlines have a mobile app version as well. Just conspiratorial nonsense, though, by “fringe extremists,” criminals, misinformation spreaders, and terrorists (all terms being linked in the flood of propaganda regarding any dissident, be it regarding stolen elections or the COVID-19 medicalized tyranny).

Also sitting at the intersection of medical tyranny and big data/technology is the World Health Organization. You may recognize them from the ongoing COVID-19 saga as a preeminent authority on all things coronavirus. In addition to the centrality of data as they readily acknowledge, per their Immunization Agenda 2030:

The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded the world of the power of vaccines. … Immunization is playing a critical role in achieving the [United Nations] Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Immunization reaches more people than any other health and social service, making it the foundation of primary health care systems and a key driver toward universal health coverage. This makes immunization critical to SDG3. … Because health is so fundamental to development, IA2030 will also contribute—either directly or indirectly—to 13 of the other SDGs. Immunization is an investment for the future, creating a healthier, safer and more prosperous world for all.

A world, of course, where travel and other basic freedoms are privileges not rights contingent on getting a mandated shot or two or thirty in the arm, right?

Another representative organization, in this instance linking finance and “inclusion” (unless, presumably, you don’t take the jab) would be the Council for Inclusive Capitalism established by the Vatican; according to its website, “The Council is led by Guardian CEOs and global leaders,” who naturally include people like Marc Benioff of Salesforce, Mark Carney (UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Finance Adviser for COP26; former Governor of the Bank of England; former Governor of the Bank of Canada; Board member of Bloomberg Philanthropies; member of the Group of Thirty; member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum), William Lauder of the Estée Lauder Companies, Alex Gorsky of Johnson & Johnson, Kenneth C. Frazier of Merck, Mark Weinberger of EY, Darren Walker of the Ford Foundation, Rajiv Shah of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Lynn Forester de Rothschild (Inclusive Capital Partners, Estée Lauder Companies, Columbia University, E.L. Rothschild LLC, The Economist Group, Gulfstream, General Instruments, United Nations Advisory Committee on Inclusive Financial Services, the McCain Institute for International Leadership, National Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board under President Clinton, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bronfman-Rothschild, Chatham House). Other organizational partners include State Street, BP, Mastercard, Bank of America, TIAA, the OECD, Visa, DuPont, and the Office of the California State Treasurer.

Each of these organizations has made commitments that they explicitly align with select UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. For example, citing SDGs 3 and 10, Johnson & Johnson states that they aim to, “advance the development of an affordable COVID-19 vaccine candidate for emergency pandemic use, including scaling up capacity to meet a goal of supplying at a rate of more than one billion doses of the vaccine globally by the end of 2021.”

What is it about this crop of vaccines—which are inferior to natural immunity regarding the much-hyped Delta variant of the coronavirus—that is causing every major institution not just in the United States but across the globe to put the pressure on people to take it, in many cases mandate it even?

The United Nations states on its Sustainable Development Goals website that its SDGs not only intersect with climate change, but that “more important than ever, the goals provide a critical framework for COVID-19 recovery.” In Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, “recovery” from the pandemic—which they state “will not be possible without a vaccine”—is also explicitly tied to things like climate change. The currents of this global Hive/Internet-of-Things project seem to be getting stronger, and they’re taking us into some deep, threatening waters. With COVID-19 as justification, we see all of the pieces falling neatly into place to realize the culmination of said project.

Parties and governments intertwined in this globalist network also treat the 2030 SDGs as binding. For example, Canada’s Green Party, currently helmed by Annamie Paul (described as “the first Black Canadian and first Jewish woman to be elected leader of a major federal party in Canada”), believes that the SDGs and the “climate emergency must be the lens through which every policy envelope is viewed–the economy, health, education, foreign affairs, immigration, public safety, defence, social welfare, transportation.”

Their actions support their words. According to Canada’s Voluntary National Review submitted to the United Nations in 2018:

The Government of Canada’s policies, programs and priorities are already well-aligned to the SDGs. … Canada is responding to these challenges through concrete actions to reduce poverty, advance gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, narrow the socio-economic gaps that exist between different groups, foster inclusion and celebrate diversity, and improve equality of opportunity for all. … In June 2017, Canada announced its Feminist International Assistance Policy, which seeks to eradicate poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world. Canada firmly believes that promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls is the most effective way to achieve this goal and drive progress on all SDGs. … Canada will mainstream a gender-responsive perspective in the implementation of the SDGs, consistent with its emphasis on gender equality as a cross-cutting priority. The Government will launch a process … to develop a national strategy on the 2030 Agenda through collaboration with all levels of government, Indigenous peoples, civil society and the private sector. Data is key to developing solutions to challenges facing the implementation of this Agenda, to ensure no one is left behind, and to track progress on the SDGs. As such, this report includes validated Canadian data for the SDG Global Indicator Framework.

Data being the “fossil fuel” of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the digitized sphere becomes the focal point, moving away from the physical world and, as Schwab and Malleret note, modifying the physical realm:

During the peak of the pandemic, O2O—online to offline—gained major traction. … This phenomenon of blurring the distinction between online and offline …  has emerged as one of the most potent trends of the post-COVID-19 era. The pandemic crisis accelerated this phenomenon of eversion because it both forced and encouraged us towards a digital, “weightless” world faster than ever, as more and more economic activity had no choice but to take place digitally. … We could go as far as to say that, for a little while, teleportation supplanted transportation. … Large online companies like Amazon and Alibaba expanded decisively in the O2O business, particularly in food retailing and logistics.[2]

The globalist Establishment has been working for some time to consolidate control over the food supply, as with everything else. As just one example of the current efforts, the Rockefeller Foundation has called for a need to “reimagine and re-design our food systems” as COVID-19 has been a “stress test” that somehow (this is never actually explicated by the Establishment even though they are constantly linking it) is connected to/exacerbates/comes from “climate change.”

According to Sara Scherr (President and CEO of EcoAgriculture Partners) and Sara Farley (Managing Director, Integrated Operations, Food Initiative at the Rockefeller Foundation) writing for the World Economic Forum website on June 9, 2020, “In 2021, the global community will develop a new action framework for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, advance action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and begin the UN Decade for Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainable food systems must be central to these strategies.” The Food Systems Summit of 2021, called for by the UN Secretary-General, is based on the UN’s premise that, “our food systems must change to achieve the goals of the 2030 Agenda.” You know, living in a pod, eating bugs, and all that. As Danish Parliamentarian Ida Auken writes for the World Economic Forum in “This is what 2030 could look like if we win the war on climate change”: “By 2030, your CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced. Meat on your dinner table will be a rare sight. … If you choose to call a car, an algorithm will calculate the smartest route for the vehicle. … Air traffic has started to decline. … People are trying out new types of living arrangements with more shared functions and spaces.”

Already we see examples such as Portland, Oregon’s Residential Infill Project, which follows in the footsteps of Vancouver, Minneapolis, and Seattle with duplex and triplex re-legalization, and Austin, Texas’s “sixplex-with-affordability.” There are also size limits on one-unit buildings, and four homes can be built on most residential lots. There will also, of course, be a diversity component, although the ruling class always speaks in euphemisms; writing for the Sightline Institute, Michael Andersen reports that, “Portland’s new rules will also offer a ‘deeper affordability’ option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices. The measure will make it viable for nonprofits to intersperse below-market housing anywhere in the city for the first time in a century”—non-profits like the Open Society Foundation and their ilk presumably. Open Philanthropy has provided significant grant money to the Sightline Institute; Open Philanthropy’s main funders are the Jewish Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna.

The above-mentioned EcoAgriculture Partners, based out of Fairfax, Virginia, “brings together women’s groups, farmer cooperatives, civil society organizations, universities, international NGOs, United Nations agencies, governments, and more to advance multi-stakeholder management processes in landscapes, strengthen governance strategies, and promote cross-sector research. We connect landscape leaders across national boundaries to share experiences and inspire innovations in integrated landscape management.” In case you were wondering, some of their major partners include: the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Bank Group, the UNDP, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the US Department of Agriculture.

Interesting to see the USDA and the Gates Foundation there, especially as Bill Gates is now the biggest private owner of farmland in the United States. What was it Henry Kissinger said? Oh yes: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

[1] Hinchliffe, Tim, “A skeptical look at the ‘great reset’: a technocratic agenda that waited years for a global crisis to exploit,” November 2, 2020. The Sociable.

[2] Schwab, Klaus and Thierry Malleret, COVID-19: The Great Reset, 2020. pp. 177-178.

