Featured Articles

When Conspiracies Are True … What Can We Do?

With the ongoing destruction of America and Western Civilization, this year is the most important of our lives!  Most Americans sense it, but readers of this publication know and understand it.  But what do we do now that the most important battle of our lives is at hand?

We must unite behind well-coordinated plans, and take action to defeat the organized forces of evil — which are clearly aligned against us.  Let us stand up tall to make a difference, and support our fellow patriots!

The MAGA movement has been the most viable attempt to address the myriad of problems we face.  We are in a spiritual war and must fight for the hearts, minds, and souls of the American people.  We are now being attacked at every level, as President Trump has been since 2015.  Like him or dislike him, he is our best hope to save America and restore a future of peace, prosperity, and freedom — rather than the tyranny and enslavement which is planned for us.  But, as we all know, Trump is not perfect — his first term was disappointing to say the least, but he has fundamentally changed the Republican Party — liberals like Nikki Haley have no future there, nor do the socially left neocons. And that’s all to the good.

But he cannot do it alone, especially with so many hyenas (radical Democrats, RINOs and Neocons) nipping at his heels.  Most are politicians owned by special interests, along with a controlled mainstream media, and a corrupt judiciary.  They are in lockstep with virtually all of the destructive Marxist/Globalist policies, which are eating away at our life’s blood.

However, there are many great individuals and organizations, which are in the fight to defeat these “global elite” deceivers and destroyers.  Several are listed below, which I hope you’ll consider joining or supporting, especially with the most critical election in America’s history upcoming:

  1. “Our Country, Our Choice” (OurCountryOurChoice.com). This rapidly growing organization is led by America’s most brilliant and honest, military and foreign relations strategist, Col. Douglas MacGregor.  His incredible insights and analyses, through many non-mainstream interviews (Tucker Carlson, Judge Napolitano, et al.), reveals studied and common-sense perspectives that are desperately needed.  They include; Securing Our Borders, Ending the Wars, Promoting US Production, and Defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Also, removing the power of self-serving Oligarchs, Lobbies, International Bankers, NGOs, and government agencies.  Power must be restored to “We the People.”  OCOC is a conservative,  patriotic, but non-partisan organization – with actions focused on those issues most critical to our Republic’s survival and future.
  2. OCOC’s leadership and broadening reach can be exemplified by member Mike Zarzano, who heads a noble effort to form legal common-law Grand Juries as an effective weapon to investigate institutional crime and judicial corruption (countycongress.com). Florida is making great progress with this and it will hopefully be employed increasingly across the nation.
  3. Consider supporting the “Foundation to Defend the First Amendment” (www.FDFA.us), and the Free Expression Foundation (FreeExpressionFoundation.org) (often featured on TOO).   Both are fighting against an increasingly corrupt judicial system to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, including legal defense efforts for victimized patriots.
  4. If you are a Veteran, consider Veterans for America First (VeteransforAmericaFirst.org) or Veterans for Trump (www.VeteransforTrump.us). Headed by Chad Caton and an army of incredible patriots, they have a wide reach with growing impact.
  5. Also, Brad Miller has courageously helped build an organization for military accountability (militaryaccountability.com). Brad, a West Point graduate, resigned one-year short of retiring from the Army over the DOD’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates.  He is fighting against military incompetence, “Woke” policies, and other unethical actions.
  6. Consider joining stellar groups such as “Moms for America” (momsforamerica.us) and “Moms for Liberty” (www.momsforliberty.org) which are organizing across the country at the county level, to combat the Woke/DEI attacks on traditional families and our very identity. They employ successful plans with support strategies to take back School Boards, and challenge local political and judicial corruption.
  7. Red Pill Expo (redpilluniversity.org) is an offshoot of G. Edward Griffin’s patriot and health network. They are creating county campuses and have a vast library of critical information.  He also has news feeds through (www.needtoknow.news).
  8. Participate in organized campaign rallies and support Independent or MAGA Republican Party (not RINO) efforts. Educate and encourage friends, relatives and associates to get politically active, and to vote.  Volunteer to help and monitor at election polling stations — so critical to stopping the fraud and intimidation.
  9. The Hollow is a relatively new organizing effort developing in the Sarasota area of Florida on behalf of family values, community cohesion and preparedness. Headed by a former Marine, Victor Mellor, it is a gathering place for traditionally valued Americans, young and old, to learn about our Constitution and develop the skills required to challenge the ongoing Marxist campaign to destroy America.  They are also developing partnerships, such as “We the People Health and Wellness Center” (wtphealthcare.com), as options to the increasingly corrupt medical and pharmaceutical companies.
  10. Sep 17th is Constitution Day. The 917 Society (the917society.org) is distributing copies to thousands of schools across the nation to help educate young people about our Constitution. Tulsi Gabbard, keynote speaker at their recent annual fundraiser is a former Democrat, who has rejected their destructive, anti-Constitutional policies.  She would make a very interesting VP choice for MAGA Trump.

These are just some possibilities to consider supporting or joining — or develop your own unique ideas.  We must all do what we can…no effort is too small if we are to restore the American Dream and preserve the unique legacy of our Founders.

Behind most of the interconnected conspiracies, currently in play, sits an “elephant in the room”, which we are not to notice or ever challenge…the international banking network.  This extensive group of power brokers are rooted in monetary manipulations and political leveraging.  Many have historically been part of the Jewish community but are often atheists or satanists.  Through their money power they have ruthlessly gained control over the political arena and media, and are behind our forever wars.  They are the New World Order and our enslavers!  I urge Christians to reevaluate their support for Israel (created by Jewish financial and media power via influence on Western governments) and instead promote peace.  I highly recommend the 46-minute speech by Benjamin Freedman given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in DC (at Rumble or YouTube).  He was friends with JFK and reveals truths about World Wars I and II and what the modern-day state of Israel is really about. Fortunately, many Jewish people are now awakening to how they have been deceived, and Christian Zionists should, as well.

As people continue to wake up, they will increasingly abandon the major media outlets (which are already on life support) to seek out truth at freedom-based alternatives.  This includes not only the news outlets, but commercial entertainment and social networking, as well.  Quality alternatives may soon become the new mainstream media.

Tucker Carlson is courageously leading the way and I encourage everyone  to subscribe to Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) at (www.TuckerCarlson.com), or seek out his explosive interviews and revelations which may be posted at Rumble, or wherever free expression is not being censored.

Patriot TV (www.patriot.tv) is a new live stream service which will soon challenge cable and other markets.  General Michael Flynn is associated with it and his incredible and shocking true story, Flynn will soon be released as a feature documentary (www.FlynnMovie.com).  Unfortunately, he was an American hero unethically targeted for removal at the outset of the first Trump administration.  This reflects the growing desperation of our satanic overlords.  But I’ve no doubt that, just like Flynn, other victimized patriots will rise to lead America’s restoration.

Candace Owens is a brilliant and well-spoken truth-seeker who uniquely represents critical, yet often avoided, social issues from a fair and rational perspective.  Until she explicitly criticized Jews, she had her own column/program at the Daily Wire, run by pro-Israel fanatic Ben Shapiro, and also tours with Charlie Kirk’s youth-oriented Turning Point USA (www.tpusa.com).  There are now so many great Podcasts, Blogs, and alternative channels/outlets challenging the deceitful mainstream narrative that the information control battle may soon end.

In partnership with other patriots and veterans, I am in the process of forming the “Veterans League of Honor”, and a production company, “Americana Pictures”.  We seek to develop, produce, and market quality motion pictures as an alternative to Hollywood.  We need a new moral compass and our stories will promote positive ideals and be respectful of traditional American and Christian values.  Fortunately, new distribution alternatives, such as Angel Studios, are having great success (“Sound of Freedom”, “The Chosen”, et al.) and we look to partner with such independents.

As we move through this monumental year, let us not only clean the swamp (DC, State, and Local), but let us, with God’s blessing and guidance, make America not just great, but good again.

Merlin Miller is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and is the author of Eagles Are Gathering, which connects military, media and political intrigues.  It reveals the Globalist/Deep State agenda, who is behind it, and why, and what we must do to stop it.

Review of Scott Howard’s “The Open Society Playbook”

The so-called “open society” is one that will by design eventually descend into chaos, for eventually the New World Order will use this to their advantage: ordo ab chao (“order out of chaos”). Every wedge is used to break apart the solid social structures from social cohesion to the family — consider “diversity,” “radical individualism,” transgenderism, et cetera. These are all designed to create a singular entity, both individualistic in all the wrong ways and collectivist in the same (or right ways from their perspective), totally reliant on the state/mega-corporation(s) to be molded however the “elites” see fit. They want wet clay for their golems, and that is what they are getting. They “open up” to lock down. They want total control, and they are playing for keeps.


All is not lost, however. These are, in fact, only the opening salvos in the coming struggle for humanity. … The way I see it, we’ve only just begun to take back our sovereignty and our souls. … I ask you: Will you struggle to be truly free, or will you resign yourself to ignominious slavery?

The Open Society Playbook
Scott Howard
Antelope Hill, 2023

It always, always comes back to the Jews.

*         *         *         *

The world is falling apart. The United States, which was once a very pleasant country to live in even in my lifetime, is fracturing at breakneck speed. Europe’s extreme rupturing and dissolution is a preview of what we can expect here in due time. The pace of social destruction is so profound — so fast as to both disorient and depress. We are living in a state of cultural anarchy — a toxic mix of disturbed and unhinged individualism coupled with a growing totalitarian and collectivist regime governed by big government, big media, and large corporations. And we — and I use “we” to describe the historic European stock of the United States — have become virtual lemmings. Nothing typifies the juxtaposition of a deranged and atomized individualism co-existing with a totalitarian collectivism more than the simultaneous explosion of demonic “transgenderism” and the COVID-19 pandemic health despotism. That we could, at the same time, be unhinged and depraved individualists and meek and subservient conformists to the state is proof positive that we are living in the nightmarish realm of dystopic fiction — except, of course, we are living in it.

There is no point belaboring the various “-isms” — transgenderism, environmentalism, socialism, pluralism, feminism, liberalism, etc. — that animate this decaying society that is plunging into criminality and anarchic disorder. And then there is demographic crisis — we are disappearing simultaneously as our leaders engineer a seismic migration from the Third World into the United States and Europe. Not only are we awash in open pornography, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, fornication, and drug addiction — we are also seeing our very society transformed into a Third World country in terms of its population and all of the other negative attributes of corruption, inefficiencies, and disorder that mark the Third World. And this says nothing of the bankrupt fiscal policies we pursue that cast prudence and thrift to the wayside. We are hedonists in the true sense of the word — we think not of yesterday (the traditions of our fathers) or tomorrow (and the legacy we will leave our children) but live only within the present moment of deracinated time. Life is simply a series of ephemeral distractions, gross materialism, and pleasure-seeking. Truly, a reckoning is upon us.

The manic push to “brown” the West has not been without its cost. Just look at our urban areas — they are filthy and crime-ridden — they are practically uninhabitable. One hundred years ago, we were a functioning, relatively homogenous society that has now descended into social chaos. For traditional Catholics, the dire situation has been doubled: not only has society crumbled around them but the Church herself has mirrored the larger society by becoming unmoored and led by a homosexual cabal of heretics and misanthropes who ape the very political and cultural figures that are destroying our home. For people like me, and we are a profoundly disorganized and meager resistance, the situation is dire. Assuming for the sake of the argument the reality of the social descent, which I take as self-evident, the question becomes one of how and why? What brought us here? Why do our leaders pursue policies that are both immoral and socially destructive? And why have we let them? For the bewildered American of historic European stock (i.e., Whites), how did we become social lepers who are the last acceptable group to mock and deride? And how were these profound changes wrought not over our objection but with our seeming applause? Truly, people like us are happily committing social, moral, and demographic suicide.

None of this captures the spiritual dimension of our collapse. How long will God tolerate perhaps the most insolent human societies in history? How long will His hand be stayed in response to a tsunami of public and private sin? It is a maxim worth considering that righteous men feel that their generation is the worst and therefore ought to be the last. And while generations continue to pass, the sober reality is that eventually and inevitably there will be a last. Far be it from me to speculate on whether this generation is the worst, but it certainly seems to be evil in unprecedented ways. Coupled with the feckless leadership of the Church — an episcopate who fiddles while Rome burns — the conclusion that we are rapidly approaching the end of it all seems so tempting. We must resist the temptation to despair that we are at the end. Only God knows the time when He will make the final accounting of the world, and we ought to remember that often. That said, whether it is a natural or supernatural terminus, things as they are cannot go much longer. Something has to give.

Conventional politics no longer — not by a long shot — suffices to address the underlying rot and disorder of the American system. Taking a step back from the kabuki theater that is American political rancor, what we have is a political duopoly that essentially sings from the same hymnal albeit in different keys. The conventional party wings of American liberals and conservatives are really the same. Politically anyway, it is better to vote Republican inasmuch as they are, at the very least, burning down America more slowly but we should never lose sight of the fact that they are simply the less deplorable option — and far from optimal. No, the fact, for example, that to merely articulate publicly opposition to the weighty demographic change of the country that is designed to disempower the shrinking White majority of the United States is tantamount to an admission of public racism (and something that Republican Party, more or less, tacitly agrees) is proof positive that conventional politics will not only not save us, but conventional politics will be our ruin. When the political discourse silences those who call out root causes — when big media censors the same discussion — when big corporations economically blackmail those who object, we are indeed in a position when the truth itself has become seditious.

