Featured Articles
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
Antelope Hill Publications, 2025
The page below has more photos, and you can click to see the pages of the index.
David Renton is a Jew. And a lawyer. And a veteran anti-fascist. Obviously, then, he’s far too intelligent, dialectically adept and syllogistically skilled to pwn himself in the crass fashion of the fat food-filcher Billy Bunter, one of the greatest comic characters in English literature:
[A]t that moment Nugent opened the cupboard to lift out the cake. There was no cake to be lifted out. Nugent stared at the spot where a cake had been, and where now only a sea of crumbs met the view. …
“Bunter, you podgy pirate!” exclaimed Harry Wharton. … “Where’s that cake?”
“How should I know? I never even looked into the cupboard, and I never saw any cake when I looked in, either—”
“Scrag him!”
“Boot him!”
“I-I-I say, you fellows, it wasn’t me,” yelled Bunter. “I-I expect you put it somewhere else. It wasn’t there when I ate it — I mean, when I didn’t eat it — If you think I scoffed that cake, I can jolly well say — whoooop! Whoooop! Yarooooh!” (Bunter Comes for Christmas, 1959)
“Sneers of cold command”: the Jewish anti-fascists David Renton (left) and Daniel Trilling
“It wasn’t there when I ate it” — the veteran anti-fascist David Renton would never say anything as consummately stupid and crassly self-convicting as that. But he came pretty close in a recent article he wrote about defending vulnerable non-White men from the “racist notions” of local White women in southern England:
At the start of August, I was one of the organisers of the demo outside the Thistle Barbican hotel [in London]. That protest was called by a meeting of 50 people representing around 20 anti-racist groups. We were a counter-protest to an event calling for the hotel to be closed on racist grounds. […] No far-right organisation was backing the anti-hotel protests. The motivation on their side appeared to be a hostility towards single men, which was based on racist notions about the sexuality of foreigners. The key organisers of the campaign were all women, and they had a local base. After the demo was over, activists would still face the problem of having to isolate them. All this would take time, the best the demo could achieve would be a breathing space before the real work began. (“Working with Stand up to Racism — the good, the bad, the deeply annoying,” David Renton’s personal blog, 21st August 2025)
When Billy Bunter said the cake wasn’t there when he ate it, he was convicting himself out of his own mouth. David Renton is doing the same when he admits that the “key organizers” of the “anti-hotel protests” are all local women. That is, they are women with direct experience of the behavior of young non-White men like those in the hotel. Or they have female relatives and friends whose stories they trust. But Renton has to pretend that the motivation of these women is not direct experience but “hostility towards single men, which was based on racist notions about the sexuality of foreigners.”
Censor reality, smear realists
What happened to those two core principles of the left, “Believe Women” and “Trust Women’s Lived Experience”? Well, they had to give way to two even more core principles of the left: “Reality Is Racist” and “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy.” When reality contradicts ideology, leftists have a simple solution: censor reality and smear realists as “racist.” Accordingly, while leftists like Renton claim to be deeply concerned about protecting women from male violence, they happily abandon White women and girls seeking protection against non-White men who are higher in the leftist hierarchy of racial privilege. Indeed, leftists go further: as rape-gang redoubts like Rotherham have proved, they will actively assist racially privileged non-White men to commit sex-crimes against racially unprivileged White women and girls.
“Hear and obey, goyim!” Jewish judge David Bean overturns a pro-White injunction (video from Vox Populi)
That is what David Renton and his fellow anti-fascists are trying to do in their “counter demonstration” against local women with “lived experience” of the behavior of the so-called asylum-seekers. The local women and girls are White, the imported men are non-White. Therefore, in leftist eyes, the non-White men should be free to prey as they please on the White women and girls. That’s why a panel of leftist judges acted for the Labour government and overturned an injunction won by a local council in Essex against a hotel housing asylum-seekers, one of whom has now been found guilty of sexual assaults against “two teenagers and a woman.” The injunction said that the hotel had to stop housing asylum-seekers, which would obviously help protect local White women. But leftists don’t want to protect White women: they want to maintain the predatory privilege of non-White men. Accordingly, the Labour government appealed against the injunction and leftist judges duly overturned it, arguing that the rights of foreign non-White men trumped all concerns of local residents. The senior judge who intoned the anti-White ruling was a Jew called David Bean, who “was educated at St Paul’s School, an all-boys private school in Barnes, London.”