Lipton Matthews Interviews Richard Lynn

Richard Lynn is a distinguished academic and prolific researcher whose interests span a fascinating array of topics. Professor Lynn is a pioneer in the field of intelligence research and is well regarded for his numerous books documenting the association between intelligence and social outcomes.
1.Professor Lynn, you have written extensively on the predictive power of IQ, so could you explain why intelligence is such an important predictor of success?
Intelligent people learn faster and more effectively, and can solve problems that unintelligent people are unable to solve.
2. Contemporary economists infrequently examine the role of IQ in explaining disparities across countries, but you denounce this stance. Can you explain the mechanisms by which intelligence affects development?
Intelligent people are able to create more efficient institutions including government and industry.
3. Disparities in development between Northern and Southern Italy are usually ascribed to environmental factors, but should we assign a role to IQ?
There is about a 10-point IQ difference between North and South Italy which cannot be explained by environmental factors. The issue is examined in my paper “IQs in Italy are higher in the North: A reply to Felice and Giugliano.” These critics have contended that school quality could be responsible for the North-South differences. The first problem with this is that it does not account for the effect of intelligence in creating better schools. Secondly, the lower IQs in the south are attributable to the admixture of North African and Middle Eastern ancestry shown by the frequency of the haplogroup E1b1b.
4. James Flynn observed that throughout the twentieth century, IQ scores increased, but is the Flynn effect measuring g or specific cognitive skills that are environmentally determined?
Flynn attributed the secular increase in intelligence to a number of factors including improved nutrition, better schooling and a more stimulating environment. But many contend that these are a consequence of adaptations to changes in the cultural environment. Michael Woodley of Menie has shown that the Flynn effect is weakly related to g.
5. Researchers are documenting a reversal of the Flynn Effect. What is the cause of this occurrence?
My own research has shown that the decline in genotypic intelligence is caused by the negative association between intelligence and fertility, since highly intelligent people have fewer children. This subject is covered in my 2004 paper “New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States.” In a more recent study “The Negative Flynn Effect: A Systematic Review,” co-written with Edward Dutton and Dimitri Van der Linder we list immigration and dysgenic fertility as explanations for the reversal.
Ole Rogeburd and his co-authors argue: “Our results remain consistent with a number of proposed hypotheses of IQ decline: changes in educational exposure or quality, changing media exposure, worsening nutrition, and social spillovers from increased immigration.” For this assertion to be sound the authors must provide evidence that schooling and nutrition are getting worse.
6. Sex differences in intelligence are observable and you argue that they become demonstrable during adolescence. Why is this the case?
In the evolutionary past men were responsible for hunting and warfare and this would have selected for greater intelligence and spatial abilities. In addition, intelligent men would have been more successful in competing for women. The sex difference in intelligence appears at the age of 16 years because the development of girls ceases at this age, whereas it continues for boys. Becker and Rindermann (2017) have confirmed that sex differences in intelligence appear during later adolescence.
7. Intelligence is unequally distributed across societies; therefore, could you provide an evolutionary account for the unequal distribution of intelligence.
The intelligence of societies increases in colder environments as an adaptation to the greater cognitive demands. I have called this the Cold Winters Theory. Peoples in cold environments needed a greater variety of complex tools than peoples in tropical and sub-tropical environments. Torrance (1983) has documented a link between latitude and the number and complexity of tools used by contemporary hunter-gatherers. He has shown that hunter-gatherers in tropical and subtropical latitudes like the Amazon Basin and New Guinea typically have been 10 and 20 different tools, while those in the colder northern latitudes of Siberia, Alaska and Greenland have been 25 and 60 different tools. The studies of Donald Templer, Satoshi Kanazawa, Bryan Pesta and Joseph Ryan have confirmed the link between cold climates and intelligence.
8. Some invoke the average intelligence of people living in the Arctic as a refutation of the Cold Winters Theory. Are they misinterpreting the theory?
This is explained in my book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (2015). The explanation lies in the small numbers of the Arctic Peoples whose population at the end of the twentieth century was only approximately 56,000 as compared with approximately 1.4 billion North East Asians. While it is impossible to make precise estimates of population sizes during the main Würm glaciation, there can be no doubt that the North East Asians were many times more numerous than the Arctic Peoples. The effect of the difference in population size will have been that mutations for higher intelligence occurred and spread in the North East Asians that never appeared in the Arctic Peoples. The North East Asians consisting of the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese would have formed a single extended breeding population of demes in which mutant alleles for high intelligence would have spread but would not have been transmitted to the Arctic peoples isolated by high mountain ranges and long distance. The Arctic peoples did, however, evolve a large brain size, approximately the same as that of the North East Asians, so it is curious that they do not have the same intelligence. A possible explanation for this is that the Arctic peoples have evolved a strong visual memory that would have been needed when they went out on long hunting expeditions and needed to remember landmarks in order to get home in largely featureless environments of snow and ice. An increase of this ability would have required an increase in brain size but is not measured in intelligence tests. A further possibility is that one or more new mutant alleles for more efficient neurophysiological processes underlying intelligence may have appeared in the North East Asians but not in the Arctic Peoples.
9. Although it is one of the most replicated findings in psychological research, many still doubt the validity of the Black-White IQ gap. Could you shed light on its genetic component?
Based on numerous sources which I discuss in Race Differences in Intelligence, Blacks consistently obtain lower IQs than Whites. This gap is present even when compared to Whites of a similar socio-economic status and in all countries. Furthermore, the study by Sandra Scarr [see S. Scarr, R. Weinberg, 1976; R. Weinberg, S. Scarr & I. D. Waldman, 1992; summarized by Lynn, 1994], showed that Black infants adopted by middle class whites do not gain an IQ advantage, showing that genetics must be responsible for the lower black IQ.
10. Exploring racial differences in personality traits like psychopathy and self-control is the next frontier in psychological research. How do you suggest researchers articulate their findings to a mainstream audience?
By publishing their findings. These will no doubt be ignored by mainstream media but eventually, the facts will be accepted.

Review: The Perversion of Normality

“This Jewish factor is significant and has been commented on by Jewish scholars. Yet when a Gentile scholar, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, an extensively experienced psychologist from California State University (Long Beach), examined Jewish involvement in Critical Theory and other subversive movements as a survival mechanism, he was vilified as an ‘anti-Semite’ and his conclusions and sources were brought into question with the standard ad hominem and straw man arguments.”

Kerry Bolton
The Perversion of Normality: From the Marquis de Sade to Cyborgs
Arktos, 2021.

Since at least the 1960s, a war of increasingly global significance has been waged against human ‘primary ties’: the traditional family bond, faith, homeland, culture, and ethnicity. This aggression has been waged by a confluence of hostile groups including oligarchs and financiers, dysfunctional types who both promote and excel in filth and decay, and ethnic cliques motivated by extreme racial enmity. Connecting these various groups are a host of security agencies, NGOs, and technocrats, resulting in a bewildering swirl of attack points and subterfuge. If the Western peoples and their culture are locked in conflict, we are witnessing not a straightforward duel but a hyena attack. Faced with a large opponent, these hostile groups move simultaneously to both run the West to exhaustion and to tear chunks from its vital blood vessels. It is difficult indeed to find clarity in the middle of such a storm, which features degenerate perverts like the Marquis de Sade, the Rockefeller Foundation, Jewish intellectuals, the CIA, transgenderism, George Soros, and, most recently, the ‘transhumanists.’ Drawing on classics like Spengler’s Decline of the West (recently republished by Arktos in two impressive hardback volumes), Kerry Bolton, perhaps the most prolific and controversial writer ever produced by New Zealand, has produced an admirable and exhaustive study on the perversion of normality in Western culture and society that offers some of the clearest analysis yet produced on how we came to arrive at this point of peak degeneracy. In the following review essay, I want to provide a summary of Bolton’s findings, as well as some commentary on the content, purpose, and significance of the text.

One can perhaps sum up The Perversion of Normality best by describing it as a very lengthy (over 500 pages) and comprehensive exploration of the trajectory of Cultural Marxism in the West, complete with a preamble on degenerate Leftism and Freudianism, and without some of the usual apologetics for capitalism. The tone is scholarly, and the book is extremely well-referenced. The range of historical and contemporary material under discussion is very broad, indicating a life spent in deep research. Particularly impressive is the balance struck by the author. When embracing the topics under discussion, it’s all too easy to lay undue emphasis on one factor over another, or to present a picture that isn’t entirely convincing. In recent years, for example, I’ve noticed a tendency among some within White advocacy to argue that our problems are fundamentally caused by capitalist oligarchs, or by tendencies in liberalism, or by perverted leftists, and perhaps not so much by any ethnic agenda that may underpin any of these spheres. As indicated by the quote opening this essay, the narrative tapestry woven by Bolton has a strong ring of truth, and certain facts about the situation in which we currently find ourselves, no matter how uncomfortable or controversial, are addressed here in an unflinching manner. In Bolton’s words,

The Perversion of Normality examines an array of individuals, doctrines, and movements, most claiming to serve behind the banners of science, progress, and humanity. What seem to be divergent converge by what Dr Richard Spence, a genuine scholar, calls ‘connecting the dots.’ What emerges is a movement over the course of several hundred years, pushing forward an artificial construct in the name of ‘humanity,’ but for the benefit of a self-anointed elite of oligarchs and technocrats. In hellish pandemonium normality is toppled on its head, in the name of ‘normality,’ and the absurd, sick, and destructive become the new normal.

Godfathers of Perversion

Bolton opens by taking aim at de Sade and Freud, identifying the latter as “one of the primary influences of the modern epoch. … Freudianism, combined with Marxism and heavily revised, has been a lethal formula for deconstructing the primary customs, ethos, traditions and faith of the West.” In fact, “the Freudo-Marxian world revolution has been more enduring and encompassing than Bolshevism, while ‘conservatives’ were worried about a ‘Moscow plot.’” In Bolton’s view, the clique responsible for bringing Freudo-Marxian thought to America is the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. This will be old news, of course, to many of our readers, and especially those familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald, but Bolton presents an array of mainstream historical sources which freshen up what remains a very radical and momentous discovery—that a very Jewish cast of characters were responsible for developing, spreading, and implementing many of the most destructive ideas of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. At the heart of these ideas is the desire to fracture the host society/mass culture. Bolton:

The focus of this Neo-Freudianism is on the individual detached from society. It is therefore a means of deconstructing and fracturing the social organism, which is why the Marxian theorists who created the Frankfurt Institute in 1923 found Freudianism to be such a useful ingredient in creating a new revolutionary synthesis. The organic bonds of family, state, faith, and ethos, disparaged as ‘primary ties’ in need of cutting, were portrayed as injurious to the individual well-being and as repressing the individual’s path to self-actualisation.