Welcome to 1984 — we are living in one giant prison.

*         *         *         *

Coming to terms with our situation is an unnerving process — it is not unlike the stages of grief. Denial, anger, and resignation of the first inklings that the conventional explanation for our situation is wanting. Empowerment — spiritually or politically — only comes from communing with the truth. And that truth must be pursued ruthlessly even if — and especially if — it is uncomfortable. The last five years in my life have been a revelation — an opening of a mind that was still cowardly ensconced in denial. I have written extensively on this psychological and philosophical migration elsewhere but suffice it to say here that the social unrest and chaotic descent we have witnessed in recent years pried my eyes open to realities that I see now, in retrospect, that I was desperate to avoid. I started to read and consider ideas that are beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. I became socially seditious in my mind — at least if sedition is a rebellion against the prevailing ideological bounds of acceptable opinions.

There are two parts to that awakening — I finally came to terms with my racial and ethnic people. I am of Northwestern European stock — I am White. My lifelong refusal to countenance race as a meaningful category of my identity ended, and I crossed the Rubicon towards identifying myself as more than an individual — and de-racialized individual at that — but as a member of a racial/ethnic group that is different from other groups. More than that, I realized that racial homogeneity is far preferrable to racial heterogeneity in terms of the functioning of a society. It goes without saying that I wish that fact were not true. Alas, diversity, as it were, is not only not our strength; diversity is a social liability that increases in proportion to the heterogeneity of a given community. Perhaps it would be better if it were not, but an aspiration is not a substitute for a reality. This racial reckoning in my own life blew up my previous ideas that diversity was net positive or neutral. No, I now see it as a recipe for social disorder. As I have written before, this racial realization, both in terms of my own identity and the preference for racial homogeneity, was unwelcome. I had to unlearn — and disavow — my alliance with the Americanist view that race is irrelevant. I had to give up my conventional conservativism that had always held that if we could merely return to the vision of the Founders of the American Republic, we (no matter who we were) would enjoy a relatively harmonious political existence. That view was wrong on political grounds as much as it was wrong on religious grounds, but, then again, my own Church taught me to embrace Americanism in the wake of Vatican II.

The second is more nuanced — notwithstanding my affinity for the vast majority of Jews with whom I have known — I have concluded that the Jews are largely responsible as the primary agent for the demoralization, deracination, and destruction of Western (read: European-based) societies. Of course, the Jews are not monolithic, but they are the vanguard of catastrophic change that is despoiling the West. Every political organization, NGO, media and entertainment company, tech company, and financial company that are collectively pushing these disastrous policies and social aims are largely run, financed, underwritten, or supported by world Jewry. Simply stated, Jews have become far too powerful in our politics, business, academia, and the media as drivers of thought and opinion. The overrepresentation of Jews in these circles of power was made possible by the assumption that Jews and Western European gentiles were malleable enough with one another, but that assumption is false. Not only are they not us, but they are also not even like us. Essentially, our collective empathy and good will — and projection of that empathy and good will onto others — without qualification was an unqualified disaster as it relates to the Jews, who jointly lack both good will and empathy as it relates to our collective and natural aspirations as a people. There is an agenda (or unconscious groupthink) among most Jews in power to destroy the social moorings of a homogeneous and functioning European-peopled society. There is an obvious revolutionary ferment in the Jewish people which is devastatingly destructive when empowered. The various and deleterious “-isms” that plague the West are largely creations of the Jewish mind. It has reached the point that the White man who merely wants to preserve the land of his fathers as it was handed down to him — the man who has no animosity towards other men — is branded the worst of racist villains. This deracination and branding is a Jewish project. While it has been fabulously successful in obtaining silence, the Jewish project has yet to coerce the private thoughts of many Whites (even if they lack the courage or vocabulary to articulate their opposition). Trump’s popularity is, at least in my opinion, driven by the unarticulated sense of his mostly White supporters that their country is being stolen from them by an enemy from within. Trump has many detractors, but none are more psychotic than the Jewish powerbrokers who seem understand what his appeal means and might yet portend. Indeed, what they fear, more than all else, is that Whites might actually wake up to what they are doing.

Thus, two themes that are vital to understanding the Western crisis of disintegration: (i) the corporate reality of races and ethnicities and the problematic nature of the unfettered race-mixing; and (ii) the over-empowerment of revolutionary Jews over the levers of power and communication are absolutely verboten in political discourse. I will be economically and socially banished for saying either publicly — and even the mere hinting of either will result in an ideological inquisition in which the potential offender is “reeducated” in “diversity, equity, and social justice.” To therefore establish my politically incorrect bona fides, I believe first that we, that is, European people, need our own community in which we make up the bulk of the population of that same community. That people, coincidentally, should be Catholic as well, as Catholicism is the rightful, true, and historic religion of our European forefathers. Parenthetically, if the Church would preach to them — as she did before the advent of the Second Vatican Council, we would see a mass conversion of people to their historic faith. And this community needs sovereignty in the form of a country. Second, Jews, who are slippery in terms of their own racial identification, need to be relatively disempowered within that European-based sovereign community such that the ideas and views of that same society are not shaped by Jews who necessarily have a different agenda from us, and are, in any event, not our friends.

If this seems horribly racist, consider the following: the principles I just laid out fit precisely the political and social reality of the state of Israel. If almost all Jews are rabid supporters of a virulently ethnocentric and religiously exclusive sovereign state in the form of Israel, then it is rank hypocrisy for any Jew to deny other people the opportunity to live and rule themselves in a similar way. One need not be a genius to see that Jews militantly demand that we (read: Whites) abjure any particularist or nationalist desires and embrace an amalgamated and atomized universalism while they simultaneously allow themselves to practice a similar militant and open form of tribalism and nationalism. Gross hypocrisy — or, better yet, chutzpah — is the defining element of so much of world Jewry when it comes to what they expect for themselves and what they expect for us.

The best argument in ignoring this “stuff” is one that I find appealing but ultimately wanting. To focus too heavily on Jewish machinations and misdeeds is to potentially find ourselves filled with enmity towards them in a way that is spiritually disquieting and ultimately injurious to the exercise of our faith in perfect equanimity. I understand that point all too well — the revelation of the Jewish complicity and direction of the destruction of my civilization is enough, at least at times, to make my blood boil. And sometimes it takes a herculean effort to compartmentalize that righteous anger. That said, the truth is never ultimately at variance from the Truth. If this is the reality of who they are, then we can no more ignore it because it is uncomfortable than we can ignore other hard and difficult truths. I think, however, the cost of knowing and processing this type of information is a personal dedication to pray for them as much as we note the nefarious stuff that they are up to.

*         *         *         *

Scott Howard’s recent book, The Open Society Playbook, is a detailed and forensic accounting of both the social chaos that I describe above and the agents of that social chaos. Howard, to his credit, refuses to work by implication — he names organizations and individuals, and he never fails to identify when those individuals are Jews (which most of them are). Succinctly he writes his mandate as follows: “noticing that the world is falling apart around you? This is largely by design, and this book will chart exactly that has happened through the embrace by the ruling class of the so-called ‘open society.’” While I was generally aware of some of the characters and organizations that Howard discusses — some of which I was acutely aware, the whole of the book has a cumulative effect on the reader: the depth and breadth of the subverting elements within the West are depressing. As it true that we contend with demons in the spiritual world who are intent on our eternal destruction, we too contend with a demonic element in the form of people and organizations that are focused on our destruction — both as Christians and Europeans. Far from the stuff of conspiracy theories, what Howard does is let this other side speak for themselves — and they are never shy to tell exactly what their endgame is: the “browning” of nations once peopled by Europeans; the elimination of national borders; the radical emancipation of the individual from traditional social structures and family bonds that once served as the glue of our communities and nations; the destruction of the role of Christianity and its values in public and eventually in private; the growth of a technocratic, stateless, elitist, collectivist government that is all-powerful and total; and the crushing of dissent by any and all means (whether militarily, socially, or economically). There really is a war on the historic White man and his historic religion — and this is a book that details in mind-numbing detail who they are and how they are doing it.

This type of book is difficult for some to process — it is a bridge too far. I find it ironic that the vast majority of American conservatives, and here I speak anecdotally but broadly, as I have known seemingly hundreds upon hundreds of them over the course of a lifetime, will find the material is this book is simply too hot to handle. They will universally admit that the world is rapidly becoming unmoored, and they will further admit in unison that there is a globalist elite that is fashioning that societal degeneration, but they will recoil if that degenerative elite is fixed upon, in any measure, “the Jews.” Even if they acknowledge that most Jews — the notorious ones who are famous and the work-a-day ones that they may know — are almost all liberal and hold political and social views that are discordant with their own, they will resist the idea that “the Jews” are responsible for our problems. Part of the resistance stems from an Americanist ethos in which casting aspersions against groups is, if not strictly verboten, unsavory, and best left unsaid. Because most American conservatives are “Red, White, and Blue” in their political leanings, they may lament the destruction of the United States politically and culturally, but their aspiration is modestly limited to returning the United States to a “kinder and gentler” period of American history. If we could just turn back the clock and live by the Framers’ original design, everything would be hunky-dory.

Part of the resistance too stems from these same Americanist conservatives having imbibed and accepted the Jewish narrative of nearly universal victimhood, which is, by and large, contrived, and false. Most of them do not know that Jews — in their interactions with us and our forefathers — have almost occupied odious roles as slavers, usurers, and tax farmers. Most of them also do not know that there is a strong evidence to believe the so-called “Blood Libel” that Jews ritually kidnapped, tortured and murdered Christian children during the Middle Ages was true. Most of them do not know that the Jews often colluded with Muslims in the various conquests of previously Christian lands. And most of them do not appreciate the level of animosity that Jews have held towards Christianity. More toxically, most of them do not appreciate that the Jews-as-victim narratives (mostly prominently, the Holocaust and the Russian pogroms) are a combination of embellishment, propaganda, or outright fabrication. None of these facts obviously excuse, in any way, present-day harm towards Jews nor does it justify anti-Semitism as if all Jews should be loathed for the sins of their fathers. That is not the point in noting it; rather, we are naïve to ignore that the Jews have, more often than not, been vicious competitors and antagonists to Christians in trade, commerce, war, slavery, and religion — ergo, they have a very long history of antagonism towards us that did not magically disappear with either the “emancipation” of the beginning in the late eighteenth century with the advent of democratic republicanism. No, not only are Jews not historical victims, but they have also often been the villains and oppressors just as often. Nonetheless, ignorant as they are, most American conservatives instinctively oppose any suggestion of corporate Jewish culpability as something inherently anti-Semitic and ugly — even if they are presented with evidence of that corporate culpability, they refuse to connect the dots because they have a preternatural fear of being labeled ant-Semitic. Another factor of discomfiture, especially for Catholics, is the spiritual view is that we are all responsible for the sin and destruction in the world. This view, which is a subtler evasion, takes the spiritual principle that I should look to my own sin before focusing on the sin of another, is misapplied to geopolitical and cultural considerations such that they refuse to see the reality that stares them straight in the face. This view is a variant of Americanism inasmuch as they are the same people who have no difficulty in making negative group associations in other contexts (whether it be Democrats, socialists, globalists, feminists, etc.). But they cannot live with a negative group association as it relates the Jews. This resistance then is less about religion than it is about political and cultural education, wanting to fit in, sociopathic ambition, etc.

There are also American conservatives who are Evangelical Christians. Obviously, these people have a highly defective theology, but we can and should make common cause on a variety of issues with them. One especially egregious part of that defective theology — one that has snuck into the Catholic Church — is the conflation of the present-day Jewish people and the political state of Israel with the ancient Chosen People of God. While it is beyond the remit of this book review to discuss the full scope of supersessionism, the Catholic Church has superseded the ancient Israelites as the rightful people of God; ergo, there is no worship that the Jews offer that pleases God, and their election as the people of God has been forfeited in the rejection of the Messiah. To still refer to them as the “Chosen People” or as specially favored of God is to ignore their historic and collective rejection of Christ, which, in many ways, has come to define them by negation. They are now not unlike the many Israelite characters in the Old Testament who challenged God and his human delegates and were thereafter cut off from the people of God. There is therefore nothing special about the Jews spiritually anymore — they may not be cursed by God, but they are the descendants (or later converts of) of those Israelites who rejected Christ. Not only do we need not “bless them” for their historical apostasy from God, but they are also damning themselves anew in every generation by persisting in their blindness towards Christ. We see this variant in the American conservatives’ embrace of Israel, which, even if simply judged on American values of democracy and openness, is a xenophobic state that rivals the German National Socialist agenda for ethnic purity. This standard fare of blind support by American conservatives of the state of Israel, which is in fact an ugly, oppressive, and illegitimate political sovereign, is a humungous stumbling block to seeing the broader Jewish culpability for the world’s degeneration.

