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.

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.