Featured Articles

William Pierce (and Me) on Racism

In 2001, I published a book on the White advocate William Pierce (1933–2002) called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.  Given the obsessive concern currently for what is deemed the unimpeachable evil of White racism and the modern-day inquisition against White racists tainted with this sin, I think it would be useful to re-visit what Pierce had to say about this topic in the Fame book two decades ago and see what it brings up for you.

*    *     *

Pierce believes that over the past forty or fifty years [this is 2001, remember] white people have been conditioned to feel guilty about their natural inclinations around race.  The media in particular, but also the schools, politicians, and mainstream churches, have waged an all-out campaign to get them to deny their natural—and healthy—impulses.

What are these natural racial impulses or inclinations?   In order to get at that, Pierce offers that we must examine the way whites thought and behaved before the conditioning program began.

In times past, most whites accepted the fact that people of a particular race preferred to live and work and play with others like themselves.  White people were curious about other races. They would study the lore of the Indians, for example.  Indeed, whites found much to admire in other races and cultures—Chinese art for example. Still, they retained a sense of separateness and exclusiveness and pride in their own European heritage, in their own racial characteristics. They didn’t feel it necessary to apologize for teaching the history of their own race to their children, that is to say, European history.  They didn’t feel the need to balance things out by giving equal treatment to other races and cultures. They left Japanese and Tibetan history to the scholars in those fields.  They certainly didn’t feel a conciliatory obligation to invent a false black history to elevate the self-esteem of blacks or to persuade young whites that blacks were their cultural equals.

Did whites feel their race was superior to other races? In general, yes, they did, says Pierce, which is not to say that they were blind to the fact that other races and cultures could do some things very well, and in some cases were better than whites were at things. But whites valued what they were good at, and so by the standards they set up, they looked very good to themselves. They were confident in their abilities and accomplishments as thinkers and problem solvers and civilization builders. They liked their literature and art best. They valued their way of life—their concept of virtue and morality and their approach to family and work and so on.

Basically, they believed they had a superior culture and superior race. In that sense, they were what today would be called white supremacists. But they were not alone in feeling that way; it is natural for a people to think their ways are the best, that they are the best.  The Chinese have historically believed that they are superior to the “foreign devils.”   That the Chinese thought that way didn’t bother whites. It didn’t threaten whites’ sense of their worth, their sense of their place in the world.

Pierce argues that an outgrowth of people’s natural feelings of racial identification and favoritism is to segregate themselves from other people, to live among their own in the ways they prefer.  That is their normal impulse.  That way of living has been typical throughout the history of humankind.  It may seem a good idea for people to live mixed up with other peoples, but it doesn’t work as well as we have been told that it does, and it isn’t inherently a superior or a more elevated way to live.  Living amid so-called diversity is not the only legitimate, morally acceptable, way to live, and hardly an urgent moral imperative.   It is only in recent years that whites have been pressured to think in those terms.

World War II brought big changes in this pattern of thought and conduct, says Pierce. Those who wanted Germany destroyed painted it as a war for democracy and equality.  As the narrative went, the Germans believed in a master race while we believed in the equality of the races.  This rationale brought increased stress on an equality theme in American life in contrast to an emphasis on the qualitative differences among individuals and groups.  The idea of the equality of whites and blacks went along with that theme. From the assumption that blacks were equal to whites, it followed that if blacks were observed to accomplish less or conduct themselves less admirably, something external to them must be causing it. And that cause was identified—white oppression. Whites must have made blacks the way they were.

While white villainy seemed to make sense given the false notion of racial equality, it simply didn’t square with the facts. The vast majority of whites didn’t concern themselves with blacks and wasted no time trying to suppress them. The vast majority of whites didn’t care what blacks did. They simply wanted to go their way and let blacks go theirs. But the facts of the matter aren’t what is important. What is important is to understand that World War II served to heighten the belief that if blacks had any problems at all, they could be laid at the feet of whites.

Pierce sees the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and ‘60s as another important element in the development of the “whites-as-bad-guys” perception that has taken hold.  During those years, the media showed us images of inoffensive blacks marching and protesting amid what looked to be white hooligans who were screaming at them, assaulting them, and in some instances killing them.  After scores of television clips, news stories, and commentaries that painted this picture, resistance to what the civil rights activists wanted became equated in most people’s minds with KKK types and beefy Southern sheriffs and their German shepherds and water hoses.  It is understandable that most white people came to sympathize strongly with the dignified demonstrators and their cause and to be repulsed by their boorish and brutal white attackers and what we were told they represented.

Indeed, there were white working-class people who saw their way of life threatened and acted in an undignified and intemperate and violent way.  The media were quick to record it and place it in a context—within a story line—that appealed to what Pierce calls the innate white sense of propriety and fairness. The media transmitted these carefully selected scenes of white resistance to racial integration along with particular interpretations of what was happening over and over and over again. The white people who saw on their television screens and read about what their own people were doing were embarrassed by it and felt guilty over it. The media made the whole idea of resistance to racial integration shame- and guilt-inducing to most white people.

The media paired up names, labels, for what whites were seeing and hearing and reading and feeling during the civil rights revolution: racism, and racist. The media associated racism with white resistance to the civil rights organizations.  Again and again and again, they paired up white resistance to a single idea/explanation—racism.  Again and again and again, the media paired the image of the roughneck white opponent of civil rights being portrayed on the screen or in print with the label/identity of racist.  

After a time, the words themselves—“racism,” “racist”—came to evoke pangs of revulsion and guilt on their own, just as the sound of a dinner bell resulted in Pavlov’s dogs salivating.  The media had created a conditioned response to the word racism.  Now, all anybody has to do to get whites to turn pale, become apologetic, and give in is call them racist.  People don’t have to argue the facts with whites; all they have to do is push the right emotional button.  If they ring the “racist bell,” whites—even the most rugged and proudest of whites—will bow their heads and put their tails between their legs and let people have their way with them.

The media could have worked the conditioning the opposite way if they had wanted to by associating different things with white resistance to the civil rights movement.  They could have presented interviews with middle-class whites—professional people, academics, artists and writers, philosophers—who believed in racial and cultural integrity and pointed out the negative impact on countries like Puerto Rico, Brazil, and Portugal when the races were mixed together. The media could have shown what happened to white schools and neighborhoods after an infusion of blacks—the decay and disorder and crime. They could have interviewed white women raped by blacks. They could have presented case studies of white girls who mated with black boys they met in school and shown us their mixed-race children and let us see how we really felt about that. But they didn’t do that. That wasn’t consistent with the program.

During this time and since, Pierce points out, the schools joined the campaign of re-shaping white attitudes.  The curriculum kept students from understanding the rationale for segregation.   Segregation was linked to mindless hatred and oppression.  History was de-Europeanized and infused with the real and imaginary accomplishments of non-whites.  The churches also got into the act of decrying racism and promoting a multiracial society.  White politicians pandered to minority interests and lectured their own people about how they must share their lives with minorities and to give them anything they wanted. The schools, churches, and politicians promoted the idea that anyone opposed to an integrated society was evil and irrational, that is to say, a racist.  The only thing that operated against this wave of cultural re-shaping of whites, says Pierce, is the actual physical presence of blacks so that people could experience for themselves the glaring contradictions between the theory of racial equality and the reality of racial differences.

Pierce notes that race has become such a hot-button issue that it is very difficult to discuss it rationally at the present time. He says talking about race today must be how it was for Presbyterians to talk about sex a century ago.  He says he gets letters and messages from white people who say he ought to be killed for advocating separation of the races and opposing miscegenation.

As difficult as it is to do, however, whites must think and talk about race rationally and honestly.  They must not be embarrassed about it and feel guilty about it.  They must be willing to entertain the idea that wanting to live and work among their own people is a natural, healthy feeling they were born with.  Nature gave whites that impulse so that they could evolve as a race.  Living among their own allows them to develop special characteristics and abilities that set them apart from every other race. Living with their own is essential to their survival as a race. What is irrational and destructive is the very thing that is being pushed upon them—a multiracial, culturally conglomerate society and way of life.

It is going to take determination for whites to open up their eyes and their minds to reality, and more courage than they have shown in the past to begin to report to the world what they truly believe. But that is what whites must do.  Whites are being controlled by their fear of being smeared as racists if they disagree with the orthodoxy about race in this country.

In a Free Speech [a periodical Pierce published] article entitled “The Importance of Courage,” Pierce relates how he has dealt with his own fears around being called a racist.

I’m sorry to say that I’ve seen that same sort of timidity in myself.  When interviewers have asked me whether or not I am a racist, I have responded by asking, “Well, what do you mean by the word ‘racist’?” I’ve tried to wriggle out of giving a direct answer to the question.  I have resolved not to try to wriggle away from saying exactly what I believe when someone asks me whether or not I am a racist because it’s pretty clear what the interviewers have in mind when they ask me whether or not I am a racist.  These days anyone is a racist who refuses to deny the abundantly clear evidence that there are inherited differences in behavior, intelligence, and attitudes.  A racist is any white person who prefers to live among other whites instead of among non-whites and prefers to send his children to white schools.  A racist is any white person who feels a sense of identity with, a sense of belonging to, his own tribe, his own people, his own race, and who shows an interest in his race’s history, heroes, culture, and folkways.  A racist is a white person who finds the members of his own race more attractive physically than members of other races and who is instinctively repulsed by the idea of racial intermarriage or by the sight of a white person intimately involved with a non-white.  A racist is a white person who is disgusted with the multiracial cesspool that America is becoming. . . . Yes, I’m a racist.

*    *    *

William Pierce, 2001.  A brief footnote from me, 2021:

Individuals and groups use exaggerated, distorted, and false negative depictions and stories—White racism is a great example–to get attention, power, self-validation, and advantage, and hurt and destroy people.

My response these days to “You’re a racist” and “Are you a racist?” is “That’s your business, not mine.  But I’ll say this.   I’m not taking any more of your shit.”

Frank Furedi Fights for Freedom: A Jewish Sociologist Celebrates Hungary’s Resistance to Jewish Pathologies

The burnt child fears the fire. And so does the burnt Trotskyist. When Britain’s Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) stood for election in 1983, its confident expectations of victory went up in flames. The RCP got almost no votes and has never tried standing for election under its true colours again.

Open borders now!

Before the election, the RCP had published a manifesto and run conferences under the title of Preparing for Power. That title wasn’t a joke: the party seriously thought that working-class Whites would come flocking to its banner once they had absorbed exciting RCP policies like these:

  • The rejection of all controls on immigration.
  • Free abortion and contraception on demand.
  • Complete decriminalisation of homosexuality and lowering of the homosexual age of consent to match that for heterosexuals.
  • Removal of import controls to allow foreign workers to compete freely with British workers.
  • A ban on police entering black-enriched — and crime-infested — districts like Brixton in London.

RCP chairman Frank Furedi prepares for power with Lenin’s guidance

Could any sane person have thought that any of that would appeal to working-class voters? I don’t think so, therefore I conclude that members of the RCP can’t have been sane. And they weren’t: they were drunk on arrogance, megalomania and their own inflated revolutionary rhetoric. In fact, the party was yet another example of how leftism is often better described as a psychiatric disorder than as an ideology. Leftists don’t want to understand reality and to adapt their political ideas accordingly. Instead, they want power and satisfaction of their psychological needs.

Cognitive clones

But when you’re talking about the RCP and its various subsequent mutations, only one individual truly matters: the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, who was born in Hungary in 1947 but left after the failed Hungarian Uprising against communism in 1956. Furedi founded first the Revolutionary Communist Tendency (RCT) and then the RCP after falling out with his Jewish mentor Yigael Gluckstein, who ran the Trotskyist International Socialists under the revolutionary name of Tony Cliff (a good example of Jewish crypsis). Furedi too once had a revolutionary name: as Frank Richards he followed the standard communist practice of taking recruits disproportionately from minorities with historic grudges against, and desire for revenge on, the majority. He then moulded his recruits very successfully into what might be called cognitive clones. That is, members of the RCP spoke and thought exactly like Frank Furedi, who is therefore a perfect example of the long-standing pattern identified by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish intellectual life: that of the charismatic crypto-rabbi-guru who recruits, indoctrinates and closely controls a group of devoted disciples.

Fight back with the Party of the Future: An RCP member in the 1980s

As controller of the RCP, Furedi imbued his cognitive clones with a deep love of freedom and individual autonomy. However, he recognized that freedoms sometimes compete and that tough choices have to be made. For example, in Northern Ireland ordinary members of the public wanted the freedom not to be murdered or maimed as they went shopping or visited the pub. Republican terrorists, on the other hand, wanted the freedom to murder and maim whomever they pleased whenever they pleased with whatever amount of high explosive they pleased. Faced with these competing demands for freedom, Furedi made the tough choice to support the murderers and maimers. This is an extract from a letter he wrote to the Times of London:

The Irish Republican Army is the military wing of a national liberation movement. Its objective is to create a united Ireland free from British rule. This is an aim for which it has won widespread popular approval in Ireland.

The Revolutionary Communist Party’s support for the republican movement has nothing to do with its politics. We support the republican movement because it is leading the fight against British rule in Ireland. Because British rule is the central barrier to social progress in Ireland, there can be no unity, no peace and no prosperity in any part of the country until British domination is brought to an end.

We would support the republican movement if it was led by a collection of Catholic priests and nuns, so long as it was leading resistance against British domination.

The RCP will continue to give unconditional support to the republican movement irrespective of its programme, its strategy or its tactics. As long as it remains the leading force in the struggle against British imperialism and the biggest threat to the stability of the United Kingdom, that’s good enough for us.

FRANK RICHARDS, Chairman, Revolutionary Communist Party, BM RCP, London WC1N 3XX. (See image at Twitter)

But perhaps the choice to support the murderers and maimers of the IRA wasn’t so difficult after all, because the tone of that letter seems almost to relish their brutality. The content of the letter is highly selective: Chairman Furedi did not mention that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland did not share the “widespread popular approval” for the IRA and did not wish to form part of a united Ireland. Irish history is both complex and tragic, but unconditional support for terrorism was never a good way either to resolve the complexities or to end the tragedies.

The second Hungarian uprising

However, Trotskyists like Furedi believe in supporting all movements, however violent or immoral, that undermine the state and give Trotskyists a better chance of coming to power amid the chaos. That’s why Furedi and his clones supported IRA bombing and have never retracted their support. And the RCP tradition of cognitive cloning and chaos-surfing is still alive and well at Spiked Online, the web-magazine where Furedi’s disciples now gather to promote his ideas. Many people write for Spiked, but they all sound uncannily the same as they beat the drum for the greatest possible freedom of the greatest possible number. Spiked is passionately in favour of free speech and open borders, and just as passionately opposed to identity politics and the sad identitarian corruption of what the chief Furedi-clone Brendan O’Neill has called “the noble cause of antiracism.”