The author does an exceptional job of clarifying and explaining how the methodologies of those harboring ethnic grievances overlapped in utility with other interested parties. Bolton points out that Neo-Freudian interpretations of Man, particularly in relation to desire and gratification, were eagerly supported and adopted by capitalist elements. Bolton writes that

the social sciences provided a doctrine for the rationalisation of instant ‘ego gratification’ that is the premise for expanding consumerism, and the fad of the new. Traditional—medieval—Western societies, with their religious foundation and repudiation of avarice as sinful, prohibited mercantile competition, advertising and marketing, without which modern capitalism could not function.

Bolton’s content on these various strands of aggressors, all of whom wish to cut the “primary ties” of the Western peoples, is exceptional, and does a great deal to demonstrate how something like CIA involvement with the Frankfurt School, and therefore the involvement and funding of non-Jews, doesn’t preclude a Jewish group evolutionary strategy. The simple fact is that, by the 1950s, many interested parties were interested in destroying much of Western society, as well as engaging in social engineering and control. Even among Whites, there has clearly been a strain of nihilistic and destructive perversion, the spiritual godfather of which is surely the Marquis de Sade. De Sade’s shadow is significant in Bolton’s treatment, reminding me of a similar place afforded to de Sade in the works of E. Michael Jones. Given de Sade’s writings on homosexuality and abortion, presented verbatim by Bolton and causing my blood to boil, it’s difficult to argue against the fact this monstrous pervert is one of the founders of our current age. For Bolton he represents a kind of demonic aberration of the Western soul, anticipating the dialectical materialism of Marx, the psychoanalysis of Freud, the sexology of Alfred Kinsey, the feminist birth control and abortion of Margaret Sanger, and the Critical Theory of Marcuse, Fromm, Adorno et al.

Following this introductory look at two of the central ghouls of the epoch, there are 27 chapters concerning aspects of the origins, history, funding, and implementation of Cultural Marxism, from the time of the Frankfurt School to the present day. These 27 chapters are then followed by further sections on population control, the United Nations, George Soros, “social deconstruction through ethnic diversity,” behavior modification, transhumanism, and posthumanism.

The bulk of the book concerns Cultural Marxism and, at over 350 pages, this section almost certainly guarantees new material for even the most serious student of the subject. Bolton defines Cultural Marxism as

the ideological buttressing of anything that subverts traditional values and cultures, such as globalism; open borders; transgenderism; formlessness in arts; music; architecture; a hellish formlessness in general. The purpose is to deconstruct any vestiges of tradition in the name of ‘progress,’ the goal is to establish a nebulous mass humanity devoid of identity in regard to ethnos, land, and even gender, ironically called ‘identity politics.’ Dialectically, this push toward universal homogenisation is promoted in the name of being ‘different.’ … The Left and its globalist sponsors deconstruct in order to reconstruct.

Like Spengler, Bolton views capitalism and the Left as possessing the same essential outlook, since both see themselves as “part of the same historic process of internationalism.” In Bolton’s words,

detachment and rootlessness allow for the unhampered movement of labour, so that people become economic units, as part of a global production process. This is why the Left are useless as opponents of globalisation: when the Left attack any restrictions on immigration as ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ and ‘Fascism,’ they are following the party-line of international capitalism. … As the philosopher-historian Oswald Spengler observed nearly a century ago, leftist movements operate in the interests of money (plutocracy); so-called ‘people’s revolts’ have served oligarchic interests since the Gracchus revolt in Rome. Bolshevism was funded by oligarchs. The situation remains.

The Left-Capitalist Nexus

The advance of Cultural Marxism is therefore primarily the responsibility of hostile Jewish intellectuals with ethnic grievances against the West and its peoples, of degenerate Whites who actually seek to frolic in a sea of filth, of avaricious capitalists who wish to see the elimination of all barriers to their potential accumulation of unprecedented riches, and of power-hungry governments seeking absolute social control. The primary weapon employed by all factions is the Freudo-Marxism Synthesis, which touted social engineering as a ‘therapy’ but possessed social control as its aim. This synthesis and its early promotion was of course Jewish in origin, and Bolton makes sure to hammer this point home. He repeatedly stresses that many of these figures are Jews, and that the Frankfurt School, its funders, and many other peripheral associations involved in early Cultural Marxism were “largely Jewish.” As such, several of Bolton’s chapters concerning early Cultural Marxism compliment material found in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. Referring to the works of Nathan Cofnas and others, Bolton has little patience for those suggesting that Cultural Marxism is little more than an empty ‘conspiracy theory,’ pointing out that while most treatments of Cultural Marxism are well-referenced and academically sound, most denunciations of the concept bear the hallmarks of conspiracy theory themselves, and rely on blunt ad hominem condemnations of opponents as “racists” or “anti-Semites.”

One of the more interesting of Bolton’s 27 chapters on Cultural Marxism is “Funding for Social Sciences,” which documents the role of the Jewish financier Hermann Weil, and later his son Felix, in backing the Institute for Social Research. This Left-capitalist nexus drew a scathing comment from the German playwright Berthold Brecht, which could as easily be applied today to many of the vast, powerful corporations now preaching against homophobia and promoting ethnic dilution: “A rich old man dies, disturbed by the poverty of the world. In his will, he leaves a large sum to set up an institute which will do research on the source of this poverty. Which is of course himself.” The quote very nicely sums up the fact that huge amounts of money are being pumped into causes that are presented as “good” or “just,” but are in fact entirely designed to obscure the sources of exploitation and enhance social control. Even today, among the trustees of the major social science groups, such as the Social Science Research Council and the New School for Social Research, we find large numbers of major figures from international finance, frequently Jews. Bolton writes:

Among the present directors of the Social Science Research Council is Michael Gellert [Jewish], who, as we have seen, is a trustee of the New School. Other interesting associations on the SSRC board include William H. Janeway [married to a Jew], a director of Warburg Pincus international investment firm; Peter Nager [Jewish], Principal of Skyview Ventures, a venture capitalist investment firm, and formerly a partner with the investment banking firm James D. Wolfensohn Inc., and Deutsche Bank; and José Sheinkman [Jewish], vice-president in the Financial Strategies of Goldman, Sachs & Co.

George Soros is perhaps the best example of Jewish international finance at work in contemporary society, and he receives a chapter of his own later in the book.

Bolton spends several chapters examining Cultural Marxist pseudo-scholarship and faux psychiatry. As well as a chapter looking at the concepts of social control and social engineering, there are individual treatments of behaviorism, on pathologizing morality, and the invention of psychiatric disorders to medicalize conservative political opinions or normal family relationships. The range of source material used here is impressive, and includes everything from Plato’s The Republic to actual instances of (almost exclusively Jewish) Freudo-Marxian psychobabble. Several chapters then follow that examine the overlap between the activist social scientists and the CIA, the history of which demonstrates separate streams of agitation, experimentation, and motivations. Bolton explains that “while the social scientists were often unaware of the CIA connections [and presumably the CIA was often unaware of the ethnic component of the activism of the social scientists], the extensive involvement of social scientists with Cold War projects was the result of a convergence of aims and ideologies in regard to the ‘control of human behavior.’”

Pathologizing the Normal, Targeting the Gentile

Much of this control was to be achieved by tackling what Erich Fromm called “the pathology of normalcy.” Bolton writes that the Frankfurt School advanced the idea that

the way to mental health was to cut the individual from the ‘primary ties’ and set him adrift to pursue what in the parlance of the allied field of humanistic psychology becomes self-actualisation, regardless of where that leads, as in the self-actualised examples of the Marquis de Sade, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones; all paragons of liberalism. Should the individual become unhinged, the therapeutic state would be there to offer—or impose—the direction needed to reach the nirvana of ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness.’

While Bolton doesn’t make it clear in his book, presumably because it’s been so intensively covered by Kevin MacDonald, there was an obvious double-standard at play in the studies of “authoritarianism” conducted by the Frankfurt School which casts doubt on the idea that the cutting of all individuals from their ‘primary ties’ was the overarching goal of their work. In fact, it’s absolutely essential that such a claim be qualified with the fact that the only “primary ties” attacked by the Frankfurt School were those of White gentiles. Kevin MacDonald explains in The Culture of Critique:

From the standpoint of the authors of The Authoritarian Personality, group consciousness in the majority is viewed as pathological because it tends necessarily to be opposed to Jews as a cohesive, unassimilated, and unassimilable minority group. Viewed from this perspective, the central agenda of The Authoritarian Personality is to pathologize gentile group strategies while nevertheless leaving open the possibility of Judaism as a minority group strategy. … Again, there is an implicit double standard: the complete abandonment of all in-group designations is the epitome of mental health for gentiles, whereas Jews are implicitly allowed to continue with a strong sense of in-group identity.