There is, of course, an irony in all of this — that is, White or European resistance to seeing the Jewish culpability and machinations in our social, religious, and cultural dispossession. It is our collective goodness to seek the good in others matched with their collective nature to resist and do harm to the “other.” They have convinced decent people to hate themselves and their fathers for the sins that they in fact have committed. While “gaslighting” is a concept that has become clichéd in recent years, American conservatives have been gaslighted — they ignore the reality that is beyond question because they cannot go where that reality will lead them. If only we were led in the Church by shepherds that would speak the Truth and protect the faithful sheep from those who would harm them. Unfortunately for us, much of the Church’s leadership has been bought and sold by this same Jewish collective — they are, at least for the Jews, new Judases or useful idiots. Strangely enough, the Church’s leaders, not unlike their secular Gentile European counterparts, are cheering the destruction of the very people (us) that they should be protecting by acclaiming the very people (the Jews) who despise them and are agents of that same destruction.

Howard’s book proceeds in eight chapters; each is worthy of a comment. The first chapter is essentially a recapitulation of George Soros’s career as “progressive” nation-destroyer. Howard focuses upon how Soros and his Open Society Foundation — often with private donors or U.S. State Department sponsorship — wreaked havoc upon the countries in central and eastern Europe following the demise of the Soviet Union. It is a story of orchestrated blackmail for Western aid, political and media interference, and the relentless push to destroy the nascent return of traditional and national values to those newly freed peoples. Ukraine, which has dominated the news, was a special pet project of Soros and his public/private minions — and his work there was to decouple Ukrainians from their ethnic cousins in Russia and place them firmly in the Western camp (which means homosexuality, abortion, pornography, immigration, etc.). It is not a stretch to conclude that the Russia-Ukraine War that is still ongoing is a consequence of, among other things, the machinations of George Soros.

If Soros is a personal and stateless boogeyman for globalization, Howard’s next chapter focuses upon the long tentacles of the U.S. State Department and the various satellite NGOs it sponsors to destabilize regimes that oppose “Western values.” If Soros is an invisible Wizard of Oz, State operates like a battering ram with real money and real influence. What Howard exposes is how anti-American the State Department in its foreign policy aims. He sums up the nature of the meddling as follows:

“Democracy,” “Pluralism,” and “Human Rights” are all straight out of the doublespeak playbook, directly at odds with the actual reality of the situation, which is that the ruling class is doing everything in its power to pry open “closed” or otherwise traditional and ethnically-homogeneous societies in order to exploit them make them, more amenable to neoliberalism and then enfold them in the globalized system. …. Today’s national sovereignty is the obstacle to global capitalism and its mutating neo-feudalist form, all particularist regimes which protect the interests of their people, whether left or right, from Cuba to Iran to Venezuela to Russia must be washed away in this awesome septic tide of neoliberalism which most certainly encompasses neoconservatism.

Anyone who knows anything knows that Foggy Bottom is the repository of the most revolutionary group of Federal employees in the entire American government. These people have been virtual communists (or at least socialists) since the days of FDR — and little has changed. These are people that literally despise the great unwashed of American people — the same American people for whom they are supposed to be faithfully executing a foreign policy based on American interests. If Soros’s power is soft and manipulative, State is hard and coercive. Between Soros and his affiliated groups and State and its affiliated groups — as well as their friends in the European Union and similar Western European-based groups, Howard recites a globalist “who’s who,” and there is an incestuous feel to all of it — these people, many of them Jews, move seamlessly between high government positions, think tanks, lobbying firms, media outlets, and NGOs. What this influence-incest amounts to is a network loop of recycled foreign policy talking points that mirror a globalist echo chamber. If you pay close attention to the mainstream media, you will see the underlying and subliminal globalist view mediated in almost everything that is reported. It operates like a hidden axiom that is the ultimate angle in every story, big or small. Taken together, these revolutionaries have almost nothing in common with the ordinary American, yet they are creating havoc throughout the world. What’s more, there is a fair share of “conservatives” among them — neo-cons and never-Trumpers mostly — but people who still write for the National Review and other fraudulent “conservative” outlets.

The influence and chaos that these people and groups cause is hardly academic. Howard goes into great detail on how they engineered “color revolutions” throughout the liberated Soviet bloc — a process that continues to this day. Howard also demonstrates how these puppet-masters have trained a generation of young leaders (often from the countries to be infiltrated) and shock troops in the form of something like international “community organizers” who provide the disorder on the ground by sowing discord and revolution in otherwise fragile democratic states. From the bombing of Serbia to the Arab Spring, from the Velvet Revolution to the Orange Revolution (that was an engineered pro-Western coup in Ukraine), the globalists have destroyed any homegrown opposition to the imposition of Western “values.” What we have done recently in the Middle East and eastern Europe makes what the CIA did to help Augustus Pinochet in Chile during the early 1970s look like clumsy child’s play.

For Howard, the story of the twentieth century and beyond and the wars and conflicts that have marked it is the battle between globalists and nationalists. He even goes so far as to find that globalists finally gained the upper hand when they destroyed Germany in 1945 — through a capitalist-Bolshevik vice grip. It is seldom that you read — at least in print and available on Amazon no less — a book that puts Nazi Germany in a positive light as compared with the West and the Soviet Union. But it is hard to argue with this point that he makes:

From at least World War I, the root of most global conflagrations has been at heart a struggle between globalists on one hand and nationalists and or particularists on the other. … Prior to World War II, in the 1930s, in a Germany under NSDAP direction, employers were discouraged from treating women as workplace-widgets and wage suppressors, and instead the building of families was centralized by the state with a set percentage of loan forgiveness with the birth of each new child among other monetary benefits. Under the NSDAP, loans were issued for a set price. Marriage loans up to 1,000 marks were implemented and were repayable in interest-free installments; a quarter of the loan was forgiven at the birth of each child. Unless it could not be produced domestically, imports were banned with the express goal of making the German economy self-sufficient. This was highly problematic for the proto-neoliberal Establishment, for the dumping of cheap goods in the domestic markets is central to their project which helps create displacement and unemployed workers (think of the effects of NAFTA on both American and Mexican farmers), and the interconnected payment system of war reparations was key in keeping Germany weak and subservient. A prone Germany was also open to large scale immigration from the east and social subversion. With the new German economy forming, the center of a central European trading bloc largely independent of the globalist system of foreign capital and —this is key — foreign banking predicated on the centrality of interest, the economic miracle of Germany took place. Adolf Hitler was heavily influenced by the writings of Gottfried Feder who conceived of an economy free from interest, with labor as the most valuable commodity, for only labor, not capital, is productive — an idea that has been present in Western thought dating to classical antiquity … . In light of Feder’s prescient comments on the international collaboration of the great money-powers, the collusion of big capital and the Bolsheviks and the ultimate smashing of Germany at the hands of the unholy alliance of capitalists and communists in World War II, these historical events and their aftermath in which we are living make much more sense. The unholy alliance persists in the present day within ANTIFA and Black Lives Matters fomenters torching cities unmolested while average people are subject to draconian laws and speech curtailment. Many of the worst excesses of communism are drawn upon to strengthen the Golden International stranglehold on the population.

From my perspective, this alternative statement of history — devoid of Americanist (read: Jewish) propaganda — makes eminent sense. Obviously, I am not justifying the excesses of the Nazi regime or its anti-Catholic sentiment, but the broader point is Hitler was the last leader within the First World to try to stem the tide of the globalists and he was utterly destroyed in the effort. We are living through, perhaps, yet another such leader in Vladmir Putin who is also hated by the Jews and their fellow travelers.

If the globalists despise regimes that are national in orientation and pro-natalist as they relate to their own people, it is not hard to figure out what they support for us. Howard, in a chapter called “Demographic Warfare,” shows how the globalists among us what us to stop having children (birth control and abortion are essentially Jewish inventions), while, at the same, they swamp us in Third World migration. And this phenomenon is only happening in countries that were once European-peopled. This part is especially depressing to me because the demographic changes have both social and political consequences — they open the borders, mint alien voters, create conditions for heterogenous social tumult, steal elections, and repeat. And to oppose these demographic trends, even in the most milquetoast terms, is tantamount to the Orwellian charge of “anti-woman” and gutter racism. Truly, we live in Alice’s wonderland albeit in more starkly frightening qualities.

To put a coda on the Jewish influence in all of this, Howard has a chapter entitled, bravely I might add, “Zionist Occupied Government”. This chapter, which is audaciously politically incorrect is saying out loud what anyone who pays the slightest attention already knows — the American government has become colonized by Israeli and Jewish powerbrokers. He notes the connection forcefully:

At what point does it become a mission of malice rather than in-group favoritism, understanding the Jews, unique among ethnicities, function better in “open” societies, with multiculturalism, looser mores, etc. At worst, they have found success as intermediaries between a subjugated population and its conquerors such as in the Ottoman Empire and Muslim Spain, but global capital and industrialization in the eventual rise of mass media and “connective” technologies has enabled particular, Jewish group strengths to be put to use in crafting an internationalism that disproportionately benefits them. It is also molded it in the Jewish image, as it is subject to Jewish pathology and hysteria, a probable consequence of significant and sustained inbreeding among Ashkenazim especially.

He goes on:

Today even with an explicitly-Jewish state, the majority of global Jewry chooses to live abroad, the vast majority of them in European and European-settled societies. Most have fled the South Africa they helped dismantle, … the few remaining are dramatically overrepresented among the country’s millionaires but even from abroad weaponized blacks are treated as pawns by certain power brokers. … In their Western environs, approximately 80 percent of Jews hew Leftward, and the remaining 20 percent, most seem to fall in the Sheldon Adelson camp, i.e., “conservatism,” as supportive of mass immigration, free trade, amnesty and the like. Where does this leave the Europeans whose homelands are being detonated by Jewish interest groups, ideological and economic, public and private, religious and secular, when all they seem to horseshoe eventually? The only difference is the question of Israel, the rest seems to be settled. It is especially telling that in the same January 2020 speech in which he implied Christians are not “people of faith” and condemned nativists, Michael Bloomberg vowed that as president he would “always have Israel’s back” and would never “impose conditions on our military aid — including missile defense — no matter who is Prime Minister.

The book ends with a final chapter on the “Dark Underbelly,” which is Howard’s attempt to connect wide swaths of criminality and gangsterism, the drug and organ trade, and organized crime to international Jewry. Given their reputation (deserved or not) in the United States as relative law-abiding people, the accusation of widespread criminality is stinging. That said, the final chapter fits within the general narrative of the book that the Jews are malicious as it relates to the “other” — and malicious in proportion to the threat that they see in the other. Europeans have been historically strong competitors with the Jews (we too have our super-talented elite), so it is not surprising that the Jews wish to destroy the host societies of Europeans to weaken their competitors.

*         *         *         *

While I could not have written in as much detail as Howard did when he wrote Open Society Playbook, there was next to nothing, at least thematically, that I did not know already before I picked up the book. That said, his almost-forensic approach to disentangling the web of organizations, state actors, billionaires, media moguls, and tech titans is worth the price of admission. Unfortunately for us, I think the only people willing to read this type of work are exactly the type who already understand the outlines of the game and the participants. Nonetheless, this type of work — especially in its cumulative shock value — is a needed and courageous submission to identifying the problem. As things deteriorate more — and surely they will — more and more conservative men of the West will go beyond the staid conventional answers that are so obviously wanting.More and more will consider what many of us have known for some time. Howard’s book — for the vaguely curious then — is a hammer and an anvil when it comes to Jewish intrigue in domestic and foreign affairs.

If I have a criticism of the book, it is found in the lack of a satisfactory attempt to explain the “why” of our situation. It is, mind you, a fantastic book on the “who” and the “how” but his speculation on why the Jews, are doing this is pedestrian at best. Indeed, the most he can says is that Jews like pluralistic and weakened societies and their pathological enmity towards us is driven by in-breeding. While why the Jews do what they do is not perhaps the signal concern — after all, our response to them ought to be — it is worthwhile to understand. In this, I find E. Michael Jones and Kevin MacDonald far more satisfying in identifying the underlying misanthropic pathology of the Jews as it relates to the “other.” For Jones, it always comes back to their continuing status as deniers of Christ; for MacDonald, it is indeed a type of in-breeding that placed extreme group value on conformity and heightened ethnocentric values. The truth is probably in the middle, but Jones appears, at least to me, to touch upon why they are actively seeking to destroy and dispossess us in our own countries. It seems to me the incomprehensible malice that Howard points to is bound up in the long, collective memory of the Jews of the mostly fabricated abuses they think their forefathers suffered at our hands. Jews, as anyone knows, have a very different sense of forgiveness than do Christians. Simply put, they don’t forgive. Setting aside that they have clinical collective amnesia when it comes to their own misdeeds, they harvest historical grievances with all the care of a vigilant genealogist, and even though we are admonished not to hold the sins of the father against the son, they do exactly that when it comes to our alleged sins against them. I find therefore Jones’ approach to understanding them as essentially bitter and revolutionary elements of society animated by an anti-Logos spirit to be the best possible explanation for why their malice runs so deep and unremitting.