Here, for example, is Frank Furedi himself waxing lyrical at Spiked about “The Hungarian uprising against the woke West”:

I have been going to football [i.e., soccer] games all my life. But this was the most intense and uplifting experience I have ever had at a game.

The game is in Budapest. It is Hungary vs France. But it is more than just another Euro 2020 match. As I arrive at the fans’ zone, I see a bunch of guys holding a banner challenging the gesture of taking the knee. The banner has an image of someone taking the knee with a cross through it — a clear statement of rejection of this practice of abasement.

I talk to Gergely and Sanyi, two of the guys milling around the banner. They tell me why they think it’s right to take a stand against the Anglo-American gesture of taking the knee. Sanyi tells me, “We are not like them, we are a proud people who refuse to bend ourselves to anyone.” Standing near us is Orsolya, who says the ritual of taking the knee has nothing to do with being against racism. “It is a new form of piety. It makes us sick.”

Almost everyone I talk to tells me that we Hungarians have decided to take a stand against all this crap. They are still angry that when they booed the Irish for taking the knee in a recent game, the Western press denounced them as racist. They feel that they are continually lectured by the Western media as if they are colonial subjects. And they are not having it anymore.

Talking to these supporters was like being enveloped in commonsense sanity. Their buzz was infectious. I got a really strong feeling that freedom was in the air. (The Hungarian uprising against the woke West, Spiked Online, 20th June 2021)

The hideously White Hungarian soccer-squad for 2021

The heavily Black French soccer-squad for 2021

Furedi waxes lyrical in that article, but doesn’t wax analytical. Why exactly is Hungary resisting “the Anglo-American gesture of taking the knee”? Well, if you’d been at the game yourself, absorbing the infectious buzz with Frank, you would have seen one very big clue. The Hungarian fans and their team are what the BBC commissar Greg Dyke would call “hideously white” (Dyke, who is possibly Jewish, used that phrase of the BBC in 2001 when supporting the recruitment of ever more non-Whites). Unlike the inhabitants of modern France, Britain or America, Hungarians can call themselves a “proud people” because they are a true people, united by shared ancestry, history and language.

No suicide-bombers for Budapest

In other words, Hungary is a true nation — the word “nation” comes from Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” True nations are founded on shared ancestry and genetics, which makes Jewish propaganda like “nation of immigrants” a complete contradiction in terms. Hungary has not experienced decades of enrichment by non-Whites from the Third World. And so Hungarian cities like Budapest are not vibrant with rape-gangs and suicide-bombers. Those are jobs that native Hungarians won’t do and that Hungarian politicians like Viktor Orbán won’t import foreigners to do.

Instead, Orbán believes in “procreation, not immigration.” The “hideous whiteness” of Hungary explains why subversive, anti-White organizations like Black Lives Matter (BLM) aren’t able to take root and metastasize there. There aren’t enough Blacks and other non-Whites in Hungary to provide fertile soil for pernicious Jewish ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT). And so Hungarians are able, in Frank Furedi’s words, to “take a stand against all this crap” of BLM and knee-taking. They’re a proud White people in a way that the Americans and the British no longer are, due to decades of mass immigration into America and Britain.

Third-World people mean Third-World pathologies

But who has fully supported the mass immigration that destroyed “freedom” and promoted knee-taking in the “Anglo-American” world? Indeed, who still thinks that immigration should be increased without limit? Why, it’s the same Frank Furedi who felt the “infectious buzz” of a White Hungarian crowd supporting its almost entirely White soccer-team against the heavily Black French soccer-team. Remember that the RCP, which was always completely under Furedi’s control, stood for election in 1983 with the policy of rejecting “all controls on immigration.” If Furedi and his cognitive clones had had their way, Britain would have even more non-Whites than it presently does. And so the hostile elite would have been even better able to destroy the traditional freedoms enjoyed in Britain, from free speech to free association.

More Muslims = less free speech: Muslims in Britain gleefully burn a copy of The Satanic Verses

Writers at Spiked regularly bewail the consequences of the mass immigration they’ve always so heartily supported. For example, Furedi-clone Brendan O’Neill is aghast at the way a school-teacher in Yorkshire has been driven into hiding after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad during a religious-studies lesson. O’Neill says it’s shocking that “in this supposedly modern, secular nation, a public servant must live in the shadows lest he be physically attacked for the offence of blasphemy against a 7th-century prophet.” But what does O’Neill expect to happen when Britain imports huge numbers of people from decidedly un-modern and un-secular nations like Pakistan, where that “7th-century prophet” has been venerated for many centuries?

“Seize power at the critical moment”

Pakistan has a long tradition of murder in defence of the Prophet against blasphemy, as I’ve pointed out in articles like “Headchopping for Muhammad” and “Martyr with a Machine-Gun.” Decade after decade, Frank Furedi and his clones have supported mass immigration from the most tribalistic and illiberal nations on earth, and are now bewailing the “identity politics” that inevitably followed. Britain should be resisting the scourge of wokeness as Hungary does, Frank Furedi says. But he doesn’t explain why Hungary can do what Britain now can’t. And I don’t think Furedi and his clones have ever been sincere about fighting for freedom. Their real motives were described by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski in his magisterial Main Currents of Marxism (1978):

Lenin laid the foundation for the tactics which were soon to become binding on Communist parties: the right course was to support any movement tending to overthrow the system at any point, for any reasons and in the interests of any class: liberation in colonial countries, national or peasant movements, bourgeois national uprisings against the big imperialists. This was a generalization of the tactics he had been preaching in Russia for years: to support all claims and all movements against the Tsarist autocracy, so as to exploit their sources of energy and seize power at the critical moment. The victory of the Marxist party was the final aim … (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. II, pp. 471-2)

You can see those tactics, and that aim, in an article by the Furedi-clone Ella Whelan that celebrates Trotsky as “The 21st-century Bolshevik” whose revolutionary spirit can, Whelan says, clearly be seen at work in the Brexit vote for Britain to leave the European Union. When the RCP was “Preparing for Power” in 1983, it was perfectly serious. And so is Whelan when she claims that “Trotsky and his Bolshevik comrades were not seeking to stand in the place of the masses, but instead inspired them to seize the reins of power for themselves.”

You might think that Lenin, Trotsky and other Bolsheviks had the reins of power firmly in their own grasp when the masses were being shot, starved, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed after the triumph of the Revolution. But perhaps the masses were masochists and visited those afflictions on themselves. Either way, what’s a little murder, torture and famine en route to the glorious Marxist-Leninist future? Yes, Whelan is also being serious when she applauds Trotsky’s firm distinction between “violence for oppressive means and violence in the pursuit of liberation.”

Mass-murdering slave-states

I don’t know about you, but reading “The 21st-century Bolshevik” made me even happier that the RCP didn’t come to power in 1983. I don’t think unrepentant disciples of Trotsky like Frank Furedi, Brendan O’Neill and Ella Whelan should be trusted with the running of an ice-cream stall, let alone with rule over millions of people. Trotsky was a major force in turning the imperfect but reforming Tsarist empire into a mass-murdering slave-state. The Soviet Union then inspired and assisted the formation of another mass-murdering slave-state in China, before imposing its tyranny on Eastern Europe after the Second World War. But Vox Day has pointed out a huge paradox in communism: it was less bad for nations like Hungary and Poland than so-called “liberal democracy” has been for America and Britain.

Why so? Because, unlike “liberal democracy,” communism did not open the borders to mass immigration by non-Whites. And that’s why the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi is able to visit overwhelmingly White Hungary today and celebrate its resistance to pernicious Jewish ideologies like Critical Race Theory. Thanks to its recent communist history, Hungary doesn’t have millions of non-Whites living within its borders. And so Hungary doesn’t have the myriad political, cultural and social pathologies that inevitably accompany non-Whites. Of course, Furedi didn’t state those obvious facts and didn’t explain why Hungary is resisting “wokeness” and identity politics so successfully. He didn’t describe the “hideous whiteness” of the Hungarian supporters and their team.

“As much immigration as possible”

This is because Furedi can’t be honest about reality and isn’t sincere about fighting for freedom. But if he were honest and sincere, he would tell his cognitive clone Brendan O’Neill to re-publish an article by a former Trotskyist who has, unlike the RCP collective, repented of his allegiance to the mass-murderer Leon Trotsky. The part-Jewish Peter Hitchens issued this mea culpa in the Daily Mail back in 2013:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants — from anywhere — as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people — usually in the poorest parts of Britain — who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. …

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and — later on — cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too). (How I am partly to blame for mass immigration, The Daily Mail, 1st April 2013)

“Bigots,” “racists,” “fascists,” “nazis” — that’s what arrogant, self-righteous and spiteful leftists are still calling anyone who objects to mass immigration and the pathologies it inevitably spawns. Frank Furedi and his clones have spent decades claiming to be supporters of the working-class and its interests. But anyone who supports open borders is an enemy of the working-class. Frank Furedi says that “freedom was in the air” when Hungary played France in Budapest. But why was that? It’s very simple: because insane or malevolent people haven’t been able to open Hungary’s borders to non-Whites.

Without Third-World people, Hungary isn’t suffering from Third-World pathologies. It isn’t being convulsed by “identity politics” because its identity hasn’t been diluted and subverted by millions of non-Hungarians. Hungary is a true nation whose proud people are in control of their own destiny. In other words: “If you stay white, your future’s bright. With vibrancy, you’ll bend the knee.” Perhaps the freedom-fanatics at Spiked should adopt that as their new slogan.

Hemingway’s Truth (and Ours): A Consideration of “Across the River and into the Trees” and What It Implies 

Hemingway circa 1950,  when he wrote Across the River and Into the Trees.

My take on Ernest Hemingway is that, first and foremost, he wrote from a journalistic perspective.   That is to say, he sought to tell the truth about what is going on in particular situations and with particular people, whether real or fictional.  Right out of high school, he got a job as a cub reporter for the Kansas City Star newspaper.  They gave him a manual of style to follow—use short sentences, eliminate every superfluous word, avoid adjectives—and he took it to heart and stuck to it for the whole of his writing life.

Hemingway was at heart a reporter.  He wasn’t trying to be arty, dazzle you with his prose, entertain you, put things into a context, philosophize, advocate, or moralize.  He was attempting to depict the truth about singular, here-and-now, experienced reality—things and people, actual and imagined.

Bullfights and A Farewell to Arms, it was the same challenge to Hemingway.   There he’d be, early in the morning, standing at his desk (standing was better for his bad back), doing his level best to write the truest, most accurate, sentence he possibly could, the one that best captured the reality of a moment.  When he was satisfied with that sentence, he went on to the next one, and the next one and the next one and the next one.  He worked incredibly hard at it, and he was exceedingly good at it.

For me as a reader, Hemingway has been a mixed experience.  I read him and respond, “Yes, that’s the way it is, that rings true to me, and it’s fundamental, basic, it really matters for something.  He’s showing me what it is like, what he or she is like, at this instant.  And that’s good, and that’s why I keep coming back to his writings.”

But truth isn’t equated with depth.  Despite the “iceberg” talk—all the submerged meanings that are supposed to be there beneath Hemingway’s simple, declarative sentences, for me he stays on the surface of things; no iceberg, or not much of one.   Something can be true without being complete or profound.  She shot him (“The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”).  Or did she?   Has Hemingway taken me deep enough to discern why she did whatever she did?   Maybe not.

But then again, maybe it doesn’t matter.  Maybe it’s my problem to think I have to probe beneath the surface of things and articulately figure it all out.  Oscar Wilde said that the secret of living a rewarding life is to stay on the surface of reality.  For Hemingway, that could mean writing today’s sentences describing the struggle of an old fisherman to reel in a marlin and then going out on his boat and doing some marlin fishing himself.  For me, it could mean writing this up about Hemingway and then watching an old French New Wave film.  Do it because for whatever reason it’s there and you feel pressed from within to do it.  Quit trying to understand it, because if you do that you’ll come up with reasons to do it half-assed or later.

It would be nice to have a richer aesthetic experience reading Hemingway’s fiction, and to be caught up in a story with twists and turns that keep me postponing bedtime, but that doesn’t happen for me with him.

Bottom line, while I like Hemingway’s oeuvre, I’m not bowled over by it as I know many people are.  At this writing, Ken Burns’ Hemingway-exalting three-part series was recently on PBS, and I just read a memoir—Dad’s Maybe Book—by the highly regarded contemporary American writer Tim O’Brien, who idolizes him.   I respect Hemingway very much, but connect with his Noble Prize greatness?   I’m not there.

*   *   *

This week, I read Hemingway’s 1950 novel Across the River and into the Trees with my usual reaction: good but I wanted more.  Although, I must say that re-reading the book and thinking about it for this writing, I’ve found significantly more in it to like and admire.  That has helped me realize that a lot of my reservations about Hemingway come from my inability to engage him at the level he deserves.

The book takes place in Italy after the end of WW II.  Richard Cantwell, the central protagonist, is a fifty-year-old U.S. army colonel.  The book is about Cantwell (can’t well?) going duck hunting, getting a physical exam from his doctor, and engaging in mawkish lovey-dovey talk with Renata, his 18-year-old Italian girlfriend and regaling her with his exploits and opinions with reference to World Wars I and II.  The book is largely conversations between the two of them with Cantwell doing most of the talking.   Typical of Renata’s side of it:

“I love you,” the girl said.  “I love your hard, flat body and your strange eyes that frighten me when they become wicked.  I love your hand and all your other wounded places. Tell me about Paris, please”

Hemingway in WWI.

Cantwell is more than up for obliging her.  He tells her about fighting with the Italians in WWI (Hemingway was an ambulance driver for the Red Cross in Italy during that war), taking Paris, Normandy, the battle of the Hurtgen Forest, and his views on generals Eisenhower, Patton, and Rommel (Hemingway was a war correspondent during WWII).  He is bent on referring to Renata as “Daughter.”   I assumed it was akin to Hemingway’s desire in real life to be known as “Papa,” kind of putting himself one-up.  There’s a lot of sex talk by both of them, but it isn’t clear how much carnality is actually happening, or how much either of them really wants it or, in Cantwell’s case, is up to the task, if you’ll pardon the expression.  Through it all, I had the distinct feeling that I was being set up for Cantwell’s imminent demise, and sure enough, at the end he knocks himself off in the back seat of a chauffeured luxury car—or so I thought; more on that later.

Did Across the River and into the Trees ring true to me?  Yes, it did.   Especially now that I’ve reached antiquity, fifty doesn’t seem all that old.  But nevertheless, I bought the idea that Cantwell thought he had played out the string in his life.  He was still up to hunting ducks proficiently, but that was about it.  Apart from whether or not he could still pull things off, the world wasn’t anywhere near as enthused about him as it once was.  Case in point, he’d been demoted from general to colonel.  I flashed on the title of the late comic actor Charles Grodin’s memoir, It Would Be So Nice If You Weren’t Here.  I could personally relate to being relegated to playing bit parts—if that—in life’s movie.

The truths being offered up to me in Across the River and into the Trees seemed to include what Hemingway wished were so about himself but weren’t—a full-fledged fighting man rather than an ambulance driver and news reporter, that sort of thing.  At the time the book was written, Hemingway was fictional character Cantwell’s age and gaga over a 19-year-old beauty named Adriana Ivanich he had met on a trip to Italy.  From what I can tell from reading biographic accounts, Hemingway’s feelings weren’t reciprocated, and judging by the portly look of him in pictures taken at that time, it is highly unlikely that Adriana would have swooned over his “hard, flat body.”

Hemingway with Adriana Ivanich, who was the real-file counterpart to the Renata character in Across the River and Into the Trees.

Did I like Across the River and into the Trees?   To the extent I like any of Hemingway’s writing, yes.  I’d give it four stars out of five, and consider it to have been a decent enough use of my time.  What I most respected about the book was the care Hemingway put into writing it.  I’ve read critics’ contentions that he knocked it out, getting antsy about not having produced a novel and the money that comes with it since For Whom the Bell Tolls a decade before.  Not so.  Hemingway slaved over this book, I’m sure of it.

I don’t consider Across the River and into the Trees a major literary accomplishment, so why am I putting energy into writing about it?  It’s 11:51 p.m. and I’ve been spent all day typing this up, and I’m far from done.  It’s because after I finished the book I did what I often do with books and films, cruised the internet reading what other people, including scholars, have said about it and it hit me that if the people I read are right, I misread the book’s plot in a big way, and that intrigues me.  I’ll spend the rest of this writing going into that.

*   *   *

I thought Cantwell committed suicide in the back of the car, shot himself with one of his shotguns.   But no, he had a heart attack.   Wikipedia says that, every reviewer and academic I read says that; those SparkNotes-type books say that.  And not only did I miss the ending, all sorts of other things got by me, such as I didn’t pick up that Cantwell had a bad heart condition.

Here are some examples of what I read about Across the River and into the Trees that don’t square with what I took from the book:

[A] flashback to a physical examination that the colonel took three days earlier, when a skeptical army surgeon allowed him to pass even though both men knew the colonel to be dying of heart disease. 

[Cantwell] goes by boat to the Gritti Palace Hotel and, once settled there, dines with his young mistress, Countess Renata. Afterward they make love in a gondola on the way to Renata’s home.

In the end Cantwell dies of a heart attack in his car, shortly after he reminds his driver of the dying words of Stonewall Jackson: “Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.”

After repeating General Stonewall Jackson’s final words, he moves to the back seat of the Buick and firmly closes the door. Jackson [the driver] finds him dead shortly thereafter and reads a note that the colonel had written minutes earlier ordering that the portrait and his shotguns be sent to the hotel for Renata to claim.

What heart trouble?  From the book:

“Wasn’t my cardiograph O.K.?”  the Colonel asked.

“Your cardiograph was wonderful, Colonel. It could have been that of a man of twenty-five.  It might have been that of a boy of nineteen.”

Cantwell had a blood pressure issue, which a lot of people have, including me, and I wouldn’t call that a heart problem.  He was taking mannitol hexanitrate for his blood pressure.   I take lisinopril, but no doctor is telling me that I have a heart problem.

Cantwell’s doctor was concerned about his head not his heart.

 “How many times have you been hit in the head?” the surgeon asked him.  “Concussions, any time you were out cold or couldn’t remember afterwards?”

[Concussions were a big concern around Hemingway.  There’s much speculation that they were causal in his suicide.]

“Maybe ten,” the Colonel said.

“You poor old son of a bitch,” the surgeon said.

“[T]hey make love in a gondola on the way to Renata’s home,” so I read online.  There’s nothing that definitive about their love life anywhere in the book.  With them, maybe there’s consummation and maybe there isn’t, with the reader left to make that call.

Negative reviews of the book scoff at the idea of a young girl being turned on to an old coot like Cantwell.  Implausible?  Really?  A senior military officer, a participant in the central historical events of the age, wicked eyes, wounded places, and a hard, flat body?   A chiseled, weathered older man, strong, a father figure?   No?  Are you sure?  Is fifty that old?  Brad Pitt is 57 and I can imagine a 19-year-old being more than a bit interested in a gondola romp with him.

I kept reading about what a big flop the book was.  True, it wasn’t a critical success, though it had its defenders at the time it was published, and over the years esteem for the book has risen.  While I’m not jumping up and down cheerleading for the book, I take it seriously as a literary work.  A film based on the book is currently being produced, so it’s stayed in the public consciousness after seventy years.  And it was a popular success.  It spent seven weeks at the top of the New York Times best-seller list.  And it was a commercial success, selling more copies than any other Hemingway book up to that time.

Hemingway in WWII

As for the ending, it sure seemed to me reading the last pages that it wasn’t Cantwell’s heart that had given out.  Rather, his life has given out, and he was going to end it.   I thought about how a decade later with a shotgun blast to his forehead, Hemingway had ended his own life.  In Across the River and into the Trees, Hemingway is foretelling his own death, that was my impression.

Here are passages near the end of the book.  There should be some ellipses in this, but I’ve decided they are distracting, so I’ve left them out.

“Turn left,” the Colonel said.

“That’s not the road for Trieste, sir,” Jackson [his driver] said.

“Don’t you point me out a God-damn thing and until I direct you otherwise, don’t speak to me until you are spoken to.”

“Yes, sir.”

“I’m sorry, Jackson. What I mean is I know where I’m going and I want to think.”

You are no longer of any real use to the Army of the United States.  That has been made quite clear.

You have said good-bye to your girl and she has said good-bye to you. That is certainly simple.

Just then it hit him as he had known it would since they had picked up the decoys.  Three strikes is out, he thought, and they gave me four.  I’ve always been a lucky son of a bitch.  It hit him again badly.

He reached into his pocket and found a pad and pencil. He put on the map-reading light, and with his bad hand, printed a short message in block letters.  “Put that in your pocket, Jackson, and act on it if necessary. If the circumstances described occur, it is an order.”

“Yes, sir,” Jackson said, and took the folded order blank with one hand and put it in the top left-hand pocket of his tunic.

“Jackson,” he said. “Do you know what [Southern American Civil War] General Thomas J. [Stonewall] Jackson said on one occasion?  On the occasion of his unfortunate death.  I memorized it once. I can’t respond for its accuracy of course. But this is how it was reported: ‘Order A. P. Hill to prepare for action.’ Then some more delirious stuff.  Then he said, ‘No, no, let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.’

“Pull up at the side of the road and cut to your parking lights.  Do you know the way to Trieste from here?”

“Yes, sir, I have my map.”

“Good. I’m now going to get into the large back seat of this god-damned, over-sized luxurious automobile.”

That was the last thing the Colonel ever said.  But he made the back seat all right and he shut the door. He shut it carefully and well.  After a while Jackson drove the car down the ditch and willow lined road with the car’s big lights on, looking for a place to turn. He found one, finally, and turned carefully. When he was on the right-hand side of the road, facing south towards the road junction that would put him on the highway that led to Trieste, the one he was familiar with, he put his map light on and took out the order blank and read:

IN THE EVENT OF MY DEATH THE WRAPPED PAINTING AND THE TWO SHOT GUNS IN THIS CAR WILL BE RETURNED TO THE HOTEL GRITTI WHERE THEY WILL BE CLAIMED BY THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNER SIGNED RICHARD CANTWELL, COL., INFANTRY, U.S.A.

“They’ll return them all right, through channels,” Jackson thought, and put the car in gear.

And that’s the end of the book.  Where’s the heart attack death?   It seems like a suicide to me.  Really, the book is much stronger, and makes more sense, as the depiction of someone who isn’t in the game anymore and is left chattering on to a young girl of another generation who really doesn’t connect to what he is talking about.   The battle’s over.  Go into the trees and rest.  I can relate to that sentiment, that impulse.  It’s a true one.

The main point I want to make here, however, comes out of the fact that my experience of Hemingway doesn’t square with the word that comes down to me about him.  When I take him in with my senses—in an immediate, experienced way—he comes off as a highly capable and dedicated, though not particularly informed, insightful or wise, writer and a hard worker, but no huge deal as an artist.  This week, I read his Paris memoir, A Moveable Feast—same conclusion.  Even the plot of Across the River and Into the Trees isn’t what the experts tell me it is.  And if Hemingway isn’t what the mediators of reality—the people who do the talking and writing and show me pictures and tell me stories—say he is, what else isn’t what I’ve been led to believe it is?

Recently, I wrote an article that set out a possible defense of White Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin convicted of murdering Black George Floyd during a May, 2020 arrest.  I assumed Chauvin was guilty of something, it was just a question of the extent of his culpability, but writing up the article, it hit me, I’ll be damned, the guy is arguably innocent of the charges against him!  I had accepted uncritically what I had been told and shown about the case (the big thing, the cell phone video of Chauvin with his knee on Floyd’s neck and the media’s interpretation of it).  It came home to me, and this Hemingway writing gets at it, that we all need to think things through for ourselves and come to our own conclusions and not just run with whatever people with a public platform put in front of us.  And that means everybody with a public platform, public voice, including the writers for this magazine and me right now.

On the True Meaning of Hate Speech

“A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.”
—Joseph Goebbels, diary (April 19, 1943)[1]

‘Hate’ is such an ugly word.  And such a juvenile word.  It calls to mind the stereotypical eight-year-old girl who screams “I hate you!” to her mother when she is not allowed to join the local sleep-over.  The word is most often used half-jokingly—“I hate the Yankees!”, “I hate broccoli!”, etc.—or to describe some detested task (“I hate cleaning the bathroom”).  Or it can be used for rhetorical effect.  But the use of the term in the context of ‘hate speech’ is silly, juvenile, and formally meaningless.  We may dislike someone or some group, or be repulsed by them, or wish to dissociate from them.  But to hate them?  Seriously—what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone?  Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing.  It’s a sign of weakness.

And yet today, hate seems to be the ethos of the moment.  More specifically, we seem to be surrounded by talk of ‘hate speech’ in the mass media.  To judge by various headlines and liberal pundits, hate speech would appear to be among the greatest dangers of modern existence—on par with racism and “White supremacy,” and greater than political corruption, international terrorism, global pandemics, financial instability, environmental decline, overpopulation, or uncontrollable industrial technology.  Most European countries have legal prohibitions against various forms of hate speech, however ill-defined, as do Canada and Australia.  Even in the US there is increasing pressure to create legal sanction for some such concept, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

I take this whole topic very personally.  It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities.  It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation.  I have no need to apologize for any of this.  And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’:  “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc.  But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth.  I hate no one.  I may dislike certain people, I may find them malevolent and malicious, I may want them punished, and I may want to separate myself from them; but this does not mean that I hate them.  In this era of “hate crimes” and “hate speech laws,” this requires some explanation.

As usual, we should start by knowing what we are talking about.  What, exactly, is it to ‘hate’?  The word has ancient origins, deriving from the Indo-European kədes and Greek kedos.  Originally, and surprisingly, it meant simply ‘strong feelings’ in a neutral sense, rather than something negative.  In fact, the Old Irish word caiss includes both love and hate.  But the negative connotation emerged with the Germanic khatis (later, hass), the Dutch haat, and eventually became ingrained in the English ‘hate.’

The standard dictionary definition typically runs something like this:  “intense or extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility” toward someone or something.  As such, the word is fairly innocuous; I can hate my job, hate asparagus, and even hate my boss.  But this is not at issue.  We are more concerned about hate as a mindset, and specifically as oriented toward classes of people, or increasingly, toward certain privileged ideologies.

But we immediately confront a major problem here:  Hate is a feeling, and feelings are indelibly subjective.  And anything that is completely subjective cannot be quantified in objective terms.  No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.”  Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling.  If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings.  No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.

And even if I say “I hate X,” how does anyone else know that I really feel the hatred?  They don’t.  Maybe I’m being sarcastic.  Maybe I’m joking.  Maybe I’m just trying to cause a stir.  No one will ever know my actual feelings except me—precisely because they are my own.  No one will ever know if I am expressing “real” hatred, or just pretending.  (Does that even matter?)

The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense.  Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air.  It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law.  This fact, of course, does not stop corrupt lawmakers around the globe from trying to enforce it, though for very different reasons, as I will explain.

So, let’s take a look at how some attempt to define the indefinable.  Here is one interesting definition from the Cambridge Dictionary:  hate speech is

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)

This is a hugely problematic definition, on several grounds.  First, how public is ‘public’?  If I tell my neighbor, is that public?  If I publish something in a private chat room, is that public?  What if I mumble something aloud to a friend while in a shopping mall?  Am I responsible if a private email to a colleague gets reposted online?  And so on.

Second:  it involves the “expression of hate,” or “encouragement of violence.”  These are two vastly different things.  ‘Expression of hate’ is, as I said, functionally meaningless.  What, exactly, does it take for something to qualify as an “expression of hate”?  Presumably if I say “I hate X,” that counts.  But what else?  Does “I really, really, really dislike X” count?  Does “I’d like to see X die” count?  What about “I’d like to see X get very ill”?  Does “X is a total scumbag” count?  We can see the problems.  Incitement to violence is somewhat less ambiguous, but still problematic.  Who, for example, is to judge ‘encouragement’?  This is another highly subjective term.  And how much violence is necessary to qualify?  Is a good shove violent?  A pie in the face?  Tripping someone?  Is ‘emotional distress’ violence?  What about financial loss?

Third, we notice that it’s not violence per se, but rather violence “based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”  This is very odd.  What does the phrase “something such as” mean here?  The qualifiers mentioned are usually assumed to be intrinsic to the person or group (race, gender)—except that religion, and even sexual orientation, can be changed at the drop of a hat.  Therefore, the qualities need not be intrinsic.  So what, exactly, is this mysterious criteria, this “something such as,” that is so crucial for the whole concept?

The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void.  In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless.  How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?

The UN Takes a Shot

As if they don’t have enough on their plate already, the United Nations is now highly distressed by the spread of hate speech around the world.  Recently, in May 2019, they issued a short statement called “Strategy and plan of action on hate speech.”  It included this observation:

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed.  In the context of this document, the term ‘hate speech’ is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are—in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.  This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

The key phrases here:  “controversial and disputed” (obviously), “any kind of communication” (very broad), “pejorative or discriminatory language” (highly subjective and undefined), and “on the basis of who they are” (mostly intrinsic factors, except for nationality and religion, and possibly “other identity factors”).  And then we read the subsequent explanatory paragraph:

Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’).  Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes.  Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.

So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.”  In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently.  Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.

Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here.  We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.”  Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.

Evidently dissatisfied with this short statement, the UN issued a 52-page “detailed guidance” report, under the same name, in September 2020.  Here they establish three levels of hate speech:  1) the worst kind: “direct and public incitement to violence” (including to genocide), 2) a grey zone of hate speech to be prohibited based on “legitimate aims” and only as “necessary and proportionate”, and 3) an unrestricted and lawful form that may still be “offensive, shocking, or disturbing.”  Level One (“Incitement”) hate speech in turn is based on, and determined by, six conditions:

  • 1) social and political context
  • 2) status of the speaker (!)
  • 3) intention of the speaker (!)
  • 4) form and content of the speech
  • 5) extent of dissemination
  • 6) likelihood of harm

Level One Hate must satisfy all six criteria, meaning (presumably): a sensitive time or social context, an influential or important speaker, bad intent, provocative style, widely disseminated, and with reasonable probability of harm.  Again, all six are required, for Level One status.  Levels Two and Three may meet some, or none, of these.  The six criteria are elaborated on pages 17 and 18 of the report.

Later in the document we find an interesting admission:  “The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ should be understood to refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group” (p. 13).  This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional (e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech!  Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech.  This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.

We (some of us, at least) get further relief on the following page, where we read that Level Three (allowable) Hate includes not only “expression that is offensive, shocking, or disturbing” but also covers “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.”  As the UN sees it, so-called Holocaust denial is permissible, or at least non-punishable, hate speech.[2]  And in Figure 4 they go further still, stating that Level Three hate “must be PROTECTED” as a form of free expression.  This is a remarkable concession.  Ah, but there’s a catch:  “unless such forms of expression also constitute incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence under article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”  This document, written in 1966 and made effective in 1976, includes these words under article 20:  “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”  So it would seem that, for example, Holocaust “denial” (whatever that means) is not prohibited as long as it avoids any connection to “incitement” of any kind.  Presumably discussing it as a historical subject is fine; just don’t implicate anyone today who promotes, exploits, or profits from the conventional Holocaust story.

“It’s always about the Jews!”

So, let’s get down to the rub.  I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward:  Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews.  (Oops—is that hate speech?)  That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit.  I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people.  They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception.  Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.

Start with a little history of Jews and hatred.  Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.”  Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant:  As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”.[3]  It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity.  The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.”  The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.”[4]  Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems.

It is worth further expanding on the idea that Jewish hatred is “sanctioned by their very laws”—by which they mean, the Old Testament.  We know, of course, that the Jews viewed themselves as “chosen” by the creator of the universe:  “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.  The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6).  Clearly, then, everyone else is second-best.  We also know that God supposedly gave the Jews a kind of dominion over the other nations of the Earth.  The Book of Exodus states, “we [Jews] are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16).  Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9).  In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10).  There is Genesis:  “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); or Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11).  And outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah:  “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10–11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5–6).  What is this but explicit misanthropy, sanctioned by God, and sustained “by their very laws”?

Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote Historical Library where, in the course of discussing the Exodus, he observes that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34,1).  A few decades later, Lysimachus remarked that the Hebrew tribe was instructed by Moses “to show good will to no man” and to offer only “the worse advice” to others.  And in the early years of the Christian era, the writer Apion commented on the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks.”[5]  Again, repeated observations of Jewish hatred toward Gentile humanity.

The most insightful ancient critique, though, comes from Roman historian Tacitus.  His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115 AD) both record highly damning observations on the Hebrew tribe.  In the former, the Jews are described as “a race of men hateful to the gods” (genus hominum invisium deis, V.3).  Somewhat later, he remarks that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity” (hostile odium, V.5).  But his most famous line comes from his later work, Annals.  There he examines the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, and Nero’s reaction to it.  Nero, says Tacitus, pinned the blame in part on the Christians and Jews—“a class of men loathed for their vices.”  The Jews “were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race” (odio humani generis, XV.44).  Clearly this was the decisive factor, certainly in Tacitus’ eyes and perhaps in all of Rome:  that the Jewish odio humani generis, hatred of humanity, was a sufficient crime to banish and even slay them.

I could go on, but the message is clear:  The ancient world viewed the Jews as exceptional haters.  I could also cite, for example, Philostratus circa 230 AD (“The Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against all humanity”) or Porphyry circa 280 AD (The Jews are “the impious enemies of all nations”)—but the point is made.

Importantly, this impression carried on for centuries in Europe, into the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even through to the present day.  Martin Luther’s monumental work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) includes this passage:  “Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father [the Devil], yes, what a fine people of God they are.  They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people.”[6]  Two centuries later, circa 1745, Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud wrote that “The Jews…were hated because they were known to hate other men.”[7]  And then we have Voltaire’s entry on “Jews” in his famous Philosophical Dictionary, which reads as follows:

It is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen, and…in a political view, the most contemptible of all. …  It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they, at the first, exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion.  As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that, in abhorring them, they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. …  In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.[8]

British historian Edward Gibbon stated the following in his classic work of 1788, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The Jews…emerged from obscurity…and multiplied to a surprising degree. …  The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human-kind.[9]

A similar observation came from the pen of German philosopher Johann Fichte in 1793:

Throughout almost all the countries of Europe, a mighty hostile state is spreading that is at perpetual war with all other states, and in many of them imposes fearful burdens on the citizens: it is the Jews.  I don’t think, as I hope to show subsequently, that this state is fearful—not because it forms a separate and solidly united state, but because this state is founded on the hatred of the whole human race…[10]

Who, then, are the master haters in all of history?

Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche.  A long series of negative comments on the Jews began in 1881 with his book Daybreak, where he observes in passing (sec. 377) that “The command ‘love your enemies’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been.”  So it would seem that the Jews are truly best at something after all: hatred.  Then in The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche sarcastically notes that the Jews are indeed ‘chosen’ people, precisely because “they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people” (sec. 136).

But the most stunning discourse appears in Nietzsche’s work of 1887, On the Genealogy of Morals, where he offers a detailed analysis of hatred from the Judeo-Christian perspective.  In short, Jewish hatred is manifested most visibly in their rabbis, religious men, and their priests.  Sanctioned by God, priestly hate is the deepest and most profound; it is the hatred of those without tangible power.  Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love.  The First Essay is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy; I quote it at length:

As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why?  Because they are the most powerless.  From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations.  The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge, all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering.

Let us quickly consider the greatest example.  Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge.  This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge.  In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)…  (sec. 7)

But you fail to understand that?  You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? … That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess.  However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown?

However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred!  No: the reverse is the truth!  This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth.  This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Jewish values and innovations in ideals?  (sec. 8)

On this view, Christian ‘love’ grows out of Jewish ‘hate,’ like the crown of the tree from its roots.  The Jews (and Paul specifically), the master haters, purveyors of the “deepest and most sublime hatred” that has ever existed, created the idea of a saviour who loves everyone.  They did so as cover for their hatred of humanity, and as an enticement into their Jewish-inspired worldview—one of a Jewish man-god (Jesus), of Jehovah the Almighty, of heaven and hell.  These destructive and nihilistic “values and innovations” could only be foisted upon a humanity that was detested.  Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.

Nietzsche summarizes his thesis concisely in section 16:

In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.”  And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization.  Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point.  The quoted passage refers, of course, to Tacitus.

We can’t leave the Genealogy without brief mention of a fascinating and humorous allegory on hatred that Nietzsche offers in section 13.  There he compares the situation between lowly (Judeo-Christian) haters and the strong and noble (Roman) aristocrats to the opposition that might exist between baby lambs and some nasty predator (Raubvogel), like an eagle.  The lambs are innocently and peacefully munching grass in a field, but live in constant fear of a predator who may, at any time, swoop in and snatch them up.  The weak lambs are haters; they hate those birds of prey.  But the noble eagles don’t hate at all.  Nietzsche explains:

But let’s come back: the problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has imagined it for himself, demands its own conclusion.  —That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey.  And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting-up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs.  We even love them.  Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”

The noble don’t hate; they rule and dominate.  Only the weak hate.  The weak haters furthermore seek to portray the strong and noble in the harshest possible terms: “evil,” “killers,” “sinners.”  But this is ludicrous, of course.  The strong are just doing what is appropriate to their nature.  The haters might then try to confuse the strong, to guilt them into changing their behavior, to get them to become ‘weak’ and ‘good’ like the haters themselves.  But this would be the death of them, just as a life of munching grass—so pleasant for a lamb—would mean death for an eagle.  Nietzsche emphasizes this very point:

[I]t’s no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves, and basically even maintain a faith in nothing more fervently than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and that predatory birds are free to be lambs: —in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey.

Today, weak and lowly haters—Jews, Jewish-inspired Christians, and Jewish lackeys in the media—have been working hard to convince the strong and noble that they are bad, evil, bigoted, racist, and supremacist.  And to the extent that they have succeeded, it has been the death of noble humanity.  We must resist this tendency with all our might.

Hate Speech in the Twentieth Century

With growing wealth and financial clout, and with a 2,000-year history of skill in hatred under their belts, organized Jewry began to press the case for legal sanctions against their opponents.  With the flood of Jewish immigrants around the turn of the century, it is perhaps not surprising that Jewish legal advocacy took hold in the US.  In the first two decades, a number of major pro-Jewish groups emerged, including the American Jewish Committee (1906), the Anti-Defamation League (1913), the American Jewish Congress (1918), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920).  All these groups were de facto anti-hate speech advocates, even if the federal legal apparatus did not really exist at that point.  Their focus was on so-called “group libel,” a novel legal concept that was formulated specifically to benefit Jewish interests.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union.  The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, brought a new concern with anti-Semitism to the Russian Empire.  When they took power in the February Revolution of 1917, they immediately set to work to make life better for Russian Jews.  Pinkus (1990) explains that these Bolsheviks “issued a decree annulling all legal restrictions on Jews” in March 1917.[11]  He adds that, unsurprisingly, “Even before the October [1917] Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were hostile to anti-Semitism.  Lenin castigated it in the strongest terms on a number of occasions.”  As soon as July 1918, the Soviet Council issued a decree (though without legal enforcement) stating that “the anti-Semitic movement and the anti-Jewish pogroms are a deadly menace to the Revolution”; all Soviet workers are called upon “to fight this plague with all possible means”.[12]  Lenin himself continued to press his pro-Jewish propaganda; in one short but notable speech of March 1919, he said:

Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews.  When the accursed Czarist monarchy was living its last days, it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews.  The Czarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews.  The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews.  This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate.  This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people.  The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries.  Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority.  They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. … Shame on accursed Czarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews.  Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

As (non-Jew) Joseph Stalin rose to power in the 1920s, he found it expedient to continue working with the Soviet Jews and generally defended their status.  Consequently, that decade became a sort of ‘golden age’ for Jews; it saw the emergence of the likes of Lazar Kaganovich, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Leonid Krasin, Filipp Goloshchekin, and Yakov Agranov—all high-ranking Jews in the Soviet hierarchy.[13]  Partly because of this governmental dominance, anti-Semitism among the Russian masses continued to percolate.  Eventually, “in 1927, a decision was reached to take drastic steps to repress anti-Semitism.”[14]  Various forms of propaganda were employed, including books, pamphlets, plays, and films; the process culminated in harsh legal action against anti-Jewish hate, up to and including the death penalty.  Stalin confirmed this in writing in 1931:

Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism.  Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle.  Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.  In the USSR, anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system.  Under USSR law, active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.

The Jewish Golden Age in the Soviet Union lasted until the late 1930s, when Stalin inaugurated a retrenchment of Jewish power, apparently in response to the National Socialist stance.[15]

But the Soviet (and Bolshevik) philo-Semitic policies of the 1920s and 1930s were not lost on Hitler.  He and Goebbels were relentless, and justified, in their critiques of “Jewish Bolshevism” as a dominant threat to Germany and Europe.  Goebbels in particular noted the growing push for ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws in defense of Jews in both the USSR and the UK; for him, this was proof of (a) a deep-seated and imminent mass uprising against the Jews, and (b) an over-playing of their legal authority.  Anti-hate laws are a sign of desperation; they indicate that the end-game is near.  In a revealing diary entry of 19 April 1943, Goebbels writes:

The Jews in England are now calling for legal protection against anti-Semitism.  We know that from our own past, in the times of struggle.  But even that didn’t give them much advantage.  We’ve always understood how to find gaps in these protective laws; and moreover, anti-Semitism, once it rises from the depths of the people, cannot be broken by law.  A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.  We will make sure that anti-Semitism in England does not cool down.  In any case, a longer-lasting war is the best breeding ground for it.[16]

The following month, in his published essay “The War and the Jews,” Goebbels commented on the legal situation in the USSR—the very law that Stalin described above, and that was still in force some 13 years later:

We constantly hear news that anti-Semitism is increasing in enemy nations.  The charges being made against the Jews are well-known; they are the same ones that were made here.  Anti-Semitism in enemy nations is not the result of anti-Semitic propaganda, since Jewry fights that strongly.  In the Soviet Union, it receives the death penalty.[17]

The status of anti-Semitic hate speech laws was of importance to Goebbels right to the very end.  In his last major essay, “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” (1945), he reiterated the significance of the Soviet law:

Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots—two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit.  International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress nations and keep them in its service.  How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see: it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

There’s a law in the Soviet Union that punishes ‘anti-Semitism’—or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question—by death.  Any expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world.  In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the Earth under legal protection, and to use the death penalty to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt.  It is little different in the plutocratic [Western] nations.

Even at the bitter end, this theme still impressed Goebbels.  In one of his final diary entries, he wrote:

The Jews have already registered for the San Francisco Conference [on post-war plans].  It is characteristic that their main demand is to ban anti-Semitism throughout the world.  Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.[18]

And indeed, they have succeeded, at least in part.  The postwar German Volksverhetzung and the Austrian Verbotsgesetz both stand as among the most embarrassing legal capitulations to Jewish interests in the Western world.

Thus we clearly see the origins of hate speech legislation in the twentieth century: it was first constructed by Jews and their sycophants (like Stalin), both in the US and in the Soviet Union, to quell any looming opposition to their power structure.  So intent were they on stifling objection to Jewish rule that they were willing to kill those who opposed them.

To the Present Day

With the growing dominance of Jewish influence in American government over the past five decades, and ongoing influence in Europe, calls to restrict and punish any anti-Jewish commentary via hate speech laws have become ever more strident.  The U.S. government—or at least the Republicans—have so far mostly resisted such efforts, but social media has come around to the philosemitic stance.  Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, Twitter, and Google-owned YouTube, have all taken it upon themselves to censor hate speech, especially of the anti-Semitic variety.  Google has altered its search algorithms to de-rank offensive and “hate” sites.  All this is perfectly understandable, given the huge Jewish presence atop Big Tech; we need only mention Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sheryl Sandberg, Safra Katz, Susan Wojcicki, Steve Ballmer, Brian Roberts, Marc Benioff, Craig Newmark, and Jeff Weiner, for starters.

Parallel to Big Tech censorship, Jewish advocacy groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to press civil cases against those ‘haters’ who they believe have violated the rights or reputation of some aggrieved party.  The SPLC has a section of its website dedicated to “anti-Semitism and hate speech,” and the ADL—well, that’s their raison d’etre.  Third-party lawsuits and tech censorship serve the purpose of implementing de facto pro-Jewish hate speech policies, at least within the U.S.

Conclusion

But to come full circle:  I began this piece with a discussion about the logical vagueness and incoherence of the concept of hate speech.  Clearly, though, many powerful, Jewish-inspired corporations and politicians find the concept useful.  For them, in the most basic and practical terms, it becomes quite simple:  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.  Yes, they may claim to hate anti-Muslim speech or anti-Black speech, but this is so only because it is a necessary corollary to anti-Jewish hate speech.  The Jews are not so stupid today as to push for uniquely Jewish, “anti-anti-Semitism” laws; those are a thing of the past.  Today, such laws require cover language that, at least in theory, includes other “oppressed” groups.  Jews and their defenders must appear universal and fair—when in reality most seem to have utter contempt for virtually all non-Jewish groups (there’s that “hatred of humanity” again).  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.

Consider:  If you hate what I say, who’s the hater?  It’s you, not me.  The fact that you may not like what I’m saying does not make me a hater.  It makes you the hater.  And if you happen to be a champion, master-class, world-historical hater, well then—it’s all hate to you.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] Reprinted in Goebbels on the Jews (2019; T. Dalton, ed), p. 199.  This and most other books cited below are available at www.clemensandblair.com.

[2] For the record, I am no denier.  I believe that there was a Holocaust of the mid-20th century:  it was called World War Two, and some 60 million people died as a result of Jewish-instigated actions both here and in Europe.  Jewish fatalities seem to have numbered around 500,000, according to the major revisionists.  For more on these issues, see my books The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).

[3] Eternal Strangers (2020; T. Dalton, ed), p. 16.

[4] Emilio Gabba, “The growth of anti-Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2, 1984; Cambridge University Press), p. 645.

[5] Eternal Strangers, pp. 19, 21, and 25, respectively.

[6] On the Jews and Their Lies (2020, T. Dalton, ed; Clemens & Blair), p. 53.

[7] Eternal Strangers, p. 68.

[8] Eternal Strangers, pp. 70-71.

[9] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788/1974, vol. 2; AMS Press), p. 3.  See also Eternal Strangers, p. 59.

[10] Eternal Strangers, p. 78.

[11] Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union (1990; Cambridge University Press), p. 84.

[12] In Pinkus, p. 85.

[13] The parallels to the Biden regime are striking; see my recent piece “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[14] Pinkus, p. 86.

[15] Postwar, Stalin’s purging of high-ranking Jews accelerated, resulting in a decade-long period of virtual state-sponsored anti-Semitism, ending only with Stalin’s death in 1953.

[16] Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.

[17] Ibid., pp. 206-207.

[18] 4 April 1945, in Goebbels on the Jews, p. 255.

Remembering the 2001 English Race Riots


“Crime in Oldham had reached ‘record levels’ with a massive increase (to 60 percent of all incidents) in violent attacks on whites.”
David Waddington, Policing Public Disorder[1]

The racialist is bound to an instinctive love-hate relationship with the race riot. On the one hand, racial violence is a cause for sorrow and disgust. It represents the fullest expression of the violent disintegration of prior ethnic homogeneity. On the other hand, the race riot is a powerful vindication and an unveiling. It’s an honest illustration of ethnic truths that are always present but often covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. For the racialist, ethnic conflict is a predictable, inevitable, and violent eruption of reality into the dreamlike fantasy of multiculturalism. The race riot, with its explosive unraveling of communal grudges and hostilities, can be postponed, reinterpreted, and badly explained by those in power, but, for the racialist, it cannot ever be permanently avoided; its potential is etched into the very fabric of the multicultural project.

This summer marks the twentieth anniversary of a sequence of race riots in northern England that had a transformative effect on my worldview, and continues to exert a significant influence on how I see the world. More than Jewish historical fairy tales or Islamic terrorism, this was the primary moment of my political awakening. It was the first time I heard about “no-go” areas dominated by foreign ethnic groups, the first time I learned about the activities of the British National Party, and the first time I gained an understanding of the fact that we are only ever a simple shift in context and circumstances away from explicit racial enmity. I learned during that summer two decades ago that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how tolerant you think you are or desire to be — what matters more is how the other side will see you when push comes to shove. And whether or not you subscribe to Social Darwinism in its finer points, it is a simple fact of human history that push always comes to shove. Violence between groups over resources has always occurred, and will never cease.

Such was the painful lesson learned by 76-year-old veteran Walter Chamberlain who, in April 2001, was walking home from a rugby match through a predominantly South Asian area of Oldham when he was set upon by a group of Pakistanis. Having committed the grievous error of deciding to walk through “their” neighborhood, Chamberlain was beaten senseless, and suffered several broken facial bones. Four decades of ethnic tension, dating to the arrival of the first significant waves of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian migrants in Oldham, had bubbled over. Once Chamberlain’s battered face appeared on the front pages of several national newspapers (I vividly recall seeing it while purchasing a copy of Combat, a now defunct UK martial arts magazine), a White backlash seemed inevitable.

The attack on Walter Chamberlain was merely a final straw. Racial violence against Whites had been escalating in the South Asian enclaves of northern England for years. Prior to the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police’s “Q Division (Oldham)” had issued a number of warnings about the nature of ethnic crime and violence in the town. The Chief Superintendent, for example, wrote in one report that

There’s evidence that [Asian male youths] are trying to create exclusive areas for themselves. Anyone seems to be a target if they are white. It is a growing polarisation between some sections of the Asian youth and white youth on the grounds of race, manifesting itself in violence, predominantly Asian.[2]

Four months before the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police released a report showing that “62 per cent of racial incidents were Asian on white. A special report for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester emphasised that these were part of an ongoing trend involving primarily Pakistani and Bangladeshi teenagers.”[3] Academics have  since attributed the later race riots in part to honest media portrayals of these reports and incidents, which acted to stimulate a sense of White cohesion and victimisation. The Oldham Chronicle, for example, had been brutally honest in its reports during the late 1990s, leading with a number of headlines such as “Racist Attacks By Asian Gangs,” (March 17 1998), and “HUGE RISE IN RACE ATTACKS ON WHITE MEN” (January 31 2001). The police, the local media, and the Whites of northern England have since come in for severe criticism by the foremost academic apologist for Pakistani crime, who insists, without evidence, that South Asians were actually the most victimised population prior to the riots but had low trust in the police and therefore didn’t report crimes against them.[4] This apologist is the sociologist Professor Larry Ray (University of Kent), whose motivations, considered in light of his past Presidency of the British Association for Jewish Studies, require no further discussion for the well-informed readers of this website.

Larry Ray: Jewish Apologist for Pakistani violence against Whites

The increase in violence in Oldham, and similar trends in Burnley and Bradford, caught the attention of both the National Front and the British National Party, both of which astutely flooded these towns with pamphlets, some bearing the battered visage of Walter Chamberlain. In combination with honest local media reporting, these groups helped to further heighten White cohesion, solidarity, and ethnocentrism, with the National Front even promising to march through the Asian-dominated “no-go” areas in a White “show of strength.” The march was quickly banned by the Home Office, but White ethnocentrism in these towns was obviously on the rise. Once it reached adequate levels, it was only a matter of time before opposing racial factions clashed on a larger scale. The Pakistanis, for their part, had started daubing walls on their streets with the slogan “Whites Keep Out.”[5]

The Riots

As in most cases of ethnic conflict, the initial flashpoint for mass violence was relatively banal but escalated quickly. A month after the attack on Walter Chamberlain, a White youth spotted two Pakistani brothers walking past a Fish and Chips shop, and threw a brick at them, striking one on the leg. The two Pakistanis followed the youth to a nearby house, and word was quickly spread to other Pakistanis in the area. In a short period of time, more than a dozen Pakistanis had gathered outside the house seeking violent retribution from the lone White perpetrator. They then kicked in the front door. The woman who owned the house called both the police and her 25-year-old brother, who was then socialising in a nearby pub with members of the British National Party and a Far Right paramilitary organisation known as Combat 18. The group made their way from the pub to the scene of disturbance in three taxis, and set about responding to Pakistani intimidation by smashing the windows of South Asian residences and businesses. The police then arrived, arresting 10 members of the White grouping, and two Pakistanis who’d been involved in attacking the house. Within an hour, a 500-strong crowd of Pakistanis formed street barricades and began throwing petrol bombs and other missiles at police. Between 10pm and 5am of the first episode of major violence, four pubs were almost destroyed along with the offices of the Oldham Chronicle (presumably for its reporting of Pakistani crime), and 32 police vehicles were damaged. Scenes of chaos from Oldham’s streets were broadcast around the world.

A month after the Oldham riot, trouble erupted in Burnley. The town had a growing population of young Pakistani males, who formed criminal cliques that acted as rivals to White criminal gangs as well as assaulting or robbing non-criminal Whites. As well as absorbing the tensions emanating from Oldham, Burnley had its own problems. The town had an “Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator” who was accused of helping to provide preferential council investment to South Asian-occupied areas. The controversy led to a spike in British National Party representation on the local council (to 21%), as well as to calls for the abolition of the role of Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator (the town’s Race Equality Council had also recently been disbanded). The final spark arrived in June 2001, when there was an altercation between South Asian and White criminals, which resulted in a Pakistani being struck on the head with a hammer. False rumors that the Pakistani was dead began circulating in the South Asian community, and a mob of armed males gathered at, and subsequently attacked, the Duke of York pub, which was regarded as being frequented by the White element.

The following day, the pub’s landlord closed the establishment and informed arriving customers what had happened. Large numbers of Whites, including around 60 youths, who had no involvement in the events of the preceding days, were reported by police at the time as having adopted “something of a siege mentality,” and began chanting racial slogans at nearby Pakistani taxi drivers. Using taxi radios, much of the town’s young Pakistani male population was mobilised into action and was instructed to attack Whites gathered at the pub. This Pakistani mob, later estimated by police as numbering at least 300, armed themselves with machetes and clubs and made their way to the Duke of York. Before they arrived, the 60 White youths divided into two groups. One of these groups was intercepted by police, who then inexplicably steered them into the path of the armed 300 Pakistanis. The police then hastily formed a barrier between the two ethnic groups, with each then turning their violent intentions towards rival residences and businesses on their side of the police barrier. As with Oldham, these scenes were broadcast around the world.

A few weeks after the ethnic chaos in Burnley, it was Bradford’s turn to combust.[6] In 2001, Bradford had the second largest population of South Asians of any UK city, with approximately 68,000 Pakistanis, 12,500 Indians, 5,000 Bangladeshis and 3,000 other Asians. The White demographic had declined to 78% of the total population, and the town was host to many of the same issues in Oldham and Burnley: decades of tense segregation; a culture of criminality among young South Asian males; and a sense that local government resources were being invested in South Asian communities at the expense of the working-class native population. It should also be added that the town had already witnessed large-scale race riots in the form of the 1995 Manningham Riot. As in the other towns, the National Front and the British National Party supplemented growing White racial consciousness in the area (already prompted by press coverage of South Asian criminality) by engaging in intensive pamphleting, making advances in local government elections, arranging marches, and hosting meetings. When the spark finally arrived, Bradford exploded with one of the most violent of all the race riots that occurred in 2001, resulting in more than 300 injured police officers, 200 jail sentences totaling 604 years, and an estimated £7 million in property damage.

In Bradford, the spark was provided on July 7 by the “Anti-Nazi League,” who declared their intention to prevent the National Front from marching in the city center. The group comprised a small White leftist element and several hundred South Asians. The protest did little more than push National Front/BNP supporters to the fringes of the city, where clashes with South Asians were in fact more likely to take place out of sight of police. Around 3pm, rumors began circulating among the Antifa/South Asian element that members of the National Front were socialising at a nearby pub. A faction set off in search of the pub and, during an attempted attack on National Front members a Pakistani was stabbed. Shortly after this point, the smaller White leftist element departed the city center, leaving a rump of several hundred Asians who soon began throwing missiles at watching police, looting several shops, and smashing windows. Around 5pm, two White men were stabbed by a group of South Asians on Thornton Road, and a group of 60–70 South Asians began resisting police attempts to clear the city center by throwing petrol bombs. The crowd was only dispersed following several police charges on horseback, but during the chaotic retreat of the South Asians, Mohammed Ilyas, a 48-year-old Pakistani businessman and father of six, firebombed the Manningham Labour Club, a White-frequented recreational center, while 23 men and women were still inside. Those inside managed to survive by taking refuge in the building’s cellar. Ilyas was subsequently caught and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The following night, around a hundred White males gathered near Bradford city center seeking retribution, before setting off in search of South Asian-owned businesses in the Ravenscliffe and Holmewood areas. Following mass damage to Pakistani businesses, vehicles, and property, the police flooded the area with almost 1,000 officers, which brought an end to the riots of July 8. The following night, however, these events were repeated. Police again flooded the streets of Bradford, this time bringing a lasting but uneasy peace.

Legacy

Did ethnic relations in these towns improve? Can we assume that, since the riots have not been repeated, somehow multiculturalism now “works” in these areas? As mentioned at the outset of this essay, as a racialist I believe that ethnic conflict will be the natural state of affairs within multiculturalism, and that where it is not obviously present that is because it has been covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. In the aftermath of the riots, the government said much about fostering “inclusion,” about “breaking down barriers,” about “encouraging understanding,” and about improving the material lives of the neglected Whites of northern England — words entirely without meaning or honest intent. Five years after the riots, one resident of Burnley told the BBC, “Nothing’s changed, it may have got worse. … The poor white areas still do not get any government help. Duke Bar is a no-go area after dark. So much for all the Government talk about helping Burnley.” Within several years of the riots, Oldham and Bradford evolved into the largest epicenters for the South Asian sex trafficking of hundreds of White girls. Today, the White population has Bradford declined to 63%, while Oldham and Burnley have experienced slower rates of White demographic displacement. Two decades after the riots, Whites and South Asians continue to live in a state of tension.

Since South Asian expansion and criminality hasn’t disappeared, the real question is what happened to the capacity for White reaction. It’s clear in this regard that, rather than deal directly with the problems inherent in multiculturalism, the government pursued a policy of neutering White anger and ethnocentrism as the best method for preventing further riots. Since White solidarity leading up to the riots was perceived as originating with press reports and the activities of the BNP and the National Front, these were two obvious starting points for preventative measures. Criticism of the honest reporting of the Oldham Chronicle, exemplified in the work of Professor Ray, culminated 11 years later in a government report issued by Lord Brian Leveson, who describes himself as a “devout Jew.” The report, known as the Leveson Report, revolutionised press standards by condemning “careless or reckless reporting” that includes “discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities.” In other words, referring to such things as “Asian crime” or “Attacks on Whites” in news headlines became a thing of the past, and so White perceptions of their victimisation and the nature of ethnic crime were disrupted and stifled.

Political White Nationalism in England also came under sustained attack from various quarters. In 2004, elements of the media contrived to undermine the BNP and “expose” its racism to the public, eventually resulting in the Channel 4 documentary The Secret Agent. The documentary involves little more than an undercover journalist presenting secretly recorded footage of low-level BNP members uttering some controversial sentiments while under the influence of alcohol. The risible footage nevertheless led to an attempt to prosecute both Nick Griffin and Mark Collett for incitement to racial hatred, both of whom were found not guilty at trial. Continued harassment and disruption of the BNP continued into 2009, however, when the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertook court proceedings to force the BNP to accept non-White members. Finally, there was a sustained push to present UKIP’s civic nationalism as a more respectable “protest vote” against the established parties. The BNP was never able to recover.

White anger and ethnocentrism were also suppressed through a tightening of the law. Two years after the riots the government passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 145 and 146 of which granted courts the power to increase sentences for any crime in which racial or religious motivations were suspected. Going further even than the idea of a “hate crime,” the legislation made it clear that even perceived “hostility” to the injured party would be sufficient to come under its terms. Placed in the context of an ethnically defined riot, for example, a White youth caught breaking a window would now attract a significantly higher sentence than the normal punishment handed down for criminal damage.

Muzzling the media, disrupting White ethnic politics, and tougher legal punishments for White protest — this is how the government temporarily solved the problem of race riots in England. I say “temporarily” because it’s only a matter of time before even these measures become insufficient to cover up the simmering tensions built into multiculturalism. A further dramatic shift in interethnic relations is an inevitability, and will probably involve the reaching of certain demographic tipping points or a dive in the economy leading to scarce resources. The final spark will be caused by something banal. Instinct will kick in. Tribes will form. People can be awakened by the innocuous as well as the dramatic; the distant as well as the near. For me it began twenty years ago, with a brick thrown in Oldham.


[1] D. Waddington, Policing Public Disorder: Theory and Practice (Routledge: New York, 2007), p.99

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ray, Larry, and David Smith. “Racist Offending, Policing and Community Conflict.” Sociology 38, no. 4 (October 2004): 681–99.

[5] Waddington, 100.

[6] For an in-depth analysis of the Bradford riots see, Bagguley, Paul, Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (Routledge, 2016).

For White Boys Contemplating Our Dark Future

“Even Satan presents himself as an angel of the Light.” — 2 Corinthians 11: 14

I was born in the last years of the segregated South, and I remember both the period before integration and the period afterward.  I was born to a father who was an electrical engineer, and a mother who was a waitress, and we had a comfortable, placid life until my father sustained severe brain damage in a car accident, requiring that he be retrained as a barber.  That was was around the time when my mother had to begin waiting on tables, to keep our finances afloat, and things became hardscrabble.  Looking back, I can see now that we lived in what many people would consider poverty.  My mother had seven children, too many even for those times, and the financial and psychological stress became more than she could handle.  She buried herself in Christian fundamentalism, seeking solace, but instead became more unstable and volatile.  In time, she began to suffer from extreme religious delusions, believing Jesus had returned to the earth and could be sought out if a sufficient effort was made.  Our home became increasingly violent, dysfunctional and broken, until it disintegrated midstream in our childhoods.  My father went to his parents’ home, where he died in a dark back bedroom, whimpering about his undying love for my mother.  For her part, my mother wandered away, stark raving mad, to search for her Messiah in unlikely places, and in the intervening four decades I have had no contact with her.

My parents’ ancestors had not had easier paths, even though their people were all from once prominent and wealthy Southern families.  Their families had obeyed the law in owning slaves, but had never abused their servants; instead they had considered them to be extended family members.  While I’m sure horror stories existed, I believe my own family’s lore recounting symbiotic and amiable relationships generally reflected the norm of those times.  In any event, both families had ended up landless and scattered as a result of Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.  No one has ever talked about reparations for what many of them suffered:   bankruptcies, suicides, malnutrition, rooming house lodgings in their dotages, and early deaths.  Generations later, some of my ancestors were still living in shantytowns, occasionally being rousted out of their squatter villages by the police or military.

Out of these origins, we watched with familiar misgivings as soldiers with bayonets integrated public schools during the Civil Rights Era.  I remember that the school hallways soon stank from the odor of our fear, as our new peers pummeled, kicked and stomped their way into our hearts.  The Media invariably portrayed timid Black children entering schools through crowds of jeering and aggressive Whites, but our experience was somewhat the opposite:   we accommodated our government’s directives warily but meekly, and still got our asses handed to us.  Prior to integration, there had been order, discipline, optimism and a sense of community.  Afterward, we occupied institutions that were intimidating jungles, so much so that the frequent physical and sexual assaults that we experienced were usually not even reported.  We had been told what side history was on, and we were loath to disagree by making complaints.

Long before there were terms like “Media bias,” or “virtue-signaling,” or “Libtards,” we learned their meaning.  During the urban riots of 1968, a liberal teacher decorated our classroom’s bulletin boards with photos of Black rioters shot dead on the sidewalks by the police in Detroit and Watts.

“This will cause them to attack us more in the hallways,” a few of us pleaded.

The teacher was nonplussed by our comment.  “We have to demonstrate that we’re on the side of the civil rights movement” he responded with bewilderment.  “You must think of the greater good of our society, and make an effort to be team players.”

In my mind, this response was irresponsible gibberish, unconnected to the realities of the school hallways we were required to navigate. Yet, throughout my life, in response to my reservations in similar situations, the respondents have always deferred to God, morality, or the greater good.  And none of the answers I have received have been logical or sufficient.

I tried to play the game.  I tried to believe I would be treated fairly in the newly emerging integrated and “Diverse” America.  I soon realized this society will ultimately exclude the melanin-deficient, despite their delusions about having a place in this country’s future.  I had new lessons to learn, and after college I joined a federal agency, one divided into agents and support personnel.  The agents held a large majority of the higher-grade positions, and to achieve upward mobility it was clear that one should attempt to become an agent.  I applied to get into the agent training program, and was repeatedly turned down for admission.  It did not matter that I had two advanced degrees, one of which specialized in our agency’s mission.  It did not matter that I had known poverty via the misfortunes of a brain damaged father and a mother who was a violent lunatic.  There were no slots on the application to present that information, and, while I was shut out of the academy, it was common knowledge that others walking in off the street received preferences based on race and ethnicity.  “This is a non-issue,” I was told, in response to my complaints.  “Most of the applicants hired to be agents are still white.”  I appealed to my work colleagues, and quickly discovered that Whites who succeeded in getting admitted to the academy were indifferent to those of us who got left behind; they simply concluded that we must be deficient in some manner and thus worthy of our designation as lesser mortals.

It did not help to point out other corruptions in the selection process:   the family members of agency officials were admitted into the academy in statistically impossible numbers, and the children of slain agents were simply waved in if they met the minimum admission requirements.  Someone’s father catching a bullet did not seem to create more merit than my father having scraped his head down a highway; sometimes a death is a vastly more merciful fate than the fate of those who go on living.  Be that as it may, for fifteen years of doing the agency’s skut work, I received the same consideration as any external applicant doing similar office work elsewhere, and the rationale for this was, ironically, stated to be “the necessity for all applicants to be treated equally.”  The problem with the rationale presented was that I could not expect the same reciprocity from other employers if I sought to be hired by them — they would be loyal to their own employees in ways that mine had not been to me.  Between the racial preferences and the partial nullification of my labor investment, I’d received a double whammy.

No one gave a hoot about any of this.  I filed grievances, and quickly discovered that the grievance process was intended to channel and smother dissent, not to deliver justice or meaningful redress.  There was also an Ombudsman, whose position was ostensibly intended to help mediate grievances like my own.  This possibility for recourse looked promising, until it was discovered that her husband’s job consisted of maintaining the agency’s Affirmative Action statistics and monitoring the success of the agency’s Diversity Programs.  I sued, and a judge ordered the head of our Legal Counsel Division to attend a mediation meeting to seek a resolution for my suit.  The gentleman declined to put in an appearance, and instead sent an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who was openly hostile toward me.  She stated that I would be offered career counseling, absolutely nothing else, and proceeded to deride me in my presence with descriptive terms like “snob,” “elitist,” and “malcontent.”

“Appeal their decision,” a petite and usually passive coworker urged when I phoned her with my results.  “Don’t be afraid of them.  They’re not competent enough to be scary.”

My coworker was wrong.  They were plenty scary, and I was aware that the agency had unlimited time, personnel, and tax money to fight my lawsuit in the courts.  I was also aware that there were few other venues for the airing of my grievance — no lawyer would even touch it — and that most of the people similarly victimized are not even fully aware of their plight, inasmuch as diligent efforts are made to keep the discrimination covert.  What I had experienced was not today’s often-imagined “systemic discrimination” allegedly directed at non-Whites, but instead the real McCoy — a de facto discrimination against Whites that is now codified, institutionalized and commonplace.  It is discrimination sanctioned and promoted by our government, academia, the media, and the private sector, and there are no advocacy groups for its victims, no support groups for its survivors, and no films or books created to pull heartstrings over their suffering.  The victims, if they are perceived at all, are looked upon as being inconsequential damage, unworthy of acknowledgement because they had their injuries coming.  For its part, my agency, and countless others like it, generally grind up their victims as invisibly as possible, ruthlessly, silently, insidiously, without genuine compassion or interest, licensed to do damage by goals they believe to be noble.   I had even at one point done a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain statistics for the racial preferences, and the agency had released printouts of numbers that no one could decipher.  When asked for an interpretation, the bureaucrats simply ignored me.

I had spent ten years jogging down icy highways in February, to meet the academy’s physical requirements.  I had specifically obtained a second advanced degree because it was in our agency’s field of expertise.  None of it mattered one iota.  “You are being treated fairly,” I was told firmly.  “No one is mistreating you.”  That was no doubt their opinion, but I left the mediation meeting feeling thoroughly violated.

My unit supervisor was a pleasant Black man, and I was later told to meet with him for my lawsuit’s reward, the career counseling.  He waited until the last day of the deadline for providing the counseling, and then called me into his office and turned on his computer.  For an hour and a half, he read the agency’s job postings to me, the job vacancies listed on the agency’s website.  When he was done, he gave me a sincere pat on the arm and uttered familiar words:  “Go back to work now, and try to be a team player.”  One of his White underlings was far less diplomatic.  “We are trying to be tolerant of you,” he said.  “We know it is important to keep our friends close, and our enemies closer.”  This same gentleman, during a previous time of friction, had once reassured me that he had been taught how to kill adversaries within five seconds with merely a pencil.

My Black boss, not long after my career counseling, brought into our career ladder two semi-illiterate Black janitors, and hired them to do the same work I was performing.  The career ladder brought them inevitably up the rungs until they were one grade level below my own.  I remained one grade level above them only because I was their supervisor, and I spent my last years at the agency laboriously correcting the work that they could only go through the motions of performing.

Things got even more gruesome.  I never saw another promotion in the agency, during the remainder of my tenure.  Meanwhile, the Black agents in our agency had previously had a discrimination lawsuit against it.  Most of these people were mediocrities who had achieved their positions only through the racial preferences dispensed to them, but, not satisfied with that largesse, they had then become disgruntled when their advancement through the management ranks was slow.  They had sued, received financial settlements, and, as part of the settlements, the agency had agreed to reeducate all of its managers through diversity training seminars.

In the seminars we were taught that Affirmative Action preferences were necessary in order for America to keep pace with its rapidly changing demographics.  White Americans would soon be a minority, and the emerging America would contain a new but historically disadvantaged non-White majority.  White America had debts to pay, for its mistreatment of non-Whites, and it should pay its debts in a good-natured manner.   In the meanwhile, our democratic principles of government, we were told, along with consumerism and good will and the English language were destined to keep the country glued together.

In these seminars, we were told not to pose questions or to contradict the speakers.  “If you have questions or comments,” the facilitators said, “you may approach the stage with them only when the seminar is concluded.”  It was in this milieu that I first began to have epiphanies that when they keep telling you to be a team player, it means you’re about to get raped.  It was in this milieu that I had the epiphany that when they keep telling you to get on the right side of history, it means eventually they’re going to get around to killing you.  First they destroy books, careers, icons, statues, graves, and memorials.  Emboldened by their success, they will inevitably move on to their actual targets.  You, in the flesh.  The intial request is an appeal for access to institutions.  The subsequent request is a demand for dominant power in the institutions.  The final request is for us to be complicit in making ourselves irrelevant and extinct, in a country that our ancestors explicitly built for themselves and their descendants.  Indeed, the New America gives every indication of gleefully capitalizing on the founding stock’s own democratic principles, documents and institutions, to achieve that end.

In the seminars, listening to their sophistry, I found myself brimming with many questions I had been directed not to articulate.   If all cultures, groups, and nations are to be respected and accommodated, why was my own being so visibly assaulted and dissolved through social engineering and mass immigration?  Why was our demographic and political displacement described as something desirable, when no non-Western nation or people would interpret it in such a manner?  If previous discrimination against minorities was so damnable, how was justice achieved by routinely penalizing Whites through Affirmative Action discrimination?  Did this not merely redirect the discrimination against a new group of innocents?  Why should we be expected to cheerfully fund and facilitate our own society’s reinvention through social and governmental policies?  Why are we forbidden even to describe our displacement and replacement with those same terms — when they accurately describe what is being done to us?   Most of all:   How did it become completely impermissible for anyone to ask these questions?

Once again, I noticed an absence of meaningful redress.  Once again, I found there are no avenues for meaningful dissent; there can be no meaningful dissent when there are no venues in which it can be heard.  To pose objections in spite of this reality is to be designated as a braying jackass in a wilderness, even worse, it is to be designated as morally suspect, as being illogical, indeed, as being evil.  Once again, we are to be the dehumanized collateral damage of the “arc of moral justice,” and our moral worth depends on the extent to which we submit to that condition silently and willingly.  Our own group’s need for self-perpetuation, for self-determination, for equality under the law — these things have all been rendered irrelevant, meaningless, in a society in which all things are now politicized and polarized.

Yet, to reiterate, America’s founding documents and founding institutions were created to first benefit the descendants of the European founding stock.  They clearly proclaimed that they existed for the benefit of the founders’ progeny.  It is thus folly to contend that they were intended to be tools for the dissolution of the nation-state created by those ancestors, and for four centuries America, with the exception of eight states in the South, was largely an ethnostate with an identifiable and relatively homogeneous culture and people.   All of that is now being destroyed in the name of an ill-defined largesse or the purely mercenary desire to import cheap labor, consumers, or votes.  The resulting metamorphosis will achieve the destruction of all that is familiar to us in the span of a single human lifetime, a lifetime of a mere seventy years, spanning from the gutting of our immigration laws in 1965 to the year 2035, the earliest date at which Whites are predicted to become a minority in the U.S.  And the year 2035 is tomorrow — an eyeblink away.  The currently emerging American society will be characterized by the end goal of many of the forces arrayed against us; we will evolve into a society characterized by one-party rule — by the Democratic Party, a political entity that is increasingly anti-status quo, anti-White, and radically socialist in its leanings.

Reacting to this with a shrug is the purest kind of madness.  Acquiescing to it is collaboration with a fate that will strip us of the right of self-determination, because other groups vote in blocs and we will, quite simply, be outnumbered and outvoted.  It is collaboration with the dispossession of our culture and our history, because both will be inevitably pushed into America’s margins.  It portends the confiscation of our wealth, because our wealth will need to be taxed away from us to subsidize the poverty of the incoming hordes.  Most importantly, all of this will dispossess us of our future as a people, because we will have become the Boers of North America and our future will be determined by others.  If the histories of the Tutsis of Rwanda, the Uyghurs of China, and the Christian Armenians of Turkey are indicators of the dark proclivities of human nature — as indeed they are — it may ultimately cost many of us the greatest price of all.

Are these notions beyond the pale for contemplation?  I think not.  We live in a time in which many nations guarantee their citizens’ rights in their constitutions, yet those rights are routinely disregarded.  We live in an era that is characterized, like all of the human history that preceded it, by purges and genocides, an era in which billions of humans are entirely content to live under the tyrannies of Communism, radical Islam, or authoritarianism.  These are the dark and dangerous waters into which our politicians cheerfully plan to cast us adrift on a raft built from blind faith, a hodgepodge raft constructed from scraps of the ideologies promoting globalism, universalism, racial egalitarianism, reverse racism, and other “isms.”  It will be a vessel unfit for any approaching storm, a craft that will easily upend in a vast and tumultuous human sea, and one where there is every reason to believe that our adventure will finalize with our disappearance.

In response to this predicament, for the largest part, our own countrymen are fat and comfortable and happy.  They are far too relaxed and stupid to entertain any notions involving fear, and the cynic in me no longer believes that what remains of America can be saved without upheaval, radicalism, and violence.  While I would never advocate violence, nor will I condemn it, not while my country is being gleefully and unnecessarily butchered all around me.  And in the face of today’s unrelenting turmoil, there have been, of late, clarion truisms that keep ringing in my mind.  One is the statement of Mr. Trump, on January 6, 2021, that “If you don’t fight like hell for your country, you’re not going to have one.”  Another sadly resonating truism is the one allegedly made by the Capitol Breach rioter Riley June Williams, a seven-word sentence that sums up our predicament: “There are no longer any political solutions.”  An even more disturbing insight that keeps entering my consciousness is one attributed to the writer Guillaume Faye:  “When you are forced to choose between violence and extinction, regrettably, the only correct moral choice is violence.”

How sad, even to have been placed in the position to need to contemplate such thoughts.  This is the corner into which our idiot leaders have now painted us, and most of us will no doubt live to see the fruits of their folly.  I am aging fast, and I may be spared such a fate; even so, I know where my ghost will abide when its time comes.  I will be at the running track at my agency’s academy, the academy where I never got admitted.  I will be running in the brutal cold of February, running as I used to run, groaning to push forward with a clenched jaw into the wind.  I will be catapulting around the track, believing against all of the available evidence that this country still has a future for my children, believing in a future in which an uncorrupted justice will yet prevail.

Believing anyway.

Jews and Competitive Victimhood

Despite being the wealthiest, most politically well-connected and influential group in Western nations, Jews have assiduously (and successfully) cultivated the notion they have always been, and remain, a cruelly-persecuted victim group deserving of everyone’s profound sympathy. The “Holocaust” narrative has, of course, been central to this endeavor. The entire social and political order of the contemporary West — based on the alleged virtues of racial diversity and multiculturalism — has been erected on the moral foundations of “the Holocaust.” White people cannot be recognized as a group with interests because “never again.” Western nations have a moral obligation to accept unlimited non-White immigration because “never again.” Whites should meekly accept their deliberate displacement (and ultimate extinction) because “never again.”

Numerous studies have demonstrated the power that can accrue to individuals and groups who successfully cultivate their status as victims and underdogs. Social psychologists have labelled the tendency to see one’s group as having suffered more than an outgroup as “competitive victimhood.” While conflicting groups have engaged in competitive victimhood for centuries, this is largely a modern phenomenon that should be understood against the backdrop of contemporary culture. Friedrich Nietzsche remains the first and best theorist of competitive victimhood, proposing that historical developments in Western culture, ranging from Christianity to the Enlightenment, led to a reversal of values where old notions of “might makes right” were transformed. Today, our knee-jerk reaction to powerful groups is to assume they are immoral and corrupt, while members of victimized groups are assumed to be innocent and morally superior.

Activist Jews are acutely aware of the power of competitive victimhood in contemporary culture, and much of the research into the subject has been carried out in Israel. A study by Schnabel and colleagues found that groups are motivated to engage in competitive victimhood for two reasons: the need for moral identity and the need for social power.

With regards to the first motivation, people generally associate victimization with innocence. Therefore, if one’s ingroup ‘wins’ the victim status, it means that it is also perceived as moral. With regards to the second motivation, people generally view victims as entitled for compensation. Therefore, if one’s ingroup ‘wins’ the victim status, it means that it is entitled to various resources such as policies to empower it or higher budgets. Groups struggle over both power (budgets, influence, etc.) and moral identity (i.e., group members typically see themselves as ‘the good guys’ and members of the other group as ‘the bad guys’). This struggle makes them engage in competitive victimhood.[1]

These studies, often framed around the difficulties presented to Israel by the victim status of the Palestinians, shed light on the psychological motivations behind attempts to gain acknowledgement that one’s ingroup has been subjected to more injustice than an adversarial social group. The findings show that desire for power plays a key role, and that victimhood experiences (real, perceived or fabricated) have far-reaching consequences for the relations between groups, and “especially in contexts where material and social resources are scarce, group members actively attempt to affirm that one’s own group has been victimized more than the other.”[2]

Given the group evolutionary stakes involved, it’s unsurprising that discourse in many countries is often characterized by competitive victimhood—of different social groups competing over who suffers more. Young and Sullivan note that competitive victimhood is an adaptive behavior through which “groups can unilaterally achieve greater group cohesiveness, provide justification for violence performed in the past, reduce feelings of responsibility for harm doing, increase perceived control through the elicitation of social guilt from the outgroup, and elicit support from third parties.”[3]

The political and economic (and therefore biological) benefits derived from competitive victimhood account for the ubiquity of Jewish victim narratives in contemporary Western culture, and why Jewish historiography is replete with exaggerated accounts of historical calamities, persecution, exile, deportations, and pogroms. According to the standard Jewish account, the biblical Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman of Persia all attempted to annihilate the Jews, followed by a long sequence of enemies, massacres, deportations, inquisitions, and pogroms. Through this lachrymose Jewish victimhood prism, “the Holocaust” is just the latest in this series of recurring victimizations.

Competitive victimhood is built into the liturgical fabric of Judaism through observances like the fast day of Tisha B’Av (the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Av, usually in the middle of August) when Jews reflect on the history of Jewish trauma from the destruction of the First and Second Temples to the medieval expulsions, the Spanish Inquisition, through to “the Holocaust.” One Jewish source notes how “references to the Holocaust, Nazis, Hitler, WWII, Germany etc. seep into the conversation amongst Jews, regardless of age, religious observance, or political affiliation.” Ashkenazi Jews in particular “continue to internalize and carry the trauma of the Holocaust in a way that shapes how we think and behave as Jews in America (and maybe throughout the rest of the world).” Carrying such feelings while comprising an ethnic ruling elite means Jews often feel “both entitlement and victimhood at the same time” which “can become unsettling and paradoxical.”

Jewish activist organizations protest enforcement of the southern border in the U.S. during Tisha B’Av in 2019

This Jewish victimhood mentality is nourished by socialization processes that teach Jews “that victimhood has potential gains, and that aggressiveness can be legitimate and just if one party has suffered from its adversary.”[4] In Israel, victimhood-oriented socialization begins as early as kindergarten and Israeli children are taught that Israelis suffer more than Palestinians, and that they have to protect themselves and fight for their very existence.[5] Research has found the presence of the Holocaust in Israeli school curricula, cultural products, and political discourse has increased, rather than decreased over the years, and that Israelis are increasingly more preoccupied with the Holocaust, constantly dwell on it, and fear that it will “happen again.”[6] One study, moreover, found that:

Jewish Israelis tend to harbor a “perpetual victimhood” representation of their history, as a group that has suffered persecution, discrimination, and threats of annihilation throughout generations, culminating in the Holocaust. Today the presence of the Holocaust in Israel is pervasive, and most Jewish Israelis acknowledge the Holocaust as part of their collective identity and have internalized this victimization as a core feature of their Israeli identity. Thus, Jewish Israelis are raised in a culture that emphasizes the continuity between past suffering and present suffering.[7]

Studies have found that a focus on an ingroup’s victimization (real or perceived) reduces sympathy toward the adversary allegedly responsible for this victimization, as well as toward unrelated adversaries.[8] A group completely preoccupied with its own suffering can develop an “egotism of victimhood” where members are unable to see things from the perspective of the rival group, are unable or unwilling to empathize with the suffering of the rival group, and are unwilling to accept any responsibility for harm inflicted by their own group. Researchers questioned Israeli Jews about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found their “consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.”[9] They found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of “past persecution of Jews” and the Holocaust. That is, the more deeply Israeli Jews have internalized a narrative of historic Jewish persecution, the less sympathy they have for Palestinians. It was this victimhood lens that led Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, on the eve of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, to declare “The alternative to this is Treblinka.’”

Jewish Indifference to Harming Whites

The harm done to White group interests by Jewish activism in the post-World War II era has been enormous. Jews have used their domination of the commanding heights of Western societies to effectively sabotage the successful biological and cultural reproduction of White people, whom they regard, based on their ethnocentric and jaundiced reading of history, as their foremost ethnic adversaries. This sabotage takes many forms, including: lobbying for mass non-White immigration into Western countries; the entrenchment of multiculturalism and diversity as central and unchallengeable pillars of social policy; the hypersexualization of popular culture and championing of sexual and gender non-conformity; the deplatforming and censoring of all dissident opinion; and, lately, the diffusion and mainstreaming of Critical Race Theory through all sections of society, and the designation of any  pro-White advocacy as a form of terrorism. The net result of these policies has been the rapid demographic and cultural decline of White people in countries they founded and dominated for hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of years.

All of these policies, so zealously supported by Jewish activist organizations, and reinforced by the Jewish-dominated education and media sectors, have their ultimate conceptual basis in the Jewish intellectual movements chronicled by Kevin MacDonald in Culture of Critique. These movements were preoccupied with undermining the evolutionarily-adaptive precepts and practices that had historically dominated Western societies, with the implicit objective being to render White Europeans less effective competitors to Jews for access to resources and reproductive success.

Boasian anthropology, for example, overturned established notions regarding the importance of racial differences, and the need to maintain immigration restrictions and instill a strong racial identity in White children (and a strong aversion to miscegenation) as part of their socialization. The ideas of Boasian anthropology were infused (through the determined efforts of Ashley Montagu) into the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka).[10] This Statement (and later UN statements based on it) was described by Robert Wald Sussman (The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea, Harvard University Press, 2014, 207), as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[11] This is because of its role in providing an intellectual justification for pressuring the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to abandon their policies favoring their founding racial stock and ending racial restrictions on immigration.

Reporting on the UNESCO Statement on Race in 1950

Equally damaging to White interests was the assault on the family from the 1960s onwards—part of a great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values. The familial, religious and ethnic ties of White people were presented as an oppressive burden imposed by the past—a way in which parents encumber their offspring with an inheritance of dysfunctional norms. Frankfurt School intellectuals insisted the traditional European family structure was pathogenic and a breeding ground “for the production of ‘authoritarian personalities’ who are inclined to submit to dominant authorities, however irrational.” This view echoed Jewish post-Freudian intellectual Wilhelm Reich, who insisted the authoritarian family is of critical importance for the authoritarian state because the family “becomes the factory in which the state’s structure and ideology are molded.”[12] Crucial for Reich was the repression of childhood sexuality, which, in his view, created children who are docile, fearful of authority, and in general anxious and submissive. Reich claimed the role of traditional “repressive” Western sexual morality was “to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.” Herbert Marcuse agreed, insisting that the “liberation of sexuality and the creation of non-hierarchical democratic structures in the family, workplace and society at large would create personalities resistant to fascism.”[13]

Such ideas motivated the Jewish hypersexualization of Western culture from the 1960s onwards—which led to a revolution in Western sexual mores, family structure and child-rearing practices that have had dire consequences for White group interests. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Applied to gentile culture, the subversive program of psychoanalysis would have the expected effect of resulting in less-competitive children; in the long term, gentile culture would be increasingly characterized by low-investment parenting, and… there is evidence that the sexual revolution inaugurated, or at least greatly facilitated, by psychoanalysis has indeed had this effect.”[14]

While denouncing the traditional White family as proto-fascistic, Frankfurt School intellectuals also championed radical individualism as the quintessence of psychological health for White people. The “sane” individual was promoted as someone who had broken free from the pathogenic norms of Western culture, and realized his or her human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. Jewish Frankfurt School theorist Erich Fromm argued, for instance, in his book The Sane Society (1956) that: “Mental health is characterized by the ability to love and create, by the emergence from incestuous ties to clan and soil, by a sense of identity based on one’s experience of self as the subject and agent of one’s powers, by the grasp of reality inside and outside of ourselves, that is, by the development of objectivity and reason.”[15] The embrace of radical individualism by White people, promoted by the likes of Fromm, was, not surprisingly, conducive (through inhibiting anti-Semitism) to the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive group.

Ethnic Defense or Attack?

Jews, to the extent they admit their involvement in these and other damaging intellectual movements and social policies shaped by them, often portray them as a necessary ethnic “defense” against anti-Semitism. Jewish movie director Jill Soloway claimed, for instance, that Hollywood’s Jews were “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.” From the perspective of White people, however, this “defense” is an incredibly aggressive ethnic attack that threatens our very biological survival in the long term. Research has found that aggressiveness toward outgroups is more likely to be considered legitimate and fair if one’s ingroup is believed to have suffered. For instance, Jewish Canadians who were reminded of the Holocaust accepted less collective guilt for Jews’ harmful actions toward Palestinians than those not reminded of it.[16]

Individuals who identify more strongly with their ingroup engage ever more fiercely in competitive victimhood. As Jews are an extremely ethnocentric group, it is unsurprising that they are particularly prone to engage in competitive victimhood. This behavior is also self-reinforcing in offering psychological payoffs: safe explanations about who is responsible for inter-group conflict and clear boundaries between good and evil.[17] Moreover:

Perceiving one’s own group as the primary victim of the conflict can reduce feelings of guilt that arise when people witness misdeeds perpetrated by ingroup members. By the same token, it may help to rationalize and legitimize acts of revenge against rivals, especially in the post-conflict era. Finally, portraying one’s own group as the “real” victim of the conflict may also serve material purposes, as it frames the group the worthy recipient of sympathy and assistance. Thus, encouraging the perception of one’s own group as the victim may enhance the possibility of receiving moral and practical support from the international community. For all these reasons, it is no wonder that each of the parties involved in a conflict makes great efforts to persuade themselves, rivals, and third parties that their suffering has been the greatest.

 A strong sense of collective victimhood (such as that possessed by Jews) is associated with a low willingness to forgive and an increased desire for revenge. The research shows that people with heightened victimhood express “an increased desire for revenge rather than mere avoidance, and actually were more likely to behave in a revengeful manner.” Such individuals and groups “tend to see their use of violence and aggression as more moral and justified, while seeing the use of violence of the outgroup as unjustified and morally wrong.”[18]

Activist Jews well know the policies they espouse for Western societies harm the group interests of White populations (that’s the whole point). Thus, while the stated mission of the Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is to make Australia a “better place” by “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism,” when it comes to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians this supposed commitment to “inclusion,” “diversity” and “multiculturalism” suddenly gives way to hardnosed biological realism. The problem with Israel adopting the diverse, multicultural approach to nation-building so zealously advocated by the ADC for Australia (and the entire West) is that while it may sound “simple and fair,” it is actually “code for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a majority Palestinian state.” The ADC insists “It is naïve and dangerous to believe such a situation will not occur if Israel is taken over by a growing Palestinian population.”

This rank hypocrisy (and barely-concealed malice) is standard across the gamut of Jewish activist organizations in the West. While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of White people, Jews endeavor to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in Whites. They have initiated and led movements that discredit the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities and in Israel, they have supported the very institutions they attack in Western societies.

Competitive Victimhood through the Construction of Culture

In their quest to outcompete their ethnic adversaries (i.e., White people), diasporic Jews have poured enormous energy into competitive victimhood. Jewish historian Peter Novick has described how today’s culture of “the Holocaust” emerged as part of the collective Jewish response to the Eichmann trial in 1961–62, the Six-Day War in the Middle East in 1967, and, in particular, the Yom Kippur War in 1973. While the foundation was laid at Nuremberg in 1946, it was with these later events, and the anxieties they engendered among Jews throughout the world, that “there emerged in American culture a distinct thing called ‘the Holocaust’—an event in its own right,” and with it a term that entered the English language as a description of all manner of horrors. From that time on, he notes, “the Holocaust” has become “ever more central in American public discourse—particularly, of course, among Jews, but also in the culture at large” and has since “attained transcendent status as the bearer of eternal truths or lessons that could be derived from contemplating it.”[19]

Throughout the West, the proliferating “Holocaust” memorials and museums are lavishly funded by taxpayers, and study of “the Holocaust” in schools is mandated by law in many jurisdictions. As well as serving to morally disarm Whites concerned about their own immigrant-led displacement, the culture of “the Holocaust” is a key part of Jewish efforts to prevent intermarriage in the diaspora. Eric Goldstein, for instance, notes how “Jews discuss, read about, and memorialize the Holocaust with zeal as a means of keeping their sense of difference from non-Jews alive.”[20] “The Holocaust” has become, in the words of Nicholas Kollerstrom, “an ersatz substitute for genuine metaphysical knowledge,” with Auschwitz now serving as the spiritual center of a new religion and a place of awed pilgrimage for millions of penitent Europeans. The narrative has also unleashed an endless flow of money from Germany to Israel and to compensate more “Holocaust” survivors than there were ever Jews in countries under German control.[21]

Novick made the point that that the ubiquity and metaphysical pre-eminence of the Holocaust in Western culture is not a spontaneous phenomenon but the result of highly focused, well-funded efforts of Jewish organizations and individual Jews with access to the major media:

We are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large.[22]

Establishing and maintaining the narrative of pre-eminent Jewish victimhood is supremely important for the cadres of Jewish “diversity” activists and propagandists throughout the West, given the status of the Holocaust as the moral and rhetorical foundation of today’s White displacement agenda. Invocation of this narrative is reflexively used to stifle opposition to the Jewish diaspora strategies of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism.

Suppressing Counter-narratives

The flipside of this constant invocation of the Holocaust as a testament to unsurpassed Jewish victimhood are efforts to suppress discussion of the unsavory Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and communism. This is because free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretentions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. For Jewish academic Daniel Goldhagen, for example, any claim Jews were responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution and its predations is morally reprehensible because “If you associate Jews with communism, or worse, hold communism to be a Jewish invention and weapon, every time the theme, let alone the threat, of communism, Marxism, revolution, or the Soviet Union comes up, it also conjures, reinforces, even deepens thinking prejudicially about Jews and the animus against Jews in one’s country.”[23] It is therefore imperative the topic remain taboo and discussion of it suppressed—regardless of how many historians (Jewish and non-Jewish) confirm the decisive role Jews played in providing the ideological basis for, and the establishment, governance and administration of, the former communist dictatorships of Central and Eastern Europe.

Jewish competitive victimhood accounts for the fact that, since 1945, over 150 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” while the number of films that have been made about the genocide of millions of Eastern Europeans can be counted on one hand—and none have been produced by Hollywood. Those Jewish intellectuals who are willing to admit the obvious—that Jews played a large (probably decisive) role in the Bolshevik Revolution and its bloody aftermath—rationalize this by claiming this involvement was an understandable response to tsarist “anti-Semitism” and “pogroms.” Andrew Joyce has explored how Jewish historians and activists have systematically distorted and weaponized the history of “pogroms” in the former Russian Empire.

Uncritically drawing on this bogus narrative, establishment historians typically ascribe the pogroms to irrational manifestations of hate against Jews, tsarist malevolence, the pathological jealousy and primitive barbarity of the Russian mob, and the “blood libel.” The real underlying causes of peasant uprisings against Jews, such as the Jewish monopolization of entire industries (including the sale of liquor to peasants on credit), predatory moneylending, and radical political agitation, are completely ignored, despite tsarist authorities having repeatedly expressed alarm over how “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[24] Initiatives to move Jews into less socially damaging economic niches, through extending educational opportunities and drafting Jews into the army, were ineffective in altering this basic pattern. With this in mind, the revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin concluded that Jews were “an exploiting sect, a blood-sucking people, a unique, devouring parasite tightly and intimately organized … cutting across all the differences in political opinion.”[25]

Rather than seeing Jewish communist militants as willing agents of ethnically-motivated oppression and mass murder, Jewish intellectuals, like the authors of the book Revolutionary Yiddishland Alain Brossat and Sylvie Klingberg, attempt to depict them as noble victims who tragically “linked their fate to the grand narrative of working-class emancipation, fraternity between peoples, socialist egalitarianism,” and that the militancy of Jewish communists “was always messianic, optimistic, oriented to the Good—a fundamental and irreducible difference from that of the fascists with which some people have been tempted to compare it, on the pretext that one ‘militant ideal’ is equivalent to any other.”[26] In other words, millions may have died due to the actions of Jewish communist militants, but their hearts were pure. Kevin MacDonald notes how Jewish involvement with Bolshevism “is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in all of history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens do not seem to have been an issue for Jewish leftists—a pattern that continues into the present.”[27]

Jewish Competitive Victimhood on Behalf of Non-Whites

Jewish activists not only engage in competitive victimhood on behalf of their ingroup (while suppressing all counter-narratives), but wage competitive victimhood on behalf of other non-White groups (except, of course, for the Palestinians and other groups opposed to Israel). This is plainly motivated by the desire to harm White interests. Through founding and promoting intellectual movements like Critical Race Theory, funding anti-White activism, and deploying anti-White media narratives, Jews stoke non-White grievance and physically endanger White people.

An instructive example of Jews engaging in competitive victimhood on behalf of non-Whites concerns Australia’s Aborigines. Jewish intellectual activists Tony Barta and Colin Tatz, for example, originated the “genocide charge” against White Australians, and have largely succeeded in ensuring that “genocide is now in the vocabulary of Australian politics.” Barta insists that “all white people in Australia” are implicated in a “relationship of genocide” with Aborigines even if they (or their ancestors) lacked any such intention, had only benevolent interactions with Aborigines, or no contact with Aborigines at all. When colonial, and later state and federal governments implemented policies designed to protect Aboriginal people, “genocide” was, for Barta, still “inherent in the very nature of the society.” He advocates this be the “credo taught to every generation of schoolchildren—the key recognition of Australia as a nation founded on genocide.”[28]

Jewish intellectual activist Colin Tatz

Barta’s activism inspired Colin Tatz who, embracing and weaponizing the bogus notion of the “Stolen Generations,” claimed that as a result of “the public’s first knowledge of the wholesale removal of Aboriginal children, the dreaded ‘g’ word is firmly with us,” affirming that the “purpose of my university and public courses” is “to keep it here.”[29] The Sydney Jewish Museum is proudly playing its part in training Australian teachers “not only about the Holocaust” but also about “the Australian genocide.” Inevitably, Barta and Tatz liken rejection of, or even ambivalence toward, their assertion that “Australia is a nation built on genocide” to “Holocaust denial.” In deploying the “genocide” charge against White Australians, they seek to exert the same kind of psychological leverage used to such devastating effect against Germans, who, as Tatz notes, are “weighed down by the Schuldfrage (guilt question)” to such an extent that “guilt, remorse, shame permeate today’s Germany.”[30]

Jewish activists like Barta and Tatz have dedicated their professional lives to ensuring an analogous guilt permeates and becomes indissolubly linked with White Australian identity. In keeping with the exigencies of competitive victimhood, they are, however, careful to not thereby detract from the pre-eminence of the Holocaust.[31] One Jewish source notes how “painful memories of the Holocaust still resonate and make us sensitive to comparisons,” emphasizing the supreme importance of ensuring that “recognising the genocide of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia does not diminish the horror of the Holocaust.” To mitigate this danger, Tatz insists that, in discussing other putative genocides, scholars have a moral obligation to never “ignore, or evade, the lessons and legacies of the Holocaust in pursuit of other case histories.” The Holocaust must forever remain “the paradigm case, the one more analysed, studied, dissected, filmed, dramatized than all other cases put together.” It must endure as “the yardstick by which we measure many things” and be the highest point on “a ‘Richter Scale’ that can help us to locate the intensity, immensity of a case so that we don’t equate all genocides.”[32] This statement is the embodiment of competitive victimhood.

Conclusion

“Competitive victimhood” is a useful intellectual framework for conceptualizing a key strand of Jewish ethnic activism and can be viewed as an important aspect of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. This strategy is multipronged: promote Jews as the world’s foremost victims (despite their status as an ethnic ruling class in Western societies); aggressively suppress all narratives that challenge this status (particularly those that accurately represent Jews as victimizers); and, finally, engage in competitive victimhood on behalf of non-White groups against Whites—while simultaneously seeking to deny the latter any positive collective identity. This multi-layered strategy ultimately conduces to the same overriding goal: to deprive White people of moral authority, confidence, political power, economic resources and reproductive opportunities. While many Jews regard this as a necessary ethnic defense, from the perspective of White people this an aggressive (and intensifying) attack that threatens our long-term survival as a people.

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


[1] Eric W, Dolan, “Study finds the need for power predicts engaging in competitive victimhood,” PsyPost, February 6, 2021. https://www.psypost.org/2021/02/study-finds-the-need-for-power-predicts-engaging-in-competitive-victimhood-59552

[2] Luca Andrighetto, “The victim wars: How competitive victimhood stymies reconciliation between conflicting groups,” The Inquisitive Mind, Issue 5, 2012.  https://www.in-mind.org/article/the-victim-wars-how-competitive-victimhood-stymies-reconciliation-between-conflicting-groups

[3] Isaac F. Young & Daniel Sullivan, “Competitive victimhood: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 2016, 31.

[4] M. Nasie, A.H. Diamond & D. Bar-Tal, “Young children in intractable conflict: The Israeli case,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 2016, 365-92.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Y. Klar, N. Schori-Eyal, N. & Y. Klar, “The ‘never again’ State of Israel: The emergence of the Holocaust as a core feature of Israeli identity and its four incongruent voices,” Journal of Social Issues, 69, 2013, 125-43.

[7] Johanna Ray Vollhardt, The Social Psychology of Collective Victimhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020) 372.

[8] See: S. Cehajic & R. Brown, “Not in my name: A social psychological study of antecedents and consequences of acknowledgement of ingroup atrocities,” Genocide Studies and Prevention, 3, 2008, 195-211 and M.J. Wohl & N.R. Branscombe, “Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup transgressions,” Journal or Personality and Social Psychology,” 94, 2008, 988-1006.

[9] D. Bar-Tal, L. Chernyak-Hai, N. Schori & A Gundar, “A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts,” International Review of the Red Cross, 91, 2009, 229.

[10] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.

[11] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.

[12] Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (London: Penguin, 1970) 64.

[13] Douglas Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) 111.

[14] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 151.

[15] Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (London & New York: Routledge, 1956/1991), 67.

[16] M.J. Wohl & N.R. Branscombe, “Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup transgressions,” Journal or Personality and Social Psychology,” 94, 2008,

[17] M. Noor, N. Schnabel, S. Halabi & A. Nadler, “When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16,  2012, 351-74.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Peter Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 144.

[20] Eric L. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008), 211.

[21] Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality (Uckfield: Castle Hill, 2014), 133.

[22] Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory, 12.

[23] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies (New York NY; Little, Brown & Co., 2013), 291; 126.

[24] John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 5.

[25] Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: the Left, the Jews and Israel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 186.

[26] Alain Brossat & Sylvie Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism (London; Verso, 2016), 56.

[27] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, xl.

[28] Tony Barta, “Realities, Surrealities and the Membrane of Innocence,” In: Genocide Perspectives: A Global Crime, Australian Voices, Ed. Nikki Marczak & Kirril Shields (Sydney: UTS ePress, 2017), 174.

[29] Colin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide (London; Verso, 2003), xvi.

[30] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 3009.

[31] Tatz, With Intent to Destroy, xiii.

[32] Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: A Life Confronting Racism (Clayton, Victoria; Monash University Publishing, 2015), 261.