It goes without saying that one of the major strategies for selling this new interpretation of “mental health” among gentiles was the promotion of a hedonistic consumer society in which moral structures and inhibitions, particularly in the realm of sex, are removed. While marketed as involving unprecedented freedom and unlimited choice, what we have in fact witnessed is the emergence and expansion of what I’ve previously termed the “Culture of Sterility” in which permanence is scorned, real relationship bonds disintegrate, birth rates plummet, sex roles and identities dissolve, and in which people commodify each other as objects to be consumed and discarded in the same manner as any other contemporary product. Non-reproductive sexual behaviors, especially those of the homosexuals and gender benders, have been lauded by a corporate world only too eager to tap into their greater disposable incomes (lacking the “drain” of children) and lack of emotional attachment.

In The Perversion of Normality, Bolton points to the resurrection of de Sade by Wilhelm Reich, who added a “sexual reductionist” element to Freudo-Marxism. There are several chapters tracing the path of Reich’s ideas through to the present day, outlining in stark detail the devastating attack on the family witnessed in the West over the last 60 years. Bolton stresses at the outset of his chapter on “Deconstructing the Primary Ties” that we again see a “convergence of aims between the Left and oligarchy” which both work for the “deconstruction of race, family, and gender, all of which must become ‘fluid’ ‘social constructs’ to expand globalisation.” Much of the material will be familiar to those well-versed in the work of Kevin MacDonald (editor’s insertion: and Andrew Joyce and other writers at TOO), and Bolton gives MacDonald due credit in a section titled “Jewish Factor” found within a chapter on “Dialectics of Critical Theory.”

The Birth of “Woke”

About halfway through the book, however, beginning with a chapter on the origins of the New Left, The Perversion of Normality moves into territory that will be more novel even for seasoned students of the subject matter. The tone of the book also gains somewhat in intensity, as it leaves more historical material and nears the critical juncture of our current situation. Opening this part of the book, Bolton takes aim at Magnus Hirschfeld (who I’ve discussed on a number of occasions), sexology (the Jewish origins of which I’ve covered here), and the work of Alfred Kinsey, a latter-day godfather of perversion who worked in tandem with Reich’s “Sex-Pol” in order to satisfy his own sick proclivities. Bolton then moves onto a sequence of critical events in the deconstruction of social and moral standards in the West, beginning with the removal of homosexuality from the category of aberrancy by the American Psychiatric Association (with the board of the APA later saying they made the decision based on the testimony of the Jewish psychiatrist Robert Spitzer). Bolton points out that “the Left took a long time to find that it had a ‘gay’ agenda,” and provides some correspondence between Marx and Engels in which both parties express their disgust at homosexuals, make fun of them, and ponder the prospect that certain elements would like to normalize such behavior by converting “this smut into theory.” Bolton points out that Marx would not have been amused by transgenderism, or any other deformations of original Marxist theory, and adds that by the early 1960s, the raison d’être of Critical Theory had become “the revision of Marxism and its synthesis with a revision of Freudianism to arrive at a new revolutionary theory.”

This new revolutionary theory can be found everywhere today in the form of ubiquitous “woke” politics, all of which results in the creation of isolated White consumers without tradition, without significant or meaningful social bonds, without group influence, and without any means of countering state or corporate power. The epitome of woke ideology is found in the now-celebrated and ubiquitous transsexual, who encapsulates the idea that

You can be precisely what you want to be at any given time, or more probably what you are told you want to be by human relations ‘mediators’ and ‘facilitators,’ psychiatrists, counsellors; media, advertising, and entertainment industries. There can be no sense of permanence and duration, but rather a perpetual state of fluidity. In the name of ‘identity,’ any type of organic identity is destroyed until everyone becomes as nebulous as to slot into an amorphous mass ‘humanity’ according to the requirements of social engineering and social control.

Bolton moves on to a very interesting, and horrifying, discussion of the way in which some of Magnus Hirschfeld’s early propaganda techniques are now being used to indoctrinate children in contemporary New Zealand—through “Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE).” The details mirror similar moves in other Western countries. Bolton:

The reason why children are targeted so early is because that is when attitudes can be conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs, with rewards and punishments, at an age range that lacks developed critical faculties. Yet the RSE ‘guide’ states that children will be taught to exercise critical judgment. Nonsense. They will be told how to think. Children will not be able to critically judge the supposed ‘new evidence’ that is presented to them by RSE. … And how can the ‘evidence’ be weighed up anyway, if contrary studies are not included? Children are led along a course that conforms to liberal-globalist doctrines emanating from the UN and elsewhere, so that they are moulded into ‘world-citizens’ of the type required by globalisation.

Another useful contribution from Bolton is found in his chapter “Progressive Regression,” in which he examines the emasculation of the Western male and the role of feminism in contemporary culture and society. Bolton points out that the APA has now pathologized “traditional masculine ideology,” helping to create a general atmosphere of gender confusion that it then responds to by offering transgenderism as a supposedly healthy option to resolve. In Bolton’s words, the answer of the APA to mental health problems is “to accentuate the mobility of multiple identities, rather than encouraging a sense of permanence and rootedness in belonging to something tangible. All is in flux.”

The fifth and final section of the book is devoted to the issues of demographics and population control, and opens with a chapter on “The Myth of White Privilege.” It’s a very interesting chapter that highlights the fact that the common man of most Western nations benefitted little from Victorian colonialism or any other form of Western imperialism now trotted out by the “woke” as justification for demonizing the White race. Bolton stresses

Under capitalism there is no common bond between the White industrialists/financiers and White proletarians: there was no kinship of race or even nationality, other than when the White proletariat was needed as cannon fodder for opening up overseas industrial expansion and markets; then a common ‘patriotism’ was invoked. Yet in the fantasy of the [woke activists], Whites ‘operate as a group to maintain certain advantages and to exclude other groups.’”

The book then moves to a section on “Social Deconstruction Through Ethnic Diversity,” which is complimented with a chapter devoted to the activities of George Soros. The text then comes to a close with a brief discussion of the efforts of several tech oligarchs to develop implantable brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) that, in Bolton’s view, will “enable instant mind-control, without long processes of indoctrination or brainwashing.” This opens us to “a world that no longer acknowledges humans as organic beings, so bereft of organic consciousness that children can be laboratory-manufactured, and raised without the need for the ‘restrictions’ of the parental bond.”

Concluding Remarks

Kerry Bolton’s The Perversion of Normality is a comprehensive, well-written, and well-referenced exploration of the concerted and multifaceted attack on Western social, moral, and cultural mores. In terms of breath of subject matter discussed, I can think of no significant rival text, with my only proviso being that the book represents a kind of introductory guidebook for many of the topics and will therefore require supplementary reading (e.g., the writers at TOO) for a deep grasp of any of the matters under discussion. Some of the chapters were extremely short, which increased the pace of the book and reminded me more than a little of the style and structure of Alain de Benoist’s View from the Right. That being said, this is an extremely detailed book that will hold novel revelations for everyone, and its references and bibliography are a treasure trove in their own right.

My biggest compliment for the book is simply that I admire its approach and, as someone who laments the passing or warping of such terms as “normal,” Bolton’s text is a welcome catalogue of the ideas, personalities, movements, and systems that have conspired to drag Western society into the dirt. Being a kind of narrative history, there are no solutions to our crisis offered here. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Bolton’s approach, in common with that of many of us, is to document what has happened as clearly and professionally as possible in the hope that this knowledge alone will inspire future generations to crack the puzzle of how to reverse the pattern of decline. In my opinion, Bolton accomplishes his documentary task with great success and I warmly congratulate him on this work.

Jasenovac: The Latest Holocaust Embarrassment

Funny how it goes with the Holocaust story: time and again, an ugly bit of truth slips out.  When that happens, yet one more piece of the charade comes to light, for all to see.  For a brief moment, one more embarrassing truth catches the public eye, only to quickly be cast into the depths of the memory hole.  Only through diligence, hard work, and a bit of luck do such things come to assume a greater significance.

This time, sharp eyes caught the slip-up.  The issue in question is an obscure World War II concentration camp in present-day Croatia, by the name of Jasenovac.  The camp—which operated for around three and a half years, from mid-1941 until war’s end—is, by any reasonable accounting, all but irrelevant to the Holocaust story.  Even according to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, only some “12,000 to 20,000 Jews” died there, which means that the camp accounts for, at best, 0.33% of the presumed Jewish death toll of 6 million.  Were it not for a recent blunder by the Jerusalem Post, I would likely never have spent a moment on the topic.  In the grand Holocaust narrative, there are much larger fish to fry.  But the latest gaff gives us a chance to shine a light on the on-going fraud that is the Holocaust.  When the Jews themselves put a foot in their collective mouths, we should make the most of it.

The subject at hand is an article that briefly appeared on the Post website, titled “This disgraceful mocking of the Holocaust needs to stop now” (now available here; the original URL has been deleted).  Written by an Australian journalist named David Goldman, the short essay obsesses over a three-year-old Croatian television interview in which historian and Croatian Jew Ivo Goldstein expounds on the “increasingly problematic” camp at Jasenovac.  The interview, from 2018, included this question of Goldstein:  “Many have commented on the lack of forensic evidence from this particular camp.  Can you explain why this is the case?” (meaning, why there is an absence of evidence).  Goldstein then dropped his “bombshell” reply:  “Because in April 1945, Hitler flew in special machines to Jasenovac.  These machines were used to dissolve the bones that were left.”