*         *         *         *

Howard paints a bleak picture — indeed, how do you fix a monumental problem and confront a jackal-like enemy when you are not allowed to even notice, let alone mention, the problem? From a natural point of view, our proverbial goose is cooked, and we have lost. That said, we cannot give in to despair. We must do what we can to resist — and the chief form of resistance is Traditional Catholicism. Let our European cousins get back to Mass, let them get back to Confession, let them hear good preaching, let them see the ancient liturgy of the forefathers, let them see the good and natural beauty of the Civilization that their forebears created. Western man has no reason whatsoever to besmirch his civilization — and he has no reason to be embarrassed of who he is, or who his ancestors were. As much as humility and prudence will permit, we ought to be proud to hail from the Mother Continent of Europe. We ought to treasure the traditions of our people. It was through our people that God choose the missionary work in the age of the Church to be accomplished — that is something we should be intensely grateful for, and that fact ought to fill us with fraternal charity for our kin.

Speaking of kin, while we ought never turn our people into an idol (that is what Jews do after all), we can take pride in them in much the same way we take pride in our immediate family. Moreover, as Catholics, we are never permitted to allow our sense of kin to treat Catholics from other groups and races as somehow beneath us — and that goes without saying. But this is not a complicated proposition — I love my wife and children and I am intensely proud of them as they are my own. My love for them does not mean, and has never meant, that I cannot appreciate my friends and their families and take an equal share of happiness when they practice virtue or excel in the world. This is what it means to be an authentic and organic community — the only difference as applied to my European kin is that I can still love them as my own while still loving my non-European Catholic co-religionists. In any event, I repudiate the Jewish idea that I am not also a member of a tribe in my own right. I am, and I pray that my “tribe,” for the lack of a better word, wakes up to their corporate reality before it is too late.

*         *         *         *

Saint Paul, Pray for the Jews. May they turn away from their perfidious blindness and prostrate themselves before the Living God.

“IT IS FINISHED”—NYAG Letitia James Crucifies VDARE.com

Editor’s note. Horrifying that it has come to this.  And yet another indictment of our legal system that a government can swoop in and demand all this information from a charitable organization—information that is far beyond the budget of the organization. And without actually bringing charges. The authoritarian, anti-White left is in charge in New York State, and pretty much the entire judicial system is corrupt.

I launched VDARE.com on Christmas Eve 1999. So it is perhaps appropriate that, on Good Friday 2024, the anniversary of Christ’s death, I must announce VDARE.com’s crucifixion by New York State’s communist Attorney General Letitia James.

On March 27, 2024, in another of her lightning-fast NYAG James-compliant rulings, New York State Supreme Court Judge Sabrina Kraus held us in Contempt of Court because we have not yet complied (because we were fighting it) with her January 23, 2023 order that we meet NYAG James’ massive and crippling subpoena demands.

Judge Kraus did modify her earlier order to reflect the intervention (much appreciated) of the Institute for Free Speech. So now we no longer have to reveal, explicitly, the names of our pseudonymous writers, some of whom would certainly be fired from their jobs if their identities leaked.

But we are still required to review 40 gigabytes of emails, an enormous amount. And of course these could in fact reveal the names of those pseudonymous writers, as well as our donors, privileged communications with lawyers, etc.

Judge Kraus has also now allowed us to redact these emails. But this is a huge task, which our lawyers estimate could cost as much as $150,000.

An observer tells us this order is more typical of major corporate litigation, not a tiny charity.

And, perversely, although Judge Kraus has now modified her January 23, 2023 order, she is nevertheless now fining us $250 a day for not complying with it.

We have fought NYAG Letitia James, at a cost of up to $1 million, for nearly three years. But now we are literally hanging on the cross.


There is no legitimate explanation for NYAG James’ enormous fishing expedition—other than a desire to nail us to the cross with compliance costs. The process is the punishment.

NYAG James has claimed to be interested in our purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle as a conference venue. But this transaction was expensively lawyered and is bulletproof. Significantly, NYAG James has refused to meet with our expensive lawyers to discuss it.

The victims of crucifixion typically took a long time to die. (Christ was an exception.)

All our resources are now focused on our death struggle. VDARE.com will continue publishing on a reduced schedule as long as it can, at least until after our April 26-28 conference.

But, as Christ said on the cross, “It is finished.”

The suppression of VDARE.com’s voice, at a time when the immigration debate is moving to a climax, is of course a political scandal.

But, on a personal level, I might also observe that VDARE.com was an entirely viable 24/7 opinion convenience store. I had hoped to leave it to my young wife and our children after I am gone. Now it appears, thanks to Letitia James, that this will not be possible. They will need some other means of support.

Nevertheless, I’m immensely grateful for VDARE.com’s much loved readers and supporters over these many years. 

We hope to see you on the other side.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disasteris now available in Kindle format.


On the subject of VDARE.com’s April Conference etc.:

Our heroic friends at GabPay have told us that to their shock that they have found they cannot get ANY bank to enable our credit card donations.

It’s increasingly clear that federal regulators are pressuring banks to repress immigration patriots, as they have tried to do with gun stores.

Our April 26-28 conference is sold out (email lbrimelow@vdare.com to be put on the waiting list). BUT, AGAIN THANKS TO OUR HEROIC FRIENDS AT GABPAY,  YOU CAN STILL SIGN UP FOR A LIVE STREAM TICKET BY E-CHECK HTTPS://VDARE/EVENTS/LIVESTREAM2024

(And hear Steve Sailer discuss his best-seller NOTICING!)


And, of course, if you feel inclined (and want to protect VDARE.com’s writers and donors) you can support VDARE.com in its death struggle by e-check here https://vdare.com/donate.

AND we’ve opened a credit-card friendly givesendgo account here. We’re not sure how this can be combined with tax-deductibility, but we’ll let you know.

Earlier on Letitia James’s Lawfare against VDARE.com:

Why Are So Many of Our Elite Sexually Depraved?

There have long been conspiracy theories that the world is ruled by a group of elite pedophiles or at least ephebophile—those who are attracted to sexually mature but very young girls. Just such a vast, elite pedophile ring — centred around Hilary Clinton — was a key strand in QAnon thinking [QAnon conspiracists believe in a vast pedophile ring. The truth is sadder, By Moira Donegan, Guardian, September 20, 2020]. In the UK, “Operation Yew Tree,” set up after the death of popular entertainer Sir Jimmy Savile and revelations about his raping numerous under-aged girls, unmasked a number of high-profile celebrities with similar proclivities, such as the entertainer Rolf Harris [Rolf Harris, Savile and Clifford all pulled the wool over my eyes, By Simon Hattenstone, Guardian, July 3, 2014].

With the publication of court documents relating to Virginia Roberts suing the now jailed Ghislaine Maxwell, a growing list of A-List celebrities have been revealed to have spent time on the private island of wealthy convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, where Maxwell procured young girls for him. These A-Listers include Prince Andrew, who denies having had sex with Virginia Roberts (then a minor), Stephen Hawking and Bill Clinton. According to sworn testimony by one of these girls, Epstein told her that the former president “likes them young” [Epstein told victim that Bill Clinton ‘likes them young’, new court filings reveal, By Rachel Young, Independent, January 7, 2024]. People may be shocked at evidence that so many highly elite people may be interested in having sex with very young girls. As someone who researchers evolutionary psychology I don’t find it shocking at all. It makes complete theoretical sense.

What is it that predicts being extremely eminent, ascending to the heights of the elite, being, in some way, a genius? As I have explored in my book Sent Before Their Time: Genius, Charisma and Being Born Prematurely, it is very high intelligence combined with psychopathic traits. If you are low in empathy and altruism, you won’t care that your radical new idea, for example, offends vested interests; in fact you might enjoy upsetting people. You will even have aspects of Narcissism, such a strong sense of entitlement; making you impervious to setbacks, possessed of a Machiavellian streak, and, so, more likely to succeed. If you are low in impulse control then you won’t be able to force yourself to think like everybody else; you will “think outside the box” and generate original ideas. And if you are high in negative feelings, in Neuroticism, you will be constantly ruminating and so generating new insights. In essence, genius is very high intelligence combined with sub-clinical psychopathology.

German-British psychiatrist Felix Post (1913–2001) conducted a character-trait analysis of 291 world famous men which I drew upon in Sent Before Their Time. He found that 16% of the male population might be sub-clinically psychopathic. This compared to 52% of politicians, 50% of artists and 70% of writers. Post estimated that 1% of males suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but this was 27% of artists, 28% of politicians and 40% of writers.  It should be added that while 1% of the male population are “severely psychopathic,” Post found it was 17.4% of politicians, 37.5% of artists, 26% of thinkers, and 46% of writers. He estimated that 33% of his sample of world famous scientists had suffered from depression or anxiety, as had 41% of his politicians, 34% of his composers, 36% of his thinkers, 41% of his artists and 72% of his writers. Approximately 20% of people in Western countries experience a bout of depression at some point in their lifetimes [Creativity and psychopathology: A Study of 291 World Famous Men, By Felix Post, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994].

With these numbers in mind, we must ask what are the correlates of pedophilia? The first key trait is psychopathology; it robustly crosses over with being a pedophile. This is presumably because in order to abuse and take advantage of somebody, especially a minor, you have to be lacking in altruism and empathy and also have a strong sense of entitlement, that you can do whatever you like [Psychopathy in the pedophile, By D. Dorr, In . Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviour, 1998]. Unsurprisingly, one study also found that, “Pedophiles possess many core personality features associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorders” [A Rorschach investigation of defensiveness, self-perception, interpersonal relations, and affective states in incarcerated pedophiles, By M.R. Bridges et al., Journal of Personality Assessment, 1998]. In other words, some men may be attracted to under-age girls but you require psychopathic and Narcissistic traits in order to act on this.

Both of these traits are part of a “fast life history strategy,” a concept I’ve looked at before. Fast life history strategists are evolved to an easy yet unpredictable ecology where you must live fast and die young. It is, therefore, pointless bonding with people, who could be wiped out at any moment, so you are aggressive and psychopathic. You must pass on your genes as quickly as possible, so you should be attracted to very young women, as they are highly fertile. If you are a slow life history strategist then you are in a predictable, harsh and competitive environment. You must ensure, for example, that your offspring are adapted to the local diseases and are well-nurtured, so you might value genetic similarity to your partner and a kind personality above youth. Our super-elite are highly intelligent fast life history strategists so we would expect to have an extreme penchant for youth.

Anxiety is associated with paraphilia, with a developing a sexual fetish. An extreme penchant for youth might be regarded as close to fetish, in that teenage girls are not yet at the peak of their fertility. It has been suggested that anxiety can potentiate sexual arousal in men, which can lead to an association between sexual arousal and atypical objects [The Relation Between the Paraphilias and Anxiety in Men: A Case—Control Study, By M. Fox et al., Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2022]. Alternatively, it may be that anxiety involves experiencing intense feelings more strongly, making the normal desire for youth more extreme, as autism, which involves low empathy and extreme sensations, is associated with paraphilia and anxiety [Psychological and Developmental Correlates of Paraphilic and Normophilic Sexual Interests, By A. Brown et al., Sexual Abuse, 2022].  Certainly, childhood anxiety is associated with later becoming a pedophile [Social anxiety and sexual offending against children: A cumulative meta-analysis, By K. Nunes et al., Sexual Aggression, 2012].

So, put simply, we shouldn’t be surprised at evidence of highly elite males having sex with underage girls. The same traits that predict being highly elite would appear to predict just such a penchant. The “conspiracy theory” makes theoretical sense.

The Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible: Surveying the Sick Joke of the Church of England

Meet the goy grovel. It’s the most important ritual of modern Western life. Sycophancy and self-abasement are poured out by gentiles before Jews in the hope of social gain and material reward. Goyim grovel with particular energy and enthusiasm at Hanukkah, the minor Jewish festival artificially inflated by Jews to compete with and blur the significance of Christmas. Minor as it is, however, Hanukkah carries the true flavor of Judaism and Jewish psychology, because it’s all about hating and harming goyim.

The kaffir krawl

As part of their eternal quest to harm goyim, Jews have opened the borders of Western nation to the vibrant folk of the Third World. This means that the goy grovel now has a baby brother called the kaffir krawl. It consists of sycophancy and self-abasement poured out before Muslims by non-Muslims, or kaffirs. If you want to see a particularly fine example of a kaffir krawl, I recommend this short video issued by Justin Welby, the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, in honor of the Muslim holy month of Ramadhan:

Justin Welby performs the kaffir-krawl #1

Justin Welby performs the kaffir-krawl #2

Justin Welby performs the kaffir-krawl #3

If you watch the video or merely look at the three stills I’ve selected from it, you will surely agree with what Andrew Joyce once said of Welby at the Occidental Observer: “At the heart of this disease [of GloboHomo in Christianity] is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks [as if] ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man.” But has Joyce truly nailed Welby there? No, I wouldn’t say so. How could you pound a nail into someone as insubstantial and ectoplasmic as Justin Welby? He reminds me of a pallid and eyeless worm you might find if you dredged a cess-pit or dug deep into a steaming heap of elephant-dung. He isn’t the Archbishop of Canterbury: he’s the Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible.