Importing sex-criminals
The Jewish lawyer David Renton was educated at an even more exclusive private school called Eton, also the alma mater of the part-Jewish prime ministers Boris Johnson and David Cameron. Renton claims to have “loathed” Eton, which is why he became a revolutionary socialist and joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), a Trotskyist sect led by the charismatic Israeli Jew Tony Cliff (aka Yigael Gluckstein). But in fact Renton fully absorbed one aspect of Eton’s elitism. Like his supposed political opponents Johnson and Cameron, he believes that ordinary Whites should have no say over immigration and over who enters their neighborhoods. Johnson and Cameron both promised to drastically reduce immigration; Johnson and Cameron both proceeded to massively increase it.
More vibrant migrants = more sexual violence
Strangely enough, as more and more non-White men have enriched the British Isles, we’ve seen more and more rapes and other sex-crimes. We’ve also seen more and more White women join the “far right” and campaign against non-White migration. Could it be that these women are basing their opposition to non-White migration on their “lived experience” of sexual assault and harassment by non-White men? Not according to David Renton. Here’s part of a mansplaining article he wrote for the Guardian:
When we deal with the far right now, we are facing a movement that is pushing forward a group of female leaders — that feels different from five years ago, let alone 50 years since. In Islington, one of the speeches came from a woman described as running a local nursery (it was read out on her behalf). The contemporary far right is focused on pushing a single narrative about refugees, all based on the same logic — that the people in the hotel are single men, are foreigners, and on both scores are likely to be sexual predators.
This argument wins supporters, and it shields them from accusations that they are extremists. The only way to confront this is to meet it head on, by rejecting any idea that foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts. The logic of the argument is racist — it relies on the assumption that just because they are migrants, or asylum seekers, or not white (and with no other supportive evidence), they must be more prone to sexual violence than the men who already live here.
And the simplest, one-line refutation of it is to look at the men who were arrested for offences in the various race riots that followed events at Southport last year. Of those men, a staggering 40% have been reported to the police for domestic violence. There is, in other words, probably no single group of people — not in Britain or anywhere else — who are more prone to violence against women than the people now standing outside the hotels denouncing refugees. (“Lessons from an asylum hotel counter-protest: calling our opponents ‘fascist’ doesn’t work,” The Guardian, 29th August 2025)
According to the non-local Jewish man David Renton, local White women in places enriched by “asylum seekers” are not acting on lived experience but on racist “assumptions” about non-White men. But he goes further: he is implicitly arguing that the lived experience of the White women must be that they are in more danger from the White men accompanying them on their protests. In other words, David Renton and his fellow anti-fascists know the women’s lived experience better than the women themselves do. That’s why Renton demands that we “[reject] any idea that foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts.”
We’ve got to reject that notion because it’s based on repulsive racism against “foreign men” and “Muslims.” That’s according to David Renton in the staunchly anti-racist Guardian. Here’s something else from the staunchly anti-racist Guardian:
Poll ranks India the world’s most dangerous country for women
A survey of global experts puts Afghanistan and Syria in second and third place, with the US the only western nation in the top 10
India is the world’s most dangerous country for women due to the high risk of sexual violence and being forced into slave labour, according to a poll of global experts. Afghanistan and Syria ranked second and third in a Thomson Reuters Foundation survey of 548 experts on women’s issues, followed by Somalia and Saudi Arabia.
The only western nation in the top 10 was the US, which ranked joint third when respondents were asked where women were most at risk of sexual violence, harassment and being coerced into sex. The poll was a repeat of a survey in 2011, in which experts saw Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, India and Somalia as the most dangerous countries for women.
Experts said India moving to the top position showed not enough was being done to tackle the danger women faced, more than five years after the rape and murder of a student on a Delhi bus made violence against women a national priority. “India has shown utter disregard and disrespect for women … rape, marital rapes, sexual assault and harassment, female infanticide has gone unabated,” said Manjunath Gangadhara, an official at the Karnataka state government. “The (world’s) fastest growing economy and leader in space and technology is shamed for violence committed against women.”