Several points here:  One, in all of Holocaust historiography, there is no actual or even rumored documentation of any such “bone dissolving machines.”  There were alleged bone crushers, driven by diesel engines; here is one alleged photo.  But these have been shown to be fraudulent.[1]  The Nazis also allegedly used chlorinated lime (quicklime) to try to decompose corpses at Treblinka and Belzec, but this chemical, when used, only reduces the odor; it does nothing to hasten decomposition.  “Dissolving,” especially for bones, implies the use of acid or some other strong chemical process, but again, such claims are completely unknown in the literature.  Hence Goldman rightly refers to these as “hitherto unheard-of machines.”  Perhaps there was some confusion on Goldstein’s part, and he actually meant ‘crushing,’ not ‘dissolving.’  But again, we have no reliable evidence that such crushing machines were ever used by the Germans.

Two, this idea seems to be a pure invention by Goldstein to explain away a troublesome fact, namely, lack of forensic evidence at Jasenovac—meaning any corpses, ash, or other human remains.  And by “pure invention,” I mean an outright lie.  By all accounts, Goldstein lied to cover up a critical and damning fact.  Anyone who has studied the Holocaust story knows that such lies are legion.[2]

Three, the whole premise that the Germans, in the final throes of defeat, would take the trouble to send anything like “bone dissolving machines” to an obscure camp in Croatia is patently absurd, as Goldman points out.  The whole idea is nonsense.

Perhaps most significantly, this little episode brings to mind similar claims about the more important camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Belzec.  Lacking physical evidence, how can we justify claims of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or a million Holocaust victims at these camps?  For the journalist Goldman, however, the lies about Jasenovac only “contaminate” the larger Holocaust story, which he accepts unquestioningly.  As he says, “Why allow the contamination of Holocaust history with a place [Jasenovac] that cannot provide any independent forensic evidence past a few thousand victims, and that has an ever-increasing—including in 2021—victim list that has been repeatedly proven to have been doctored?”  Indeed; and we can ask the same question about virtually all of the conventional Holocaust sites.  The implications are dire for Jews everywhere.

A Short Course on Jasenovac

It is worthwhile taking a moment to review the conventional history of this camp, given the many lessons it offers here.  It is undisputed that Jasenovac was established under the auspices of the Nazi-aligned government of occupied Croatia known as the Ustasa (or Ustase, or Ustashi).  The camp was constructed in August 1941, not long after Hitler began his invasion of the Soviet Union.  It consisted of five separate facilities, two of which were short-lived, but the other three—Ciglana, Kozara, and Stara Gradiska—operated right until the virtual end of the war in April 1945.  The purpose of the camp is disputed; some claim it was strictly a detention and work camp, whereas others declare it to be an extermination center on par with the worst camps of Poland.  By all accounts, several thousand people died there—mostly Serbs, but also Jews, Roma, and scattered numbers of Muslims and Croatian political enemies.

The numbers of victims, and especially the numbers of Jews, are the main points of contention.  Like most Holocaust camps and death sites, the range of estimates is vast.  Individuals sympathetic to the Ustasa regime, like former president Franjo Tudjman, regularly gave figures of just 3,000 to 4,000 total.  Such numbers date back to the first forensic examinations of the camp in 1947.  But by the 1970s and 1980s, the numbers were rising; the 1990 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (p. 189) claimed, without evidence, that around 300,000 bodies were discovered and exhumed there.

Yet even this number was insufficient for our Holocaust propagandists.  One recent article notes that, over past decades, “historians have estimated that between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed at Jasenovac.”  Serbian publications of the 1990s cited figures as high as 1.2 million.[3]  Of these, around 15% are claimed to have been Jews—meaning, potentially 100,000 to 150,000.  At that upper estimate, this would put Jasenovac well ahead of Majdanek in terms of Jewish death toll, and approaching the status of a Sobibor.  If, on the other hand, Jews were 15% of, say, 3,000 fatalities, it would mean an utterly inconsequential 400 or 500 deaths.  Much is at stake.

Today, though, the more commonly accepted estimates are much closer to the low end than the high.  The current Croatian government seems to accept a figure of 83,000 total deaths.  The US Holocaust Memorial Museum claims that “the Ustasa regime murdered between 77,000 and 99,000 people in Jasenovac between 1941 and 1945.”  Of these, some 12,000 to 20,000 are claimed to have been Jews.  Still, the USHMM is not very sanguine about their own estimates:

Determining the number of victims for…Jasenovac is highly problematic, due to the destruction of many relevant documents, the long-term inaccessibility to independent scholars of those documents that survived, and the ideological agendas of postwar partisan scholarship and journalism, which has been and remains influenced by ethnic tension, religious prejudice, and ideological conflict.  The estimates offered here are based on the work of several historians who have used census records as well as whatever documentation was available in German, Croat, and other archives in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere.

As I noted above, even 20,000 Jewish deaths are largely irrelevant to the broader Holocaust narrative.

A Rebuttal

Goldman’s short essay drew a quick and furious response from Dejan Ristic, the acting director of the Serbian Museum of Genocide Victims.  It was published in the Jerusalem Post just two days after Goldman’s original piece.  Serbia, of course, has an incentive to promote high numbers of victims, and especially high numbers of Serbs, because it enhances their victimhood status and promotes their nationalist agenda.  But more important than high numbers is the overall integrity of the camp as a legitimate Holocaust site and not as a whimsical political ragdoll that has victim numbers ranging over nearly three orders of magnitude, and that is entirely lacking in relevant evidence.

Ristic’s rebuttal—“Shame on those who seek to revise history of the Holocaust”—is as poorly argued as it is poorly written.  (Though, oddly, the Post website still displays this rebuttal, whereas the original essay is long gone.)  Ristic expresses “astonishment” at the “pseudo-scientific and revisionist text” by Goldman, which contains, he says, little more than “a series of inaccurate statements and semi-information.”  Ristic is incensed that Goldman dares to cite the ragged history of victim numbers; the Museum clearly accepts a figure in the mainstream range (80,000 to 90,000), though with the opportunity for higher figures in the future.  Ristic writes, “As the research of the experts of the Museum…continues, it is to be expected that the number of Jasenovac victims will be corrected. …  The estimated total number of victims is, unfortunately, far higher than the one that historical science will ever be able to identify with the precise data.”  He is anxious to quell all thoughts of a mere few thousand deaths, and he equally seeks to avoid any suggestion that the figure approaches a million or more; as he well knows, both extremes threaten to undermine all credibility about the camp.

Most amusingly, in his entire lengthy rebuttal, Ristic never once mentions the “bombshell” about the bone-dissolving machines—not once.  This is a tacit admission that the point holds, that no evidence was sought or found, and that the whole basis for Jasenovac as a top-tier death camp rests on little more than rumor and innuendo, if not outright falsehood.

The central problem for both Ristic and Goldman, however, is that their back-and-forth arguments promise to expose the far more consequential problems of the main Holocaust camps.  In fact, Ristic does the nasty work for us.  He writes, “we could ask a question as to whether it is possible to deny, in the same way, the number of 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 killed in Auschwitz since there is no forensic evidence for that claim either?”  Touché, Mr. Ristic!  The irony is that he is entirely correct, of course.  No evidence (or scarcely any) for Auschwitz; none for Treblinka; none for Belzec—the same old story.

Grave Implications

Goldman’s main beef is with the ad hoc lie of the bone-dissolving machines, but this echoes the many, far more grievous lies about Auschwitz, Belzec, Treblinka, and indeed all six of the so-called death camps.[4]  Of these, Goldman of course is silent.  But he does decry the ongoing process of myth-formation surrounding a camp like Jasenovac, “where myths of Serbian and Jewish suffering were interwoven, providing a new series of national myths” (to cite the author David McDonald).  Goldman, though, naturally avoids the similar but far greater myth-formation process about Auschwitz, the other camps, and the broader Holocaust.  It is this very myth-formation process that has led to numbers like 1 million Jews gassed at Auschwitz, when, on the far more plausible revisionist thesis, perhaps 150,000 Jews died there—and none in gas chambers.

Likewise, Goldman ridicules the notion of human remains “yet to be discovered” at Jasenovac, and he rightly jabs a finger at the Yugoslav government, which, “during its 47-year rule of the site, never bothered once to try and locate these mysterious ‘missing’ remains.”  The same, of course, can be said for the current Croatian government and its on-going 30-year rule.  (One strongly suspects that there are simply no remains to be found there.)  But this again raises the same question for the other camps:  Where are the remains of anything approaching 1 million Jewish bodies at Auschwitz?  Or 900,000 Jewish bodies at Treblinka?  Or 600,000 Jewish bodies at Belzec?  Do we have anything?  Bodies, bones, ash—anything?  Do we even have the holes in the ground where the Germans were said to bury the hundreds of thousands of victims, only to later dig them up and burn them “to ash” on open-air fires over wooden logs?  Based on my years of research, the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’

What about the alleged 1 million Jews killed in the various ghettos?  Where are their remains?  What about the alleged 1.6 million Jews killed by shootings, mostly along the Eastern front; where are their remains?  (Such figures are stated or implied by all of our experts, and are absolutely required to get us to the mandatory “6 million” total.)  Not all of their remains, mind you, or even most of them.  We would be satisfied with, say, half, or even a quarter, as long as we had a good explanation for the remainder.  But instead we get stories of “600 bodies found here” and “250 bodies found there” and ashes consistent with perhaps “a few thousand bodies” at most.  These are so far short of the “6 million” that they constitute an effective refutation of that very figure.  Just as the “700,000 to 1 million” at Jasenovac is a farce, so too is the “6 million Jews” for the broader Holocaust.[5]

And yet, our intrepid reporter David Goldman has the gall to write, “Those who have conflated the only [!] wartime concentration camp without any verifiable data, with scientifically proven [!] Holocaust facts, have done immeasurable harm to Jewish history.”  He is either ignorant of the truth or deliberately covering up the reality.  The true “immeasurable harm” has been done by his fellow Jews and their intellectual lackeys who, for decades, have promoted an unsustainable myth of Jewish suffering.