Not the Gospel but the Guardian

Welby’s kaffir krawl for Ramadhan is yet more proof of why he is so contemptible. How many times does he mention Jesus Christ? Once? Twice? Thrice? Nope. Try zero, zilch, zip. He’s too busy pouring sycophancy over Muslims and smarmily quoting the scriptures of his real religion. Welby claims to follow “the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” He’s lying. He doesn’t follow the Gospel; he follows the Guardian. That’s why he talks about “Muslims in their diversity … who enrich our society in countless ways.” Diversity and enrichment — that’s the Gospel according to the Guardian alright. Here are words from the real Gospel, which Welby betrays every day of his life:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 8:31)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19)

And the gospel must first be published [i.e., proclaimed] among all nations. (Mark 13:10)

“The gospel” is literally the Good News, the knowledge that God descended to earth in the form of a man to save us from sin and death. Christ was incarnated for all mankind, which is why Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel to “all nations.” The logic is perfectly clear: if Christ is the only begotten son of God and no man comes to the Father but by Him, then Islam is a false religion and Christians must seek to bring Muslims to “the way, the truth, and the life.”

The optics of Clown World: Justin Welby has the same demonic left eye as Tony Blair, portrayed here by the Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, and the Jewish neo-con Nick Cohen

And that is exactly what the Church of England once did. It sent missionaries to “all nations” and sought to bring Muslims and other infidels out of their false religions and into the true religion of Christianity. Now Justin Welby, the highest representative of the church, performs the kaffir krawl before Muslims, pouring sycophancy over them and smarmily celebrating “the huge contribution that Muslims across our nation make to our society.” That’s not Christianity, it’s minority-worship, the lying Jew-devised insistence that non-Whites and non-Christians are paragons of virtue, saintly exemplars of all that is highest and holiest in the modern world. So the leftist fantasy goes, at least. The reality of minority behavior is completely different. Here is part of the “huge contribution” made by Muslims to British society:

700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year

The problem is worst among children born in Britain’s Pakistani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders. The medical risks of first cousin marriages include higher rates of infant mortality, birth defects, learning difficulties, blindness, hearing problems and metabolic disorders.

As adults, the children born from first cousin marriages are at increased risk of miscarriage or infertility. A third of children affected die before their fifth birthday. An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found that although more than 70 British studies have proved the risks, and 700 British Pakistani children are born with associated genetic diseases every year, many people deny the dangers. Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley, suffered abuse for trying to highlight the problems.

“It’s a public health issue and we deal with public health issues by raising awareness, by talking about subjects such as obesity, such as drug addiction, such as alcohol,” she said. “But for some reason we’re told that we mustn’t talk about cousin marriages because this is a sensitive issue. I think it’s absurd, we have to talk about it in order to find solutions.”

Research shows the number of cousin marriages has risen dramatically in the UK over the last three decades, mainly between British Pakistanis, but also between first cousins in the British Bangladeshi community in which nearly a quarter of people marry their first cousins, and in some Middle Eastern and East African communities. (700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd Aug 2010)

“Cousin marriages” – and the horrible genetic disorders that go with them – have “risen dramatically” in Britain thanks to Muslims and their revolting but religiously approved customs. Something else that has “risen dramatically” in Britain is child-rape and child-torture. The brave Labour MP Ann Cryer has also tried to combat those two things, despite the opposition of her fellow leftists:

Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse

A culture of Left-wing political correctness led politicians and officials to ignore the plight of young girls who were being sexually abused by Asian men, Labour figures have warned. Ann Cryer, an MP from 1997 until 2010, told The Sunday Telegraph how she had feared being called “racist” when, in 2002, she exposed a sex-abuse scandal involving Pakistani men in her constituency of Keighley, West Yorkshire. A “politically correct Left just saw it as racism”, she said.

At the same time, Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, revealed that even now some of his colleagues disapproved of his efforts to uncover child abuse, because some were “obsessing about multiculturalism”. It follows the exposure last week of the scale of child sexual abuse in Rotherham. An inquiry estimated that at least 1,400 girls as young as 11 were assaulted and raped by gangs of Asian men over a period of 16 years. Some had guns pointed at them or were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. Mrs Cryer recalled how there was a politically correct Left that saw her fight as racism. “At the time I was dealing with this, 2002-04, political correctness was playing a big part. The Guardian at that time hardly mentioned these things… because it was so politically correct.” (Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse, The Daily Telegraph, 30th Aug 2014)

By “Asian men” and “Pakistanis,” the Telegraph meant Muslims. So there is another part of the “huge contribution” made by Muslims to British society: decade upon decade of child-rape and child-torture. And how does Justin Welby respond? He joins the atheist and secularist left in maintaining both silence and sycophancy. He’s sycophantic about Muslims even as he’s silent about the enormous evils they commit on British soil. Unlike Ann Cryer, he lacks two essential Christian virtues: courage and honesty. He doesn’t combat evil: he collaborates with it.

Judas as performed by Adam Sandler

That’s why he’s the perfect man to head the modern Church of England. Anglicanism used to be merely a joke. Now it’s become a sick joke. Welby embodies both the sickness and the smallness of soul so prevalent in modern Anglicanism. He’s a spiritual, intellectual, and ethical pygmy compared with a figure like Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), one of his predecessors as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer founded the Church of England under Henry VIII and wrote one of the greatest works in English, the Book of Common Prayer. The modern church, of course, has done its best to suppress the sonority and sweetness of Cranmer’s words. After all, the Book of Common Prayer preaches the Gospel and the modern church believes in preaching only the Guardian. Alas, after founding the new church, Cranmer betrayed Anglicanism under the Catholic queen Mary. But he ended his life repenting and recanting that betrayal, thrusting his right hand into the flames of his execution-pyre and dying with these words: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. I see the heavens open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”

Cranmer was a giant in the early days of Anglicanism; Welby is a pygmy in its final days. But that shouldn’t fool us into mistaking the enormity of Welby’s offence against the religion he claims to follow. He’s a pygmy, yes, but he’s committing gigantic sins. By his own standards, he’s betraying the Lord of the Universe and re-crucifying Christ. Don’t let his manner fool you into forgetting that. Welby is Judas as performed by Kenneth Williams or Adam Sandler. He’s evil and seems merely effete. He’s a monster who behaves like a mouse. You can see his effeteness in that video of the kaffir krawl he performed for Ramadhan. His evil isn’t so obvious: it’s there by omission, by what he refuses to say about the unique truths of Christianity and the egregious evils of Islam. But just look at the phrase with which Welby ends his kaffir-krawling. He signs off with “Ramadan Mubarak,” which means “Blessed Ramadhan.” At the end of Ramadhan comes Eid Mubarak, a “Blessed Festival” that precedes another Eid Mubarak later in the year. At the other Eid, Muslims slaughter sheep at home by slitting their throats in traditional Islamic fashion — and in clear contravention of Western laws on animal welfare. Has Justin Welby ever protested against that annual festival of grotesque animal cruelty and blatant illegality? Of course not. That would mean criticizing a minority, which is a mortal sin in the eyes of devout Guardianistas like Welby.

Martyr with a machine-gun

And Welby doesn’t protest against genuine mortal sins, as proscribed by his pretended religion of Christianity. Peter Hitchens, the insightful conservative brother of the neo-conservative gasbag Christopher Hitchens, has suggested that do-it-yourself sheep-slaughter prepares Muslims psychologically for jihad and the slaughter of human beings. I think he’s right. Slaughtering humans can be literally sanctified in Islam, as you can see from the word mubarak in another context. It appears on the poster issued by a mainstream Muslim mosque in Maryland to celebrate the life of an Islamic saint and hero:

A poster in celebration of Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered for Muhammad in Pakistan

The most prominent words on the poster read عرس مبارك, urs mubarak, meaning “blessed commemoration.” According to Wiktionary, an urs is “the death anniversary of a Sufi saint, usually held at the saint’s dargah (shrine or tomb).” The bearded man on the poster is the saint in question, a ghazi-shahid or “hero-martyr” called Mumtaz Qadri. And how did he become a saint? What heroic deed did he perform before his martyrdom? Simple. Mumtaz Qadri is the “Martyr with a Machine-Gun” who riddled a Pakistani politician with bullets in 2011 for trying to help a Christian woman called Asia Bibi, who was rotting on death-row after a grossly unfair conviction for blasphemy against Islam. That nifty work with a machine-gun is how Qadri became a hero in the eyes of millions of perfectly mainstream Muslims around the world, from Maryland in America to Middlesex in England.

The One True Faith of Justin Welby

Qadri became a martyr to the same mainstream Muslims when he was hanged by the authorities in Pakistan for his heroism. After that, his admirers founded shrines to celebrate his sainthood and heroic deeds. In 2014, the Guardian reported that “A mosque named in honour of the killer of a politician who called for the reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws is proving so popular it is raising funds to double its capacity.” When Qadri was hanged, the Guardian had reported that “One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as ‘a martyr’, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury’.” Later on, Qadri-fans from Pakistan toured mosques in Britain and praised his heroic defence of the Prophet. And heroism in Pakistan begat heroism in Britain: Qadri’s shining example inspired another ghazi called Tanveer Ahmed, who stabbed and stamped the heretic Asad Shah to death in Glasgow in 2016.

Shah belonged to a Muslim sect called the Ahmadis, who are cruelly persecuted in Pakistan and denied the most basic civil rights. Mainstream Muslims in Britain are doing their best to import that persecution to join the cousin-marriage, child-rape, and political corruption they’ve already firmly established here. But does any of that bother Justin Welby, the Arch-Invertebrate of Canterbury? Is he concerned that mainstream Muslims in Britain regard the murderer Mumtaz Qadri as a hero-martyr and the murderer Tanveer Ahmed as a hero? Not in the slightest. After all, if Welby criticized Muslims for accepting murderers as saints and heroes, he would be breaking the central tenet of what is, in his eyes, the One True Faith. Not the Gospel, but Guardianism, which insists that non-Whites and non-Christians are paragons of virtue, saintly exemplars of all that is highest and holiest in the modern world.

A billion pounds for Black paragons

The corollary of minority-worship is majority-whipping. Guardianism also insists that the White and historically Christian majority in the West is responsible for all that is worst in the world, from the evils of enslavement to the horrors of homophobia. Because the Church of England now follows the Guardian, not the Gospel, it is eager to denigrate and destroy itself:

The Church of England will aim to turn a £100m financial commitment into a £1bn fund to address the legacy of slavery in order to reflect the scale of “moral sin”. The church should work in partnership with other organisations to create the fund that will be used to invest globally in black-led businesses and provide grants, says a report from an independent group of advisers commissioned by the C of E. …

The Church Commissioners, the body that manages the C of E’s huge financial assets, accepted the report in full. However, the commissioners are not increasing the £100m investment but are aiming to attract co-investors to increase the fund’s value. … Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, said the report was “the beginning of a multi-generational response to the appalling evil of transatlantic chattel enslavement”. …

The fund will be black-led, and will invest in members of disadvantaged black communities, said the report. It “will aim to back the most brilliant social entrepreneurs, educators, healthcare givers, asset managers and historians. It will not pay cash compensation to individuals or provide grants to government bodies.” … It also recommended that a “significant share” of the Church Commissioners’ extensive property portfolio “increases socioeconomic mobility across racial lines by launching and expanding initiatives to provide competitive and/or below-market leases to black businesses”.

It called for a fresh apology from the C of E for “denying that black Africans are made in the image of God and for seeking to destroy diverse African traditional religious belief systems”. The Right Rev Dr Rosemarie Mallett, the bishop of Croydon and the group’s chair, said: “No amount of money can fully atone for or fully redress the centuries-long impact of African chattel enslavement, the effects of which are still felt around the world today.” The impact of slavery persisted today, she said, and was “measurable and apparent in everything from pregnancy and childbirth outcomes to life chances at birth, physical and mental health, education, employment, income, property, and the criminal justice system. We hope this initiative is just the start and is a catalyst to encourage other institutions to investigate their past and make a better future for impacted communities.” (“C of E hoping to create £1bn fund to address legacy of slavery,” The Guardian, 4th March 2024)

The Black pseudo-bishop Rosemarie Mallett

It’s no surprise that the “report” was overseen by a Black female pseudo-bishop or that the Church Commissioners have “accepted the report in full.” The Black pseudo-bishop, one Rosemarie Mallett, looks more masculine than Justin Welby does. But she’s no more fervent in her devotion to Guardianism. I particularly like her demand that the church apologize “for seeking to destroy diverse African traditional religious belief systems.” In other words, she wants the church to apologize for Christianity and for following the Gospel. In the past, missionaries sought to bring Blacks out of paganism and into Christianity. Yes, blinded by bigotry, warped by white supremacy, the missionaries objected to “belief systems” that involved (and still involve) such things as human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, and infanticide.

The waste, the trash and the lie

How dare they? How dare the Church of England follow the Gospel when it should have been following the Guardian? That’s what the report says. And Justin Welby responds by groveling that the report is just “the beginning of a multi-generational response to the appalling evil of transatlantic chattel enslavement.” Will he ever have anything to say about the even more appalling evil of intra-African “chattel enslavement,” as committed by Blacks themselves in sub-Saharan Africa and by Muslims from the north? The Muslim slave-trade lasted longer, kidnapped and killed more, and was crueler in its practices. Christians did not routinely castrate male slaves or turn female slaves into sexual playthings. Muslims did all that with the full approval of their religion.