Government data shows reported cases of crimes against women in India rose by 83% between 2007 and 2016, when there were four cases of rape reported every hour. The survey asked respondents which five of the 193 UN member states they thought were most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of healthcare, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking.
Respondents also ranked India the most dangerous country for women in terms of human trafficking, including sex and domestic slavery, and for customary practices such as forced marriage, stoning and female infanticide. India’s ministry of women and child development declined to comment. Afghanistan fared worst in four of the seven questions, with concerns over healthcare and conflict-related violence. (“Poll ranks India the world’s most dangerous country for women,” The Guardian, 28th June 2018)
The over-achieving non-White countries in that article — India, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia — have all supplied large numbers of migrants to Britain. And four of those non-White countries are majority-Muslim. But White-majority Britain itself isn’t one of the over-achievers when it comes to rape and other forms of violence against women. Nor does Britain regularly generate headlines like these in the Guardian:
∙ Third teenage girl is raped and burned alive in India in one week
∙ Hundreds of women raped and burned to death after Goma prison set on fire
∙ Girls as young as nine gang-raped by paramilitaries in Sudan
∙ The living hell of young girls enslaved in Bangladesh’s brothels
∙ Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores ‘corrective’ attacks
∙ Activists call for state of emergency in Nigeria over gender-based violence
∙ Refugee women and children ‘beaten, raped and starved in Libyan hellholes’
∙ Mona Eltahawy: Egyptian women are sexually harassed at every level of society
So here’s a simple question: Do such articles in the Guardian show that “foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts”?
Well, only in reality. And leftists believe that racist reality must always give way to anti-racist ideology. In any case, even if non-White men are “more prone to sexual offences” in their homelands, they immediately cease to be so when they’re resident on Western soil, which has special, supernatural qualities capable of transforming all non-Whites into fully authentic Westerners. Yes, leftists like David Renton also believe in “magic dirt,” as the leading hate-thinker Vox Day calls it. That’s why the male outsider Renton knows that local women are acting on racist “assumptions” when they object to the presence of vibrant-but-vulnerable men from countries which, according to “global experts” in the Guardian, perform so well in the competition to be crowned “world’s most dangerous country for women.”
Summarizing Semitic supremacism
Let’s sum up what we now know about the Jewish anti-fascist David Renton. He’s a Marxist materialist who believes in magic. He’s a fierce feminist who believes that White women should shut up and submit to sexual violence by non-White men. And he’s a dedicated defender of the working-class who believes that the White working-class must obey the diktats of an elite that hates them. How can we explain all these contradictions? I think there’s a big clue in the title of one of Renton’s many books. It’s called Labour’s Antisemitism Crisis: What the Left Got Wrong and How to Learn From It (2021).
What’s good for goyim is not good for Jews: Stone Toss on Jewish double standards
I think that, like his fellow Jewish anti-fascist Daniel Trilling, David Renton is interested only in defending what he sees as Jewish interests. He supports non-White migration because he thinks it’s good for Jews. And he was “one of the organisers” of the anti-fascist demonstration because he thinks pro-White activism is bad for Jews. I suggest that no other consideration truly matters to him. And certainly not the welfare of White women and girls. Those women and girls know from direct experience that “foreign men” and “Muslims” are indeed “more prone to sexual offences than their British [i.e., White] counterparts.” But so what? That’s the repulsive racism of reality. And Renton rejects reality because reality isn’t good for Jews.
2999 Words
Last month Tucker Carlson had chemistry professor David Collum on his podcast to discuss Collum’s original takes on a host of topics. These include the Hunter Biden laptop, the origin of COVID, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Diddy Trial, Q-Anon, and many others. A fascinating discussion. Fairly soon, however, a theme emerged—all is not as it seems, and if you dig deeper you’ll likely find cynical actors doing nasty things in the name of some ideal. A pretty safe bet, it would seem. Then, in the middle of the interview, after an amusing anecdote about bass fishing, the pair briefly ventured into the ultimate taboo, World War II (~1:04)
COLLUM: Well, you know, now, first of all what is the truth right? The truth is now becoming very ambiguous. Last year I wrote about the history of World War II. I did a mini Daryl Cooper.[1]
CARLSON: Yes.