The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it.  When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility.  When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall.  And when that happens, all bets are off.

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

[1] All alleged use of Nazi ’bone crushers’ to eliminate bodily evidence has been refuted in recent years.  The machines in the few extant photos are likely conventional gravel ball mills used in road construction in the early 20th century.  See the discussion in The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories (2018, C. Mattogno, Castle Hill Publishers), pp. 481-484.  See also the online article “The bone mill of Lemberg” (2013).

[2] My all-time favorite Holocaust liar is Herman Rosenblat, who fabricated the whole “angel at the fence” story in the 1990s.  His television interview in 2009, in which he openly confesses to the lie, is so audacious, so brazen, and so deluded that it stands as a monument to Jewish mendacity.  The video is so instructive that it can’t be circulated enough.

[3] Benčić, A. (2018). “Koncentracijski logor Jasenovac: konfliktno ratno nasljeđe i osporavani muzejski postav.” Polemos XXI (41): 37–63.

[4] Such lies are vast, both in content and type.  They cover all aspects of the Holocaust, and include overt lies, lies of omission, half-truths, dissembling, gross exaggeration, hyperbole, and many more.  They were promoted by survivors, “eyewitnesses,” coerced and captive Germans, and present-day “experts.”  I can’t begin to elaborate these here; they are the subject of several dedicated books.  For starters, one might refer to Auschwitz Lies (G. Rudolf and C. Mattogno, 2017, Castle Hill), Treblinka (C. Mattogno and J. Graf, 2020, Castle Hill), or Belzec (C. Mattogno, 2016, Castle Hill).  Or for a good overview of these issues, see my own work Debating the Holocaust (2020, Castle Hill).

[5] This is not to deny that many thousands of Jews did die during the National Socialist era.  By most revisionist accounts, perhaps 500,000 in total died, from all causes.  But this is more than a 90% reduction from the claimed 6 million.  And it reduces Jewish deaths to a mere footnote in the larger catastrophe that was World War II.

The Double Standards of “Kosher”

Nobody cares for double standards, unless they benefit from such improprieties and have allowed their principles to degrade, turning a blind eye. When these double standards are prominent, they infringe on good faith, the law, our Constitutional freedoms, and break down the bonds of trust that hold together our society. When an organization or even an industry is the culprit that enforces double standards, correcting the wrongdoing can be challenging. Furthermore, when you find a powerful religion backing a sordid state of affairs, invidious moral relativism and guilt-free self-deception may be the only way to maintain the status quo.[1]

Such is the case in the food and supermarket industry. For nearly a century now, only a few have noticed the double standards in kosher certification and tried to make it an issue. KosChertified has forged a path to research, articulate, and amplify the practices underlying the industry—practices that are largely hidden from consumers. Our aim is to seek redress that will restore justice for the average American citizen.

In 2019, KosChertified took a deep dive researching the physical dimensions of kosher seals (Hebrew: “hechshers”) and compared them against other typical food certifications, symbols, and labeling typically found on food packaging.[2] The products chosen were randomly selected from a major supermarket chain, and our results were astonishing! While even the recycle seals averaged three times larger than kosher seals, other popular certifications dealing with everything from non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free and many more, were averaging nearly ten times the kosher seal size! There were many visibility aspects we examined, but as seen in the graphical analysis shown below, there was one standard for kosher seals, and another for everything else. Clearly this separate standard places doubt on the true marketing rationale of kosher certification.

From our 2019 research, “A Quantitative Study on Kosher Certification: Seal Visibility and Public Awareness”

So the next step for KosChertified probing would be the exclusive kosher market. And even though we didn’t have access to a brick & mortar kosher market, we still found many online stores featuring all the kosher-certified products any observer of Kashrus could want or need. With easy access for us to observe the package labels of any product, we set out to compare the kosher seals and other related attributes found in a kosher market to those from the major supermarket chain of our 2019 study. Would you believe we found more double standards?

One solid framework for comparing the two sets of kosher seals and related labeling is what we named “impact”, where impact = kosher seal area ÷ total label area. Since this was, in effect, a ratio that may have a marketing factor drawing in the consumer’s eye, we could proceed with the imagery found on a kosher market website which displayed the products as they would appear if we bought them. The ratio measured on a computer screen would preclude our need to have the actual product in front of us for examination; the visual impact of the seal was one of the carefully measured findings already in our 2019 study.

Interestingly, for the exclusive kosher market analysis, we found that most of the products displayed multiple kosher seals, a phenomenon we hadn’t seen before in ordinary supermarkets. Usually there were two kosher agencies and certifications involved, but sometimes three. This discovery required that we assign these two different types of kosher seals unique names to make qualified comparisons with the 2019 study. For these additional kosher seals were radically different—much larger, often possessing some intricate design, and always including Hebraic text of some sort. We’ll call these heimishe kosher seals, as one of the rabbis described it to us. Why this? Well, after inquiring about these larger kosher seals in emails to major kosher agencies, we were told “multiple hechsherim (plural of hechsher) is a marketing decision targeting specific [Jewish] communities, especially Charedi (or Haredi) Jews.” One rabbi amplified: “Kosher certification is a business. Brokers/dealers look for a symbol that consumers will recognize and feel comfortable [with]. There are large populations of folks in Brooklyn who are familiar with certain names and/or symbols that will pay for the privilege of seeing those symbols on foods that they want. Likewise, the sellers realize that some specific symbols are ‘eye candy’ to the consumers and will pay a licensing fee for use of that symbol.” Heimishe conveys that cozy feeling of home, tradition, and familiarity, and it also is found defined as “Haredi Orthodox.” So we shall call those heimishe kosher seals in the following, the kind that the general consumer will rarely, if ever, see.

Examples of “heimishe kosher seals,” of which there can be hundreds

We’ll call the smaller hechshers mainstream kosher seals, as in those you typically will find on your Coca Cola can, Palmolive dish soap, butter, milk, or food wrap at the supermarket.

Examples of common “mainstream kosher seals”

Allow us, now, to return to the marketing impact of these labeling objects. Greater impact confers better visibility, and perhaps, marketing intent. One can imagine that a seal found on a package measuring one quarter, or 25% the size of the total label area would certainly catch the attention of the consumer. But this is not normal for certifications, and is typically reserved for company names, logos and marketing slogans. Note the Cascade Platinum logo with white dish plate background and detergent pod shown below, as it measures roughly 23% impact. As for what is common for certification seals, we shall refer to the results of our 2019 study: Our pictures below will give you a good idea of varying impact, from the low end of 0.014% on the Cascade detergent (barely recognizable to the naked eye) to 0.18%, the average for kosher seals in the major supermarket, to higher values of 1.76% and 6.73% for the Good Housekeeping and USDA Certified Biobased Product.

Example of 0.014% impact with the mainstream kosher seal (displayed below left of the first “C” in Cascade)
OU Kosher Seal shows 0.18% impact, average for mainstream kosher seals at supermarkets
The Good Housekeeping Seal = 1.76% impact
USDA Certified Biobased Product = 6.73% impact because its total side area is smaller than the front face of this Honey Oat Crunch cereal box

Proceeding to our comparison with the kosher market: While mainstream kosher seals from a major supermarket chain averaged 0.18%, the same type of seals averaged 0.26% at the kosher market, making them 1.44 times greater or 44% more impact!

Chocolate bar from kosher market has 0.26% impact mainstream kosher seal

Although 0.26% impact was still on the small side, the 44% increase over those products examined from the supermarket gave these mainstream kosher seals just enough edge to begin standing out, justifying its seal as a noticeable marketing device. So here again we find different standards within the kosher industry itself, and the agencies will say it’s because “they have no control over the size of the seal.” Yes, with all the confidentiality agreements, restrictive stipulations, and contracting authority of the kosher agencies, the food and kitchen product companies are free to make their kosher seals as big or small as they want, and it turns out that the true kosher food companies make them stand out 44% more. But there’s more…

The total impact of kosher seals at the kosher market actually equals the cumulative impact of its mainstream plus its heimishe kosher seals, and 38 out of the 50 samples we studied had multiple seals. Hence, we summed the total area of all kosher seals and divided this by the total label area to give us the total kosher impact (TKI). Our results once again indicated different marketing standards for the kosher market, which had 14 out of 50 products yielding TKI values over 1.0%, and an average impact equal to 0.80%. If we compared this impact to product label area, we could say that the marketing of kosher seals goes up 4.44 times when it is produced for the exclusively kosher market; alternatively, one could say that it represents a 344% marketing increase over product labels found at your neighborhood Krogers, Safeway, Vons, Shop Right, Trader Joes, Costco, or Piggly Wiggly!