But Justin Welby will never ask Muslims to repent the evils of Islamic history. Instead, he will continue to shower Muslims with sycophancy even as he works night and day to destroy his own religion. As I said above: he doesn’t combat evil, he collaborates with it. He claims to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ while betraying it with every waking breath.

Appendix: The full transcript of Justin Welby’s kaffir krawl

Greetings to Muslims at the start of the month of Ramadan. I wish you peace and joy as you begin this extraordinary and special time of prayer, fasting and spiritual reflection. Thank you for the huge contribution that Muslims across our nation make to our society. We all benefit from the many ways that Muslims in their diversity seek to be good citizens and contribute to our common good. Over the last year, I’ve met Muslims working and contributing to a variety of different sectors. The National Health Service, academic, members of Parliament, local authority, chaplains, youth workers, teachers, as well as religious teachers, to name but a few. I am so grateful to all of them, and to all those who enrich our society in countless ways. And I’ve also witnessed such great hospitality during Ramadan, especially at the iftar meal when the daily fast is broken. Last Ramadan, I was privileged to host a small iftar for Muslim friends in the new library at Lambeth Palace. It was memorable and beautiful. This year, I hope to be able to join an iftar as a guest. And I warmly encourage all who are invited to take up the opportunity to visit and get to know the local Muslim community. Ramadan is beginning as Christians are on their journey through Lent, our own month of spiritual renewal. I’m aware of the preciousness of making my Lenten journey while Muslims are seeking to orient themselves towards God. May we continue to grow our bonds of friendship and work together for peace and justice. May that be especially true at this time, for we are in the midst of times of stress and tension. May Ramadan and Lent be moments of renewing relationship, deepening our faith, and walking forward together for the common good. I wish you all a peaceful and flourishing Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak. (See Justin Welby’s official video for Ramadhan at Twitter)

University of Virginia Law Stacks Charlottesville Prosecutor’s Office for Personal Vendettas

The August 11, 2017 tiki-torch procession was a total humiliation for the University of Virginia (UVA). Three hundred men conducted a fair and legal protest of Jewish power on their precious campus, and their Antifa goons weren’t able to break it up.

So, UVA—a feeder-school for the FBI and the Department of Justice—decided to get revenge by weaponizing the judicial system.

As soon as the smoke had cleared, UVA President Teresa Sullivan commissioned Law School Dean Risa Goluboff to find a way to launch prosecutions. Her report was submitted exactly one month later. She proposed: restrictions on campus free-speech, a closer relationship with the FBI’s “fusion center,” and prosecutions based on a statute so obscure that UVA police didn’t even know about it.

Dean Goluboff (Jewish) is no objective observer. She claims to have been deeply affected by the events of August 11. In December 2018, she spoke with a “local judge and UVA alumnus” at a holiday party. She remembered thinking “Even a year and a half later, the events were too raw. My own involvement and feelings about it were too complicated.” [1]

It is noteworthy that this exchange happened at the time of the farcical James Fields trial before local judge and UVA alumnus Richard E. Moore. More on him later.

Goluboff was not the only UVA Law faculty who have agitated for prosecutions. Another instigator was Professor Anne Coughlin. Before the Unite the Right Rally (UTR) of August 12, 2017, Coughlin acted as a liaison between pro-Jewish groups and city officials, especially former Mayor Mike Signer (Jewish).

Describing her relationship with Signer, she says “Well, I’m, you know, kind of an institutional player. I know the mayor really well…. I’m pretty sure they knew that I had good relationships with the city—the powers that be in the city, Mike Signor [sic] in particular.”[2]

Professor Anne Coughlin from UVA Lawyer Magazine, Fall 2017

She also boasts of a long career in Antifa “activism.” During the rally, she took on an active role with Antifa, driving personnel between their lead-elements at Lee Park and their operational headquarters at First United Methodist Church.

In the years since, Coughlin has spearheaded efforts to bring prosecutions, no matter how flimsy. Writing in Cville Weekly in September 2019, she upbraided then-Commonwealth’s attorney Robert Tracci for not prosecuting anyone who participated in the tiki-procession under Virginia’s statute against “burning an object with an intent to intimidate.”

Like with their efforts to stop the tiki-vigil, UVA and Antifa militants have worked hand-in-hand. In an October 11, 2023 podcast (see here, c 53:00), Antifa ringleader Edward Gorcenski bragged about having convinced the prosecutor to bring these charges.

Prosecutor Tracci, no right-winger himself, recognized that there was no legal argument and refused to press charges. Charlottesville District Prosecutor David Chapman also refused to press charges for other tiki-processions that had happened in his jurisdiction.

Torturous and Abusive Prosecutions.

As strange as it might seem in an age of frivolous lawsuits and baseless criminal charges, this is actually illegal. It’s called barratry—using the courts to pursue a personal agenda.

But that did not deter Coughlin and her allies at UVA Law. They maneuvered to get a new, more pliable prosecutor elected.

They succeeded in 2019 with Jim Hingeley. Coughlin personally donated to his campaign. Other donors included J6 inquisitor and UVA faculty-member Timothy Heaphy, as well as Jewish multi-billionaire George Soros.

But Hingeley’s most generous financier by far was Brooklyn-born billionaire Sonjia Smith, who gave him $114,000. Smith is the wife of real-estate speculator and former Goldman Sachs Vice President Michael Bills who is also a UVA faculty member. Both have dumped millions of dollars into Virginia politics since 2019.

Puppet-prosecutor Hingeley took his sweet time bringing the cases. Elected in 2019, he waited until April of 2023 to start charging people with “burning an object with intent to intimidate.” Lucky for him, Virginia has no statute of limitations.

Hingeley (UVA Law ’76) has dozens, maybe hundreds of secret indictments in hand. In a just society, he would simply arrest every suspect and put on one big trial.

But in Jewish-ruled America, the common practice is to first bully a few people into taking plea-deals then to use their guilty-pleas as evidence against other defendants.

To get into the legal niceties, the statute in question does not even apply. It is intended to stop the KKK from burning crosses in people’s lawns. It is not intended to revoke your free speech while holding a torch or a candle or grilling a steak.

According to the legal reasoning of UVA Law—excuse me, the prosecutor’s office—any fire “burns something.” Cigarettes burn tobacco. Candles burn wicks. Automobile engines have a spark. According to this absurd and malicious interpretation, saying mean things is free speech, but doing so while smoking is a felony, punishable with up to five years in prison.

The Virginia General Assembly never intended for the law to be used this way. In 2019, two years after the tiki-vigil, a bill was introduced to amend the statute to include “using a flame producing instrument.” The bill did not pass. It is quite clear that, in the understanding of the legislature, the original statute does not cover the use of tiki-torches.

Lead Prosecutor is an Antifa… and a Witness.

The lynchpin of the whole conspiracy between UVA and the Commonwealth’s Attorney is William Lawton Tufts. Tufts works in Hingeley’s office and has been the lead attorney on the tiki-procession prosecutions.

Oddly, Tufts did not graduate from UVA. But he did work there. At the time of the tiki-procession, he was working at UVA’s Public Service Center, which prides itself on placing graduates in the Department of Justice. In plain English, Tufts was a recruiting sergeant for the feds.

William Lawton Tufts from UVA Lawyer Magazine, Fall 2017

Back in 2017, he also worked with Antifa. Along with his friend and colleague, the above-mentioned Professor Anne Coughlin, he was a liaison between city officials, police and Antifa groups.[3] He was also on the Police Citizen’s Advisory Panel, a job that required him to attend meetings and communicate regularly with the police.

Along with Coughlin he conspired with UVA Professor Jalane Schmidt to pressure authorities into giving UVA/Antifa what they wanted. According to Coughlin’s testimony in a January 8 hearing, Schmidt emailed her and Tufts saying:

        Subject: Alt-Right Cooperation with Police?

There are intel sources out there on our side who regularly track the social media spewing of the Alt-Right and report back. This could just be braggadocio, but it could serve as a negotiating angle or later PR angle for applying pressure on city and police.[4]

Schmidt in turn had the ear of the Emily L. Blout (Jewish), a fellow UVA professor and—it just so happens—the wife of Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer (Jewish).

Tufts is also a colleague of Law Professor Barbara Armacost and UVA Librarian Ben Doherty. Doherty was an organizer of the Antifa-organization “Showing Up for Racial Justice” (SURJ) and Armacost was a National Lawyers Guild lawfare expert.

The NLG is another Antifa group that specializes in intimidating normal people and providing legal cover to front-line Antifa militants. Their green-hatted spotters were present in force at the Jefferson Statue.

National Lawyers Guild spotters in green hats. Screenshot from National Geographic Documentary.

Doherty worked in the library with Antifa Tyler Magill who was also at the statue. Incidentally, his wife, Sena, ran for City Council in 2019 and served as Vice Mayor for two years. Her campaign was funded ($10,000) by billionaire Charlottesville puppet-master Sonjia Smith (see above).

Can there be any doubt that Tufts was placed in the prosecutor’s office for the specific purpose of conducting these abusive and vindictive prosecutions?

Tufts Continues on Mission

Two previous judges have already recused themselves for conflicts of interest. One of those (Claude Worrell) was a potential witness.

Tufts has been forced off one tiki-vigil case (that of Jacob Dix). Defense attorney Peter Frazier argued that Tufts had a clear conflict of interest. Indeed, he might have initiated an attorney-client relationship with Antifa by giving them legal advice.

Judge H. Thomas Padrick agreed and ordered the whole Commonwealth’s Attorney office to recuse itself. Indeed, another attorney in their office, Armin Zijerdi, was siding with Jewish Antifa on August 12, 2017.

As Hingeley himself said at his swearing in, “As a public official who’s formulating and carrying out public policy, you want to have people on your team who share the vision that you have.”

So, Antifa’s vision?

That would follow. Hingeley and Tufts are fighting tooth-and-nail to stay on other cases. This is unusual, to say the least. It’s a bit like asking mom after dad has told you no.

With one Albemarle judge, Tufts has had more luck. Last week, Judge Richard E. Moore (UVA Law ’80) ruled that Tufts did not necessarily have a conflict of interest.

However, Moore did agree with Judge Padrick that, if Tufts is recused, then the whole Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office would need to step aside because they had failed to properly screen their own people.

Out-of-town judge: “This is a clear conflict.” Charlottesville judge, “uh, gonna have to side with UVA on this one.”

That difference of opinion can get sorted out by the appeals court.

Why does Tufts care so much? If he cares about justice, wouldn’t a special prosecutor be good enough?

Does Tufts think that being the prosecutor will make it impossible for him to be called as a witness? Is he worried that he’ll have to commit perjury to cover up his crimes and those of his Antifa accomplices?

Antifa-Government Partnership

UVA is a public institution. It is funded by taxes. President (Emerita) Sullivan, Dean Goluboff, Professors Coughlin and Schmidt, Tyler Magill—all of these people are public officials. So are the Antifa agents Dean Allen Groves and Professor Walter Heinecke (see my last article). Tufts and Hingeley are also public officials.

And UVA is no ordinary school. Its Law School is one of the main feeder-schools for Merrick Garland’s Department of “Justice” and their enforcement arm, the FBI. It is a top supplier of clerks to the federal courts.

These people have money and power. It is ridiculous—insulting—for them to pretend that they are somehow the victims of a vicious attack.

UVA, Antifa, and the prosecutor’s office are all the same thing. At best, it’s conflicts of interest, abuse of power and incestuous institutional relationships.

At worst, it’s a conspiracy to use public institutions to pursue private, Jewish revenge, with quite a few non-Jews who genuflect to the powers that be while thinking they are rebels fighting against the system.

It certainly looks that way.

[1] Goluboff, Risa. Charlottesville as Legal History, 118-9.

[2] Jacob Dix hearing transcript January 8, 2024 pg 66.

[3] Heaphy p. 73 et seq.

[4] Jacob Dix transcript p. 76.

Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence

[D]emocracy has become a tool in the hand of that [Jewish] race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light—as it has always done and will always do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, circa 1924[1]

Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’
—Ezra Pound, circa 1940[2]

In his recent State of the Union speech, Joe Biden referred to “democracy” nearly a dozen times. Democracy, he said, was currently “under assault” and “under attack”; the January 6 riot put a “dagger to [its] throat” and was its “gravest threat.” As a result, democracy “must be defended”; and indeed, we must “embrace” it. Or so says our doddering president.

Our polyracial vice president speaks in a similar vein. Regarding Donald Trump, Kamala Harris informs us that “we must recognize the profound threat he poses…to our democracy.” This has been a recurrent message from her for years. When she was running for president herself back in 2019, she called Trump “a clear and present danger to democracy”—and the theme has never left her side.

Mainstream media is no better. The constant banter, on both the left and the right, is that democracy is all, democracy is under threat (by candidate X), and democracy must be protected and defended, no matter the cost. The Atlantic tells us that Trump poses “a systemic threat to democracy.” Trump, in turn, calls Biden “a destroyer of democracy.” On and on it goes. Democracy, it seems, is all-important, the very essence of America, and that one thing to which all else must yield. It is, said Biden, a “sacred cause”; democracy is our secular religion and our secular god, all rolled into one.