COLLUM: And it started when I read a book by Diana West[2], who would be good if you interviewed her. And it was a revisionist history of World War II. And you go, “Well, why would you want to read that?” Well, it turns out I think the story we got about World War II is all wrong.
CARLSON: Actually, I think that’s right.
COLLUM: And then I read about FDR and FDR’s right-hand man was a Soviet spy.[3]
CARLSON: Certainly was. Confirmed, confirmed, by the way.
COLLUM: One can make the argument we should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin. Patton said that. And maybe there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust, right? But Stalin was awful by any metric and we weren’t his ally. The story is that there were a few missing American soldiers at the end of World War II in Russian territory.
CARLSON: No!
COLLUM: 15 to 20,000 were missing and we left them there. And then you read about Pearl Harbor. We all sort of know the Pearl Harbor story’s not what we’re told. But I dug into that, and you find out that we knew to the morning that Pearl Harbor was going to get attacked. Stalin knew it was going to be attacked. He wanted us to take the Japanese off his flank. And FDR’s right-hand man was okay with that because he was a Soviet spy, right?
By refusing to demonize Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, Collum enters the sometimes murky and always dangerous territory of Second World War revisionism. As the traditional narrative justifying America’s role in it grows ever shakier, Collum asks whether America should have sided with Hitler rather than Stalin. Not only have we uncovered historical evidence which counters this narrative, but Collum seems to imply that the Nazis were in higher moral ground than the Soviets. And this comes while the West begins to succumb to forces the Nazis would never have tolerated, namely, cultural Marzism, mass-immigration, and Islam.
In response to Collum’s broad-brush analysis, historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a fine-point rebuttal. Only, he fails to answer Collum’s main question directly. Hanson seems to assume that if he can refute the four points which Collum offhandedly produces to bolster his argument, he can discredit the question entirely. (Here he discusses the topic at greater length.)
This is a false assumption. First, there could have been more to the story. Collum and Carlson spent less than two minutes discussing the Second World War, while Hanson, in his Daily Signal piece, refutes it in seven (seventeen in the longer video linked above). Clearly Collum wasn’t prepared to revise the war on Carlson’s show, and likely would have shored up his arguments in a more formal setting. Perhaps a more fair-minded response from Hanson would have been either to read what Collum has already written on the subject before commenting, or invite him on his show to discuss it further. Unfortunately, he did neither. Second, VDH does not offer affirmative reasons why America should have sided with Stalin rather than Hitler. Instead, he nitpicks the bark off the trees, while missing the forest entirely. Finally, by casually mentioning that Stalin was a “monster” who had “killed twenty million people” before the war, Hanson invalidates his own position and doesn’t seem to realize it.
Hanson:
Number one, he said the Soviets had killed 15 to 20,000 POWs when they inherited them after freeing the American POWS from German prisoner of war camps in the east. That’s not true. There was a joint Soviet American commission. There were agreements that the Soviets would return American prisoners. There were disagreements about whether the allies would return Russian prisoners to Russia because some of them had been captured fighting, most of them, for Germany. And Stalin wanted to kill them or work them to death, and they wanted asylum. But other than that, eventually most of the Americans found their way back to Allied lines and were repatriated. Were there some that we don’t know about today? Yes. But over a four-year period, there were a lot of Americans that were captured and held in German prisoner war camps, were shot on the battlefield, were blown—We didn’t know what happened to them. But the idea that we would allow 15 to 20,000 American POWS in Russian hands to die is not true. It can’t be substantiated.
First of all, since all this happened well after the war started, it has little bearing on the comparative moral status of the belligerents in 1939, which, presumably, would have helped the United States determine a side to favor. So it’s a bit of a red herring. In any event, after Stalin’s atrocities in the 1920s and 1930s, 20,000 unaccounted Allied POWs is a drop in the bucket (0.1%). Still, by dismissing Collum’s claim that the US abandoned so many POWs, VDH runs into the research of James Sanders in his 1992 work Soldiers of Misfortune. Subtitle: “Washington’s Secret Betrayal of American POWs in the Soviet Union.” Also standing in his way is John M.G. Brown who, in a 1990 Veteran Views article, stated that Stalin used tens of thousands of Allied POWs as pawns to blackmail the Allies into returning millions of captured Soviets for him to kill or enslave. Brown reports that while some Allied POWs were returned, “Stalin reneged on full reciprocation and most of the Allied POWs disappeared into secret, special camps.” To save face, the Allies then scaled down the number of soldiers lost to the Soviets.