Some of our samples having multiple kosher seals, including the heimishe kosher seals


See upper right corner: multiple kosher seals can add up and build Total Kosher Impact

We have arrived at quite another double standard now: one for the over 325 million mostly non-Jewish consumers—ubiquitous but inconspicuous because of its systemic lack of transparency; and a statistically significant difference in standards for the Orthodox kosher keeper and his exclusively kosher store—prominent, intensely ethnic, dazzling to the eye, and always displaying in text “KOSHER,” whether in English, Yiddish, or Hebrew, a rare act of transparency for general supermarket products. For those interested, you may find the Yiddish spelling of “kosher” found embedded in the heimishe seals of many of our samples: כּשר‎. On the example below, the certification seal on the right displays both English and Yiddish “kosher” together:

Heimishe kosher seal on right reads “kosher” in English and Yiddish

More differences in labeling protocol were found: Most of the kosher market products contained large text blocks like “KOSHER FOR PASSOVER AND ALL YEAR ROUND” or explicit “NOT FOR PASSOVER USE.” Also, our 2019 study indicated that the mainstream kosher seals appeared on the front packaging just 70% of the time, whereas at the kosher market it was all the time, 100%. Our Critical Kosher Study further discovered that it was rare to find kosher seals included in a “seal cluster,” even when other genuine food certifications were clustered. This was not the case at the kosher market, and we found one product with two kosher seals imbedded in a cluster of ten. Similarly, attribute clusters are often found on labels, displaying a list of textual descriptions that may help sell the product. In our earlier study we never found “KOSHER” or “KOSHER CERTIFIED” listed along with such features as “NON-GMO,” “GLUTEN FREE,” “PRESERVATIVE FREE,” “DAIRY FREE,” “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS,” and “DELICIOUS,” as one of our 2019 samples displayed. However, it didn’t take us long to find “KOSHER” listed along with “NO DAIRY”, “NO GLUTEN”, “NO NUTS’, “VEGAN”, “PARVE” and “NO REGRETS” on a package of chocolate chunks found in our kosher market. Ah, the double standards.

Example of a “seal cluster” on sample product from kosher market

Kosher market sample with seal cluster at bottom, including two kosher seals
Example of an “attribute cluster” on sample product from kosher market

One may rationally inquire why there would be the need for higher impact with kosher seals at a kosher market since everyone shopping there already has been assured that every product on the shelves is kosher certified? Conversely, if, as the kosher agencies claim, non-Jewish consumers are seeking out “kosher” for (1) the perception that it is healthier; or for (2) having a second set of authoritative eyes on production and ingredients, wouldn’t it make sense to have these certification seals standing out to better inform unwitting consumers that their cost for product will include a paid religious intermediary? It’s truly baffling, especially since in pitching the benefits of going “kosher” to the food companies, we read from OU Kosher[3]

  • The logo has become an increasingly important marketing device
  • Certification gives a product a competitive edge that makes it sell faster, thus causing supermarkets to favor brands with [kosher] certification
  • A kosher symbol boosts market share
  • A kosher product can win more favorable shelf space
  • When competing next to a non-kosher brand, a kosher product will do better by 20%

Then why don’t more food, food wrap, soap and detergent companies match the marketing impact and transparency found at the kosher market? According to the promotional allegations above, the larger kosher transparency would increase every measure of business success. Instead, double standards have become the norm to keep most general consumers in the dark about kosher, and deceitful actions of this nature might be characterized as fraud by the most awakened supermarket patrons. We believe that schemes like this should be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission under its Fair Packing and Labeling Act, especially when religious freedom and tax-exempt revenue are in play.[4]

Finally, there is the matter of how many, or few, kosher-keeping patrons this food industry is bending backwards over to kosher certify their entire line of production. Time and time again we have come across an approximate number of one million strict American observers of Kashrus (the kosher dietary laws of Judaism) who need this as part of their religious faith. This would be like kosherizing most of the entire food supply of a small village for just one orthodox Jew of 350 total residents. While this might seem outrageous, now that we have investigated the differences in the abundant kosher markets available online and in ethnically Jewish communities, it seems that the kosher keepers who are most observant—like the Orthodox and Haredi Jews—frown upon products lacking a heimishe kosher seal! And if so, they likely avoid the major supermarket chains altogether, further diminishing any honest assessment of the numbers of kosher seekers. While authentic Jewish demographic numbers have always been dubious (just consult Aleksandr Sohltzenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together for affirming this point), we read from The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that “Eleven percent of American Jews defined themselves as Orthodox in the 1970 study, or approximately 600,000 people. That figure has remained relatively consistent.”[5] (emphasis ours)  Therefore, can we reasonably presume that 600,000 out of 1,000,000, or 60% of the strict kosher keepers are not regular shoppers of the typical goyish supermarket brands? Now, this would be like kosherizing most of the entire food supply for just one person of 875 residents in the village. Amazing, but true! This village is your American nation today!

If the observant kosher community views heimishe hechshers as “eye candy,” then the small and obscure mainstream kosher seals of our major supermarkets must be serving a different role in our food industry, one of an insidious nature that only Suzanne Bousquet could comprehend (author of From Kosher to Halal: When greed, politics and the sneaky destruction of Western Civilization intertwine). The supporters and apologists will exclaim “It’s economy of scale” that permits the large corporations to proceed in such a pro-kosher manner for such a small and questionable market share. But maybe it’s something more worrisome that ensures corporate complicity…something not for outsiders to know.

We all see how the food industry easily accommodates “fat-free,” “sugar-free,” “low-sodium,” et al. We similarly do not expect any effort to capture the 38% of shoppers desiring no religious intervention with their food production. We will not find a NKC, or NOT Kosher Certified product side-by-side with its OU Kosher equivalent any time soon, because it’s all about double standards and the veil of secrecy that upholds them.

We hope we’ve lifted that veil up a bit further with our brief analysis presented herein. For further insight, please visit http://www.MyNKCProducts.com.

Total Kosher Impact taking up label real estate on a butter found in the kosher market
“Kosher Certified” displayed in text; extremely rare on products found at major supermarkets
And finally, broccoli in the kosher market

[1] See the article “Kosher Delusion”, https://mynkcproducts.com/2021/02/05/kosher-delusion/

[2] See “Critical Study on Kosher Seals”, https://mynkcproducts.com/data-critical-study-on-kosher-seals/

[3] https://oukosher.org/kosher-overview/why-go-kosher/

[4] Consider why religious organizations are IRS tax-exempt, and why there is no requirement for public disclosure of their financial accounting (a generous privilege). Is one factor that these organizations normally have financial transactions or perform services within their own congregation or synagogues, whose members can hold them accountable? Not so with kosher certification. Now see https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-packaging-labeling-act-regulations-0

[5] https://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/demographics.htm

What Was the Trump Presidency Actually All About?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

“By understanding the world, I mean being equal to the world. It is the hard reality of living that is the essential, not the concept of life, that the philosophy of idealism propounds. Those who refuse to be bluffed by enunciations will not regard this as pessimism.”  Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West

I liked President Trump.  He has many admirable qualities, perhaps most especially in his impatience for “Beltway” politics, and his private sector experience in contracts and general business orientation that he brought to bear on trade deals.  His patriotism seemed genuine, and his energy was extraordinary.  He had a generally smart, if self-serving team around him, and the majority of the electorate backed him.  His ratings were competitive, and his policies were pro-business and pro-family.  His posture on constitutional rights including free speech, was aggressive.  He made the American public more aware of government waste, and rightly attacked the bias if not active treachery of the major media in its fabrication of narratives, and its extreme ideological prejudice for what amounts to a cult of Marxist-socialist agendas across numerous public policies including education, health care provisioning, wealth redistribution, and class division.

But there is also something not quite right with his overall presidency: if the Left wanted a perfect antagonist; if you wanted someone to be the red flag that is waved in front of the Liberal bull, Donald Trump fit that role perfectly.  I want to be wrong, and maybe I am.  But something doesn’t look right after all the dust has settled.  With his tough language on immigration, his sprayed blond hair, facial make-up and signature long red tie, he was almost custom-designed to produce antagonism combined with invidious caricature, even among his traditional allies in Conservatism, Inc., while serving as a convenient poster boy of “White Supremacy”—along with the laughably contrived horned and helmeted bare-chested “Viking” who has been continuously broadcast as the symbol of “White Insurrection” at the Capital.  If the Left needed an exaggerated enemy in order to create a rallying symbol (and swing the swing voters and RINOs), then Trump was perfectly designed, almost out of a PSYOPS manual.







White terrorist at the Capital; White Supremacist at the White House: Hollywood Picture-Perfect?

More than this, however, is the constellation of special interest actions that were sponsored under his administration, or carried out directly by it.  For example, pro-Israel interests were always front and center in his bombast and priorities.  Indeed, his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner and his Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin (son of Goldman Sachs partner, Robert Mnuchin) appeared to spend more time in Israel on the re-location of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and on military aid and investments, than on strictly American domestic financial priorities.  Israeli PM Netanyahu was nearly a regular guest at the White House while the notorious Anthony Fauci somehow avoided Trump’s wrath of “you’re fired,” a fate that he surely otherwise deserved.

Trump and Sheldon Adelson

And then there’s Trump’s eager digestion of the entire Covid program, hook, line, and sinker, including his “emergency” evacuation from the White House on board Marine One with the First Lady, and his encampment at Walter Reed Hospital. This was followed by his intensified commitment to his “Operation Warp Speed” vaccine production and distribution program carried out by his pharmaceutical executive friends, surrounded by military Generals on the White House lawn in an unprecedented act of medical authoritarianism. All this points to a president completely under the influence and direction of the same actors currently running Biden in the Covid program.

Trump and Netanyahu: One and the same?

Since when do military generals run pharma programs?

Moreover, it was under Donald Trump, in the last period of his presidency, that, like all administrations before him, executed a “raid” on the U.S. Treasury: this one of a magnitude that would even make the Bush II “mortgage crisis” raid look like small potatoes and his team blush with envy: $4 Trillion dollars suddenly gone, with no financial accounting, no formal distribution records made public, and the Treasury Secretary, Mnuchin, quietly disappearing back into the life of the rich and famous.

Was Trump merely in it like another casino project, with this one at the White House, with near sure odds of a windfall?  Was the American public played by a dealer with weighted dice?  I think that conclusion may look increasingly unavoidable.

Miller and Kushner

The 2020 election looked almost too easy a win for the DNC.  The Trump White House, with the full intelligence apparatus at its disposal, including a systematic network of influential organizations, was fully aware of, extensively briefed on, and regularly warned from numerous quarters about what the DNC was doing at the state level with election law fraud, managed by the “Political Law” department of the Perkins Coie law firm. And how many of his team were Never Trumpers at heart or of the other party? Perhaps more obvious was the immediate post-election roll-out of a very “B-Team,” ad-hoc assemblage of lawyers, such as Rudy Giuliani, surrounded by fresh-faced young lawyers, declaring on the streets of New York, in front of a makeshift banner and post-election TV set, that voting “irregularities” occurred. Where was the “A-Team” of senior, suit-and-tie, Yale, Harvard and Chicago lawyers such as Jay Sekulow who represented the President at the “impeachment” trial?  Suddenly, the Big Guns and Establishment law firms were nowhere to be found; completely silent and “missing-in-action.”

There are a number of possibilities as to why this was so.  In my estimation they range from the routine, such as possible conflicts of interest with other clients (state government, or private entities, or even the courts themselves). However, it seems more likely that it stemmed from a reluctance to advocate for voter fraud when evidence standards would have to be fully met by extensive investigation; this, combined with the risk of criminal allegations against themselves, may not have been their “cup of tea.”  Such advocacy takes a particular kind of aggressive lawyering and a willingness to accept reputational risk and even threats of sanction against their professional licensing.  Of course, lawyers are notorious for risk aversion (that is largely how they are taught in law schools, and how they are controlled under the ABA.  For example, new ABA rules under Section 8.1 that address admission and sanction, now include language that guides purported racial discrimination language.  The election voter fraud was framed not only by the covid pretext, but also as a “protection” for minorities under the 14th Amendment—minorities were deemed less capable of participating under conventional vote rules (such as going to a voting booth). The corporate law firms otherwise representing Trump in an impeachment hearing may have perceived risk of triggering sanction under that rule.  Ultimately however I believe it was a combination of self-protection, influence, intimidation, and protecting their law firm practice in the larger Beltway. There certainly was pressure on these firms to pull out, including public protests against law firms and a campaign by the well-funded Lincoln Project (composed of anti-Trump Republicans) to pressure the law firms), but their pulling out could have been partly because they felt there wasn’t enough evidence.

Combined with what many feel was also a betrayal at the January 6th rally in Washington, D.C. (“go home”) and the obvious pre-planned riot and Capital raid that could have easily been prevented by National Guard orders from the White House, the final weeks of the Trump administration look like a “pre-packaged” bankruptcy; that is, it had the appearance of a real estate deal where the project is put into a ready-made exit package. The Trump White House looked like it was following a pre-planned exit script, a get-out-of-town routine that was arranged far in advance, with just the right amount of feigned regret and anger.







Trump at his Casino; Secretary Mnuchin and wife at the U.S. Casino?

Either that, or his entire team was so disorganized and undisciplined that it was all due to managerial incompetence.  That I find hard to accept because he was surrounded by “street-smart” advisors and backers who knew how to play the game, and surely were aware of DNC operations to adulterate voting procedures in swing states.  He put up no real fight; he never used his extensive executive authority including his authority as Commander-in-Chief, and instead used his B- and C-team of random lawyers to throw law suits around to entertain the public with false hopes and his enemies with gloating victory. He held random TV interviews, inserted terms like “kraken” into the public consciousness, and even invited the “pillow king” Mike Lindell, to the White House for a very public meeting complete with flashing cameras and  “private notes” that were scribbled with “election theft” and other assurances signaled to the Trump base.







Giuliani at election “press conference”; Sekulow at Senate impeachment trial

But was this all real, or surreal?  Incredible stupidity, or a card trick?   A show was put on; the act played out; the audience entertained and distracted, and then the curtain closed, the actors leaving via the backstage doors to awaiting helicopters and jets, suitcases of cash in hand, the military dutifully protecting its own turf and paychecks, and the new heist team from the Left quickly and quietly sworn in, merely trading places with Trump and his crew, for their turn at the roulette wheel, fully fleecing the American public all over again. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but the patterns of behavior, means and motivations, suggest that the entire game was rigged.







Competition or Continuity?

Was Trump too trusting, or just following instructions?

In January, 1776, Thomas Paine wrote the first direct “insurrection” pamphlet in America, “Common Sense,” calling on the public itself, and bypassing the political elites who tried to have it both ways with change and tradition, to instead rally and organize for their liberties and independence against England, and the King: to finally call England’s bluff and show the King with no clothes.   In many ways we face the same juncture in 2021, with a presumptuous if sociopathic political elite that fancies themselves capable of directing and controlling the entire U.S. economy from Washington, as if by Monarchical decree (what are “Executive Orders,” really?).  The new domestic war on terror has been declared: how much more of an obvious assault will be tolerated before the King is overthrown (who the actual King is, is a topic for further discussion)?

All on the same plantation?  The Washington Two-Step

All in the family

On the anniversary of 9-11, it is also noteworthy that, despite numerous threats to declassify government intelligence, not one word of doubt or one official investigative probe was ever directed at what remains one of America’s greatest “unsolved mysteries.”

Larry Silverstein received nearly $5 Billion from the WTC insurance claim: still no official answers

The U.S. presidency is an office that has long been captured by special interests: the prize is too big, the power too unlimited, the wealth too alluring, and the ability to steer American assets, including its prized military, too irresistible.  In his often-overlooked publication, Considerations on Representative Government, John Stuart Mill outlined a theory of government that at its most fundamental and effective level consists of two primary factors: participation and competence—and stemming from this, how the successful, functional combination of these two pillars of a democratic republic, represent its constitutional ideal.  Mill argued that a theory of government requires constant observation, assessment, and evaluation of successive attempts toward this goal.  How would one evaluate recent U.S. political history in this regard?  On one hand, Trump would seem to embody at least some form of both; on the other hand, many signs indicate a larger implosion of the U.S. government that is perhaps beyond any one man to correct or resist.  In 2021 the government appears to be what the Founders clearly feared, and were at best cautiously optimistic about avoiding: a central, unified, authoritarian federal government that subsumes all genuine individuality, and with it, the disappearance of Jefferson’s vision of state, local, and especially, individual sovereignty.   Part of a solution may reside in a “corporate break-up” of Washington, D.C. into more regional, and more homogenous groupings of interests, culture and capabilities, tied to a much smaller federal government.  This is not a new idea, but it may be one that has become more urgent, as the ability to maintain a divided government with functional checks and balances is corrupted by the same factors that felled Rome: internal disarray and external invasion.

In closing, it is important to point out that what I am advancing in this essay is a scenario.  But it is also a scenario that in my judgment, represents still, only a portion of the totality of the Trump presidency.  It should be apparent that Trump’s team, many of whom were not especially qualified or were “holdovers” from the prior administration, created a difficult environment for the President to function in. And there were the GOP swamp creatures of Conservatism Inc. who were reportedly using certain individuals, including Pence, to “keep an eye” on Trump’s behavior and actions, and were quite possibly acting against his authority.  Indeed, the GOP as an institution appeared to be at best neutral toward Trump’s case of voter fraud; some members even appeared to side directly with the other party (e.g., Lindsey Graham).  Some of that may be blamed on a “deep state” ideological consolidation that works against outsiders who challenge the status quo: Washington is inherently defined by consensus, hierarchy, careerism, and institutional loyalty.

The fight has taken on a new, unprecedented dimension, however, as the DNC and its allies (including “RINOs”) have reversed many if not all Trump policies (except “vaccines”): the open border is not merely a “reversal” of Trump immigration policy, but a direct act of aggression against the security of the United States, and one that clearly is motivated in large part by racial ideology and fanaticism, especially if not exclusively, against White Americans, and to such a degree that their personal safety, security and liberties are being directly threatened under a systematic political strategy.

V.S. Solovyev previously worked in the aerospace and defense sector in McLean, Virginia