Notably, there are several assumptions here, and several points unstated, which cast a whole new light on our beloved and “sacred” democracy. Of specific importance are four assumptions, all of which are false. These are:

  • We actually have democracy,
  • Democracy is a good thing.
  • The only alternative to democracy is authoritarianism.
  • “Democracy” is a clear and obvious concept.

Again, all four of these are false, and therefore the current left-right worship of democracy collapses into a pile of nonsense. I discuss all these issues below, but in brief: (1) Our current systems of government in the US, Canada, and Europe resemble true democracy in name only. What we have is a fake democracy, or “democracy,” which is used to placate and stupefy the masses so that they don’t question the current power structures of the West or seek alternatives. It has long been recognized that the US, for example, is far closer to an oligarchy (“rule by the rich few”) than to a populist democracy in which the will of the masses prevails.[3] Crucially, though, the specific identities of those “rich few” are never examined. Apart from this, even in their very workings, the American (and Western) systems are a far cry from true democracy, as I will show.

(2) Democracy is good for those who profit directly from it: the elite, the rich, celebrities, pop stars. But for the vast majority of people in the so-called democratic nations, the cost to their well-being is extraordinarily high—and largely unacknowledged.

(3) There are in fact several alternatives to democracy, most of which are superior to it—at least, if we believe our wisest thinkers on this matter. Even on the face of it, democracy, as a “rule by the people,” is actually mass-rule, or mob-rule; and everyone knows that the intellectual and moral level of the mass is very low indeed. A basic analysis of any campaign speech confirms this point.[4]

(4) Throughout history, there have been many variants on the democratic model, so to speak of ‘democracy’ as a single, clear idea is ridiculous. Nearly everyone who uses the term today, and certainly those in power, have no real idea of what the theory is.

But the central point here is that, above all, democracy is a means by which a small, invasive minority—the Jews—have proven able to assume power, to acquire vast wealth, and to largely impose their will on a non-Jewish majority, all while keeping these facts largely hidden from view. “Democracy,” or rule by the people, is now a codeword for “Judeocracy,” or rule by the Jews. How this came about is an enlightening story.

Democracy or “Democracy”?

When our leading figures speak of democracy, it is not clear what they mean—nor do I think they even know themselves what they mean. It is pointless to talk about things if we don’t even understand the words we are using. So here is a brief review; apologies to those already knowledgeable on these matters.

Real, original democracy was invented circa 550 BC by the ancient Greek legislator Cleisthenes, when he decided that “the people” (deme or demos) should be the ultimate ruling power (kratos) in the city-state of Athens. Thus, the adult male citizens—not the women, not the foreign-born—regularly convened on a hilltop in Athens to debate the issues of the day, and to vote on various proposals, great and small; they did so openly and publicly. Notably, the people did not vote for individual leaders; nearly all leadership positions, including the leader of the Assembly (who was the de facto president of the polis), were selected by lot, at random, from among a group of citizen volunteers. Imagine that: your president chosen by lot! No campaigns, no ads, no bribery, no kickbacks, no meaningless promises—just pull a name out of a hat. And it worked.

The system had its pros and cons: on the one hand, governmental rule was simple, direct, and transparent; on the other, every uneducated, semi-ignorant man had an equal say to the wisest. It put the lesser men on a par with the greatest and best. And in doing so, “it grants a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”[5] But overall, it worked spectacularly well, and set the stage for the flourishing of Athenian culture over the next 300 years.

But as Athens grew in size and power, and as foreigners and slaves increased in number, the issues became more complex, the democratic process became more unwieldy, and the simple, direct democracy had a hard time adapting. Thus, leading thinkers like Plato and, later, Aristotle, began to examine alternatives. Better than democracy, said Plato, was oligarchy: rule by the (rich) few. They might be money-grubbers, but at least they had some management skills and a vested interest in the flourishing of the nation. Better still was timocracy, or rule by the honor-seekers. Rather than striving to build wealth, as the oligarchs would, timocrats would emphasize the honor and glory of the city-state; this was a very good option. But best of all, said Plato, was an aristocracy: rule by the best, meaning the wisest or the most just. An aristocracy could be a small group of wise men, or it could be a single wise individual; this was largely irrelevant. What was important was that you sought out, educated, and trained your wisest men, or man, and then you let them lead. And that, said Plato, is the best that humans can attain.[6]

Democracy was a poor alternative, he wrote, but there was one system even worse: tyranny. Democracy itself was already a sort of tyranny—of the pleasure-seekers, of the “majority”—but a formal tyrant, as a single man, could rule with impunity, enrich himself and his cronies, and bring ruin upon the polis. The tyrant was, in a sense, the mirror image of the wise, aristocratic philosopher-king of the best system. In both cases, a single man rules, but the tyrant is neither wise nor just, and has simply seized power by force; whereas the aristocratic ruler, by virtue of his wisdom and justice, rightly assumes power and exercises it with due care and discretion.

Of Plato’s five systems, all but a tyranny could plausibly be called ‘democratic’ in the sense that the people willingly accede to the system of rule. If the people agree to put a single, wise ruler in charge, and then to give him dictatorial powers, is that ‘democracy’? In a sense it is, but it would be unlike any current Western form. Arguably, this is the system of governance in Russia today, and to a lesser extent, China. Both rulers are “autocrats,” in the language of our oligarchs, but Russia does have national elections in which multiple people are on the ballot. And even if these are not “free and fair,” as we like to say, they do yield a single man to effectively run the country. China has no elections for its president, but rather the 3,000-member National People’s Congress selects him. Clearly there is no systematic process in either nation for seeking out the wisest ruler, but still, both sitting presidents have proven to be men of vision and substance—unlike, say, virtually every Western “democratic” leader of the past few decades. Modern democracy, it seems, is virtually designed to produce mediocre or incompetent leaders. And this is precisely what we get.

But to conclude the point: Modern “democracy” is scarcely anything like the Athenian original. “Democracy” is marked by a number of characteristics that would have been appalling to the Greeks: it has universal suffrage (women, minorities, and foreign-born can vote); it is a representative system, not direct (we vote for senators and representatives, who in turn vote on issues); we vote for individuals, including the president; and corrupting money gushes through the system like a torrent—primarily Jewish money, as it turns out.[7]

Do President Biden, VP Harris, and all those other politicians understand the difference here? Of course not. Have they studied political theory? Unlikely, to say the least. Have they read Plato or Aristotle? Never. When such people use the word ‘democracy,’ they literally do not know what they are talking about. Clearly, our modern-day “democracy” is something very different, something that has mutated from the noble Greek ideal, retaining only the name. Worse, it has become positively detrimental to national well-being.

Global State of Democracy

A number of groups track the state of democracy worldwide, the most prominent being the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and their annual “Democracy Index.” They rate 167 nations (all those over 500,000 people) on a scale from 0 to 10. Scores from 8 to 10 are considered “full democracies” and those from 6 to 8 are deemed “flawed democracies.” The two other categories are “hybrid (or mixed) regimes” (4 to 6) and “authoritarian regimes” (0 to 4). By this measure, 74 nations are some versions of democracy, representing 45% of the global population. And nearly the same proportion—about 40%—live under authoritarian systems, with the largest being China and Russia.

For 2023, the highest-rated nation was Norway (9.81) and the lowest was Afghanistan (0.26). The United States came in at 7.85 (“flawed”), down from 8.22 (“full”) in 2006.

We note a few relevant points here. Again, democracy is unquestioningly portrayed as good and positive. Its lone alternative, authoritarianism, is portrayed as negative and evil (and paired with the slanted word “regime”). Any movement toward authoritarianism is a “decline” or “downgrade” and any movement toward full democracy is an “improvement.” Sadly for the folks at the EIU, the global average fell in 2023 to a new all-time low of 5.23.

Significant too is the fact that the EIU is a thoroughly Jewish institution. It is run by the Economist Group, a British media company owned primarily by Exor and the Rothschild family. Exor is a Dutch holding company whose current CEO is the Jew John Elkann. We can thus understand the fixation and the moral valuation of democracy around the world; for Jews, it is an all-important issue.

The Jewish Angle

So, how do Jews fit in to this picture? Here we need a bit more history. Jews first came to prominence among Western power structures during the Roman Empire; they migrated to Rome, proselytized the local populace, and worked their way into positions of influence. As early as 59 BC, Cicero famously remarked on “how influential they are in informal assemblies.”[8] In 35 BC, Horace, in one of his Satires, attempts to persuade the reader of a certain point: “and if you do not wish to yield, then … just like the Jews, we will compel you to concede to our crowd.” Evidently, their power of “persuasion” was notable, even back then. Emperor Tiberius expelled them from Rome in 19 AD, and in the year 41, Claudius issued a letter to the Alexandrians, blaming the Jews “for fomenting a general plague which infests the whole world.” He would expel them from Rome, once again, in 49.

Clearly the Jews were a prominent and troublesome minority. But in an empire, often with a hereditary lineage, they had virtually no ability to assume direct power. They corrupted various officials with their gold, and networked together to undermine enemies, but their influence was always indirect and constrained.

As Rome fell and Christianity rose to power, Jews again were shut out of the halls of power. Yes, they were the “chosen” of God, and yes, their Old Testament was viewed as a legitimate part of God’s word; but Jews denied the so-called revelations of Christ, they denied his godhood, and they even were implicated, perhaps directly, in his crucifixion. Jews could acquire wealth through usury and finance, and could manipulate nobles through loans and financial favors, but their paths to political power were still largely blocked. European monarchies were hereditary, and the Church had its own rigid hierarchy that rigorously excluded non-Christians. A few ‘conversos’ or crypto-Jews—ethnic Jews who converted (honestly or otherwise) to Christianity—may have worked their way up to positions of power, but these were the exceptions.

Democracy slowly reestablished itself in Europe from around the year 1000 AD, in such places as Iceland, the Isle of Man, and Sicily, but it was always in conjunction with monarchical rule. For the next several centuries, nascent European parliaments struggled for power against both their monarchs and the Church. It was a three-way battle, with no clear winner.

Modern, democratic parliaments first appeared in the 1200s in England and Scotland, and these surely would have become corrupted by Jewish influence, had the British Jews not been expelled by Edward I in the year 1290. England then remained essentially Jew-free for nearly 400 years, until Cromwell rescinded the expulsion edict in 1656. It was during those proto-democratic, Jew-free centuries that England attained many of her greatest triumphs, both in terms of culture and world influence.

In the United States, the creation of the country in 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 established democracy there, but as with England during its Golden Age, there were few Jews—perhaps only 3,000 or so—and thus they could exert no real effect, other than as leading traders in slaves.[9] But their numbers grew steadily, and by 1855 there were around 50,000 Jews, representing about 0.2% of the total. This may seem small, and for any other minority it would be inconsequential, but once Jews exceed even 0.1% of a given population, corruption begins to set in. And indeed, by this time, America had its first Jewish representative (Lewis Levin) and its first Jewish senator (David Yulee); Jews were already making their presence felt in Washington.

Jews were certainly active during the US Civil War, typically as agitators and profiteers. General William Sherman complained that Tennessee “swarms with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols, percussion caps, etc. [to the enemy].” Ulysses S. Grant agreed, issuing two orders expelling “Jews, as a class” from Tennessee (which Lincoln countermanded). In the end, only a few hundred died in the war but many made fortunes.

By the end of the war, American Jews numbered around 100,000, representing about 0.3% of the total. But they were soon to embark on an exponential growth; by 1940, America had some 4.8 million Jews, or about 3.9% of the total population—a recipe for total disaster.

Jews and European Democracy

Back in Europe, Jews pressed for democratic “reforms” in all major nations, suspecting or knowing that they could use this system to finally circumvent the fundamental limitations to their power posed by monarchies and the Church. And a major turning point in the advent of democracy was the French Revolution. That event “came to constitute the myth of origin, the birthdate of a new existence” for European Jewry.[10] In the words of Vladimir Moss, “it was the French Revolution that gave the Jews the opportunity to burst through into the forefront of world politics for the first time since the fall of Jerusalem.”[11] “The Revolution was a climatic period for French Jews,” writes Levy-Bruhl; “it marked the beginning of their political emancipation.”

At the dawn of the Revolution in 1789, there were about 40,000 Jews in France, or about 0.1% of the total—just at that threshold at which serious trouble begins. After the storming of the Bastille and the formation of the newly-democratic National Assembly, there were vigorous debates about what do to with France’s Jews. Jew-defenders like Stanislas Clermont-Tonnerre and Henri Gregoire lobbied on their behalf, and thanks to pressure from wealthy French Jews like Herz Cerfbeer, the Assembly eventually agreed to give Jews full and equal civil rights on 27 September 1791. Louis XVI signed the decree into law the next day.

Armed, for the first time, with full civil rights, French Jews evidently decided that they could now act with impunity, and with a true revolutionary fervor. As Paul Johnson (1995) writes, “For the first time, a new archetype, which had always existed in embryonic form, began to emerge from the shadows: the revolutionary Jew. … In 1793–4, Jewish Jacobins set up a revolutionary regime in Saint Esprit, the Jewish suburb of Bayonne. Once again, as during the Reformation, traditionalists saw a sinister link between the Torah [i.e., the Old Testament] and subversion.”[12]

And indeed, it would not be long before the coming of the Reign of Terror—a year-long period of particularly bloody reprisals that ran from summer 1793 to summer 1794. Casualty figures vary, but between 15,000 and 45,000 people lost their lives that year, many in the guillotine. And the Jewish-influenced Jacobins led the charge.

Many Frenchmen of the day sincerely believed that, in granting the Jews full civil rights, that they would now cease to operate as a Jewish nation and live like true Frenchmen. This, sadly, was a naïvely mistaken view. Napoleon came to power in 1799 as the first great leader of the young Republic, and he quickly learned a hard lesson: “that kindness towards the Jews does not make them more tractable.”[13] Russian military historian Aleksandr Nechvolodov described the situation this way:

Since the first years of the Empire, Napoleon I had become very worried about the Jewish monopoly in France and the isolation in which they lived in the midst of the other citizens, although they had received citizenship. The reports of the departments showed the activity of the Jews in a very bad light: “Everywhere there are false declarations to the civil authorities; fathers declare the sons who are born to them to be daughters. … Again, there are Jews who have given an example of disobedience to the laws of conscription; out of 69 Jews who, in the course of six years, should have formed part of the Moselle contingent, none has entered the army.”[14]

By 1805, Napoleon was fed up with the Jews. He issued this blistering rebuke in the State Council address of April 30:

The French government cannot look on with indifference as a vile, degraded nation capable of every iniquity takes exclusive possession of two beautiful departments of Alsace; one must consider the Jews as a nation and not as a [religious] sect. It is a nation within a nation; I would deprive them, at least for a certain time, of the right to take out mortgages, for it is too humiliating for the French nation to find itself at the mercy of the vilest nation. Some entire villages have been expropriated by the Jews; they have replaced feudalism. … It would be dangerous to let the keys of France, Strasbourg, and Alsace fall into the hands of a population of spies who are not at all attached to the country.[15]

All this, then, as a classic lesson in Jewish manipulation of democratic rights and privileges. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and some historical perspective, French writer Edouard Drumont wrote in 1886 that “the only group the Revolution has protected is the Jews.”[16]

Into the Twentieth Century

And apart from revolution, what, exactly, did European Jews do with their new, hard-won democratic privileges? They acquired wealth and political influence. Drumont wrote, astonishingly, that “Jews possess half of the capital in the world.” Of the estimated 150 billion francs in total wealth in France at the time, he claimed that “Jews possess at least 80 billion”—or a bit over half. A remarkable assertion, but one that, even if exaggerated, certainly indicates that Jews had enough wealth to achieve powerful influence in democratic France.

Throughout democratic Europe, Jews used their wealth to leverage politicians, to buy clout, to acquire news media, and to take positions of power directly, through popular elections. By the time of the Napoleonic wars between England and France (circa 1810), the Rothschild banking firm was funding, and profiting from, both sides of the war. By 1850, England had some 40,000 Jews and was just crossing the critical 0.1% threshold; by 1868, they had their first Jewish prime minister in Benjamin Disraeli. By 1869, composer Richard Wagner could complain of a European press “entirely directed by Jews.”[17] By 1873, writer Frederick Millingen could write meaningfully and factually of “the conquest of the world by the Jews.”[18] This is what modern democracy has meant to the Jews: vast wealth and global domination—wonderful for them, disastrous for everyone else.

“Democratic America” was a real Jewish paradise by 1900. The Jewish population had crossed 1 million, on its way to 2 million by 1910 and 3.5 million by 1920. Teddy Roosevelt—who “stated twice that his ancestors were Jewish”[19]—became president in 1901, owing to the convenient assassination of William McKinley. Teddy named Oscar Straus to his cabinet in 1906, the first Jew to hold such a position. The next president, William Taft, tried to hold the line on Jewish power, but failed; by December 1911, American Jews had such a grip on Congress that they rammed through the abrogation of the long-standing US-Russia trade pact, overriding Taft’s veto threat. And in 1912, “their man” Woodrow Wilson would become president, furthering Jewish interests on several fronts. We should never forget Wilson’s fateful words, uttered upon throwing America into World War I in April 1917: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Indeed—for the “democracy” of Jewish power.

Only Germany was able to fend off the Judeo-democratic surge of the nineteenth century. The German Confederation of independent and monarchical states, from 1815 to 1871, largely managed to avoid the democratic movements that were running through Europe. Germany became a united state—actually, an empire—in 1871, governed by Kaiser Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Wilhelm II took power in 1888, holding it until Germany’s loss in World War I in 1918.

Germany’s 300,000 Jews had been agitating against the emperor for years, and were surely anxious to implement the “democratic” reforms that had led to fabulous Jewish success in other nations. During World War I, Jewish revolutionaries fought for the overthrow of the kaiser; notable activists were Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, and Karl Radek in the north, and Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, and Eugen Levine in the south. Upon Germany’s surrender and the abdication of the kaiser, other Jews, like Paul Levi, Otto Landesberg, and Walter Rathenau, took charge and created the new, “democratic” Weimar regime. Thus began 15 years of Jewish rule in Germany.

Unsurprisingly, such a turn of events struck a number of Germans badly, including one Adolf Hitler, who was a young man of 29, just out of the trenches, when the Jews took control. From his years in Vienna, he already knew firsthand of the pernicious effect of Jews on society, but now he was seeing it play out at the highest levels—in the ability to oust the kaiser, to impose defeat on the German nation, and to take power. Within three years, inflation began to destroy the German economy, and the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923 obliterated all personal savings and made daily life impossible. But at least Germany was a (Jewish) democracy.

In Mein Kampf, written in 1924 and 1925, Hitler offered a remarkably insightful critique of democracy.[20] From an initially innocent view of the goodness of democracy, he began to study the parliamentary system in Vienna and was appalled at what he saw. The idea of mass-elected officials, who are, at best, knowledgeable in one or two relevant areas, are called on to make decisions in all areas of governmental concern. Worse, thanks to “majority rule,” parliamentarians can hide behind majority decisions and thus avoid all sense of personal responsibility.

At one point in the text, Hitler even connects the evils of democracy with those of Marxism:

Western democracy, as practiced today, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would be inconceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an ‘abomination of filth and fire’—the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.[21]

Both (modern) democracy and Marxism reflect Jewish phenomena that are conducive to Jewish power:; both are materialistic and agnostic or aspiritual; both raise mediocre or malicious people to positions of power: both are ‘universal’ in the sense that they are not grounded in specific peoples or specific nations; and both are destructive of human well-being.

More to the point, via a representative parliamentarian form of democracy, outside forces, particularly wealthy individuals and organizations can intervene and strongly influence who is elected or how those elected act. Either way, democracy becomes “a tool in the hand” of the Jewish group interests Hitler said; and even better, Jewry can do so from the background, hidden away, out of sight, “shunning the open light.” Combined with a control of the major media—as is the case today in the US and most of Europe—Jews can remain almost entirely invisible to the broader public and thus act with relative impunity. And this is so, even if a few well-informed individuals on the “far right” know otherwise.

Thus we can see that modern democracy perfectly serves Jewish interests. The “freedom” and rights granted to Jews allow them to accrue vast wealth. With this wealth in hand, they can then (a) buy controlling interests in mass media, and (b) buy politicians, who in turn do their bidding. Via the mass media, they then hide their own roles and hide their effect on politicians, keeping the public confused and in the dark about the manipulations of their political system. Pro-Jewish candidates are the only ones taken seriously (by the Jewish media and pro-Jewish politicians) and thus are the only ones in a position to win elections. The masses then vote under conditions of either ignorance, fear, resignation, or despair. The system of Jewish democracy, or Judeocracy, thus reinforces and solidifies itself, locking in its gains and blocking any individuals or groups who might pose a threat to this system.

This was certainly the case in Europe by the start of World War II. The major “democratic” nations of England and France (pre-1940) were largely under Jewish control. By contrast, there were several non-democratic and quasi-fascist European leaders that managed to keep their Jewish populations in check; these included Dollfuss in Austria, Pétain in France (post-1940), Metaxas in Greece, Quisling in Norway, Salazar in Portugal, Antonescu in Romania, Tisoof in Slovakia, and Franco in Spain. So there was in fact a close correlation between a nation being “democratic” and its being under Jewish control. American poet Ezra Pound was not far from the mark when he wrote “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’”

After their victory in World War II, democratic Jews rode the wave of success, consolidating their control and accruing even more wealth. Via the economic structures established in 1944 at Bretton Woods, American Jews like Harry Dexter White, Jacob Viner, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. managed to push through a system of global economic control based on the U.S. dollar and supported by such novel institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And later Jewish innovations—such as “quantitative easing” that allows virtually unlimited printing of money—would bring essentially limitless cash into Jewish hands. “Democratic America” would now be the means to exercise Jewish control over vast regions of the world.

A Way Forward

If my preceding analysis is even close to correct, then there are some obvious measures that could remedy the situation. First, we need to get over our fixation on democracy. The once-noble concept has been hopelessly corrupted by Jewish influence and now serves their interests above all, at the expense of working people and the middle class. Democracy today is indeed “rule by the Jews,” and the more democracy we have, the more entrenched becomes Jewish power.

Second, we therefore need to seriously consider non-democratic options, including the dreaded “authoritarianism.” At the present time, nothing is more dangerous to America, to the West, and to the world than Judeo-democracy; therefore, no task is more urgent than undermining it and replacing it with something else. Judeo-democracy has become a Jewish tyranny, and nothing—nothing—is worse than this. Any alternative would be an improvement, and some options—like strong forms of ethnic nationalism combined with a soft socialism—would be vast improvements. When you are at the bottom of the barrel, every road is up.

Third, we can consider retaining some aspects of our current political system, but only with drastic modifications. It is absurd, for example, to have elections in which literally every adult can vote; this brings us back to the state of mob-rule. There have to be restrictions: competency tests, educational standards, land- or property-owning qualifications, etc. A case could be made for even stricter rules, like ethnic-based requirements (White European ancestry), or even back to the standards of the Founding Fathers and the ancient Greeks—let the men decide! And, votes should once again be a matter of public record; if nothing else, this would put an end to all attempts at vote-rigging and the “stealing” of elections.

Fourth, accept that strong measures will be needed to break the back of Jewish power in the West. This has been true for millennia. And yet, time and again, strong leaders and strong movements have found ways to make it happen. Any nation wishing to be free from corrupting Jewish influence will likely require many fewer Jews than they have today. Recall my 0.1% threshold: this sets the target that nationalist groups should openly strive for.

And fifth, as always, get educated, speak up, organize. Become a knowledgeable critic of the Judeocracy. Raise your voice in support of those rare groups and individuals willing to oppose it.

No matter what you currently know about Jewish power, no matter how bad you think the situation is, it is worse than you know. The world stands on the brink of several multinational wars, thanks to Jewish-inspired aggression. Jewish corruption contaminates virtually every aspect of modern life: economy, government, academia, culture, environment, education. Everything is debased; nothing remains untouched.

Consider what Henry Ford had to say about this situation—in 1921: “If you could put a tag marked ‘Jewish’ on every part of your life that is Jew-controlled, you would be astonished at the showing.”[22] In 1921. How much worse today, 100 years later?


Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] Volume One, section 3.15. Quoted from Mein Kampf (2022; T. Dalton, ed.), Clemens & Blair.

[2] Cited in Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano, by John Tytell (1987), p. 257.

[3] For one widely-cited paper from 2014, see “Testing theories of American politics” by two Jewish academics, M. Gilens and B. Page (Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 564-581).

[4] One study from 2016 showed that the average US presidential candidate utilizes the grammar of a typical 11- or 12-year-old. The average vocabulary level is a couple of years above that.

[5] Plato, Republic, Book 8, 558c.

[6] See Republic, Books 8 and 9.

[7] Jews provide at least 25% of funding for Republicans and 50% or more for Democrats. See Gil Troy, “The Jewish Vote: Political Power and Identity in US Elections” (2017).


[8] This and following quotations are cited in my book Eternal Strangers (2020); Clemen & Blair.

[9] See The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 1 (2017; Nation of Islam).

[10] Jay Berkovitz, “The French Revolution and the Jews,” AJS Review 20(1), 1995.

[11]The Jews, the Masons, and the French Revolution,” online at www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com, 2010.

[12] A History of the Jews (1995), pp. 306–307. The Torah indeed teaches a ruthless Jewish supremacy, primarily through their status as “God’s chosen” but also in light of the moral dictates to detest all non-Jews and to strive for world domination.

[13] Moss (op. cit.).

[14] Emperor Nicholas II and the Jews (1924), cited in Moss (ibid.)

[15] Cited in Moss (op. cit.).

[16] La France juive [“Jewish France”], p. 1.

[17] From “Jewry in Music,” cited in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (2022; T. Dalton, ed), p. 32.

[18] Cited in Classic Essays, p. 45.

[19] According to former Michigan governor Chase Osborn; cited in The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019; T. Dalton), p. 32.

[20] See Volume One, sections 3.8 to 3.15 (pp. 107-122).

[21] Volume One, sec. 3.8 (p. 110). The “filth and fire” reference is a nod to Goethe’s Faust (part 1, line 5356).

[22] The International Jew, vol. 2, p. 206 (2024; T. Dalton, ed., Clemens & Blair).