I’m sure Hanson is aware of these sources, which were possibly also Collum’s. In any event, either Hanson is right, or Sanders and Brown are. There is no middle ground. If it’s the former, then Hanson needs to state categorically that the work of Sanders and Brown have been debunked since their publication dates. But even if he could do that, it does not refute Collum’s main thesis that Stalin was worse than Hitler. After all, Stalin was cold-blooded enough to hold tens of thousands of his allies hostage in order to murder a much larger number of expat or captured Russians after the war ended— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn places it at over 1.5 million in his 1975 volume Warning to the West. Doesn’t such grotesque behavior make Stalin worse than Hitler, who at least waited until war was declared before doing his killing?
VDH then takes on Collum’s claim that General George Patton believed that America “should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin.” Here he sets up a strawman and slaps it down. As pro-consul of Bavaria, Patton was not above enlisting former Nazis—rehabilitated or not—to help administer the region since postwar conditions were dire and manpower limited.
Hanson explains:
That led to further statements, he said, as the Red Army violated the Yalta agreements and the Potsdam agreements and did not hold free elections or free communications and transportation and intercourse between occupied Russian territory and occupied Allied territory. A new proto-, I guess you would call it, a proto-iron curtain had already emerged. And Patton at one point said to Eisenhower and others, “I know we’re going to be in a war cold or hot with the Soviet Union and we’re here. Let’s not go back to the United States. Let’s confront them militarily to make them honor their agreements, and if we don’t have the manpower, the wherewithal . . . ”—Russia had 500 divisions; the allies had about 200— “. . . we can always use veterans from the German army.” That’s about as close to lunacy as he said. It was an unfortunate remark, but he didn’t say while Hitler was alive, we should have joined the Nazis to fight Stalin.
VDH fails to note that Collum’s claim about Patton implies looking back in time. According to Collum, it seems, Patton felt this way after the war ended, and not while the Wehrmacht was raining down lethal fire upon his beloved Third Army. So VDH’s possibly true claim that Patton never said such outlandish things “while Hitler was alive” is a completely useless point. Sophistry, if you will.
Further, it flies in the face of evidence revealing that Patton did say after the war that the US had fought the wrong enemy. If not, then Hanson must contend with research and reminiscences by Anthony Cave Brown in his 1975 work Bodyguard of Lies Volume II, Phillip Coleman in his 1987 work Cannon Fodder: Growing up for Vietnam, and Betty South in her 1953 National Guardsman article “We Called Him Uncle Georgie,” all of which cite how Patton stated that the US had faced the wrong enemy all along.
Finally, why was the remark unfortunate? Because it put General Eisenhower in the hot seat? Because it offended the “monster” Josef Stalin? Because it caused Patton to be sacked from Third Army command? Eighty years after the fact, are these really good reasons? Were they ever? This would be like calling Galileo’s claims of planetary motion “unfortunate” because they put him under house arrest by the Pope. The only good reason to consider Patton’s remark unfortunate today would be if they were wrong. And VDH has yet to prove that they were.
Although Hanson does not list this as one of Collum’s three main points, in the longer piece I link above he also addresses Colllum’s claim that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set up. Basically, President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war against Germany and did everything he could to provoke the militaristic Japan, Germany’s ally, into attacking US forces which were conveniently placed at Pearl Harbor. Hanson respects this position up to a point, but doesn’t seem to realize that he respects it enough to validate Collum.
I do know that FDR ordered in May of 1940, Admiral Richardson, the head of the Seventh Fleet, to move the base in San Diego all the way to Pearl Harbor. And he said, “I’m putting my head in a noose. The Seventh Fleet is not able to deter the Japanese Imperial Fleet in the Pacific. If you put me way out in the middle of nowhere in Hawaii, I will not have the infrastructure, the air support that I would have in San Diego.” And he kept complaining and they relieved him. Then Admiral Kimmel took over and he was relieved of command. I think 3 weeks afterwards, he was the fall guy. And out of that came a conspiracy that Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions, putting us out very vulnerable so we would be attacked. There may be some truth to that, but the idea that there’s a big untold story of Pearl Harbor is not true. We pretty much know that Roosevelt wanted to get in the war sooner or later. He felt that Europe would fall and he underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy, but he didn’t plan to have Pearl Harbor attacked.
This seems like a distinction without a difference. How could there be “some truth” to this conspiracy, but not enough to validate Collum’s claim that “the Pearl Harbor story’s not what we’re told?” Also, if FDR really “underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy” wouldn’t that support the idea that he deliberately made the Pacific fleet vulnerable to an attack by a not-so-harmful enemy? Unfortunately, Hanson does not bring up evidence discovered by Robert Stinnett in his 1999 work Day of Deceit which all but proves that FDR wanted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This evidence includes:
Hanson’s strongest point comes in response to Collum’s weakest claim—that maybe the Jewish Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if the US had sided with Germany. In staking this claim so delicately, I’m sure Collum would be the first to switch that “maybe” into a “maybe not.” Regardless, Hanson delves into German anti-Jewish atrocities which he says commenced on the very day of the invasion of Poland in 1939, and then suggests that the industrialized Jewish Holocaust would have happened one way or the other. Maybe that’s true. That the Germans killed large numbers of Jews during the war—perhaps up to the high end of four million as cited by David Cole in this 2013 Guardian article—won’t be contested here. At the time, Eastern European Jews (or Ostjuden) were notorious for their left-wing radicalism. Any Jew captured in enemy territory would have been more likely than anyone else to cause problems for the Reich as partisans. And this says nothing of all the atrocities that Soviet Jews had committed during the interwar period, which the Nazis were fully aware of and rightly feared.
Since the Nazis were in effect fighting Ragnarök against an evil enemy in the Soviets, as well as deceitful ones in the United States (according to Stinnett) and England (according to David Hoggan in his 1961 work The Forced War) they had little reason to keep Jews around once they got their mitts on them. Cruel? Yes. And did a goodly number of Germans overdo it on the cruelty? I’m sure they did. But VDH has his work cut out for him persuading us that Hitler deserved to be America’s enemy more than Stalin when Stalin with his twenty million victims had been worse on the Russians than Hitler was. According to numbers compiled by Louis Rapoport in his 1990 work Stalin’s War Against the Jews, Stalin may even have approached Hitler’s numbers when it came to killing Jews.
Hanson also does not step far enough into Collum’s thought experiment. Yes, it is absurd that FDR and his disproportionately Jewish Brain Trust would have sided with the anti-Semitic Hitler against the disproportionately Jewish-led Soviet Union. But if, in Bizarro world, this had happened, the star-spangled Axis would have smashed the Anglo-Soviet alliance in less than a year. As such, the Germans, now on the winning side, would have had less reason to commit such a cruel and desperate act as the Jewish Holocaust, and, more importantly, less time. So Collum is on firm ground proposing the Jewish Holocaust as it known today might have not happened had FDR plopped for the Axis, despite Hanson’s presentation of Germany’s violent anti-Semitic bona fides.[4]
Most importantly, Hanson neglects to recognize how he himself immolates his own argument. By August 1939, Stalin had killed twenty million people during peacetime, whereas the Nazis had bumped off a microscopic fraction of that. Further, all Nazi atrocities occurred during wartime, after the British and French had declared war on them. Isn’t that enough to prove David Collum correct? If not, then what reason could there possibly have been for Roosevelt to see the Nazis as the more deserving enemy?
Despite Hanson’s best efforts, there isn’t one. Instead, he notes both astutely and regrettably a recent theme in Tucker Carlson’s podcasts, that “the Jews are at the problem of all these things.”
Victor Davis Hanson may be wrong in his assessment of David Collum, but he is certainly right about that.
[1] “[M]ini-Darryl Cooper,” refers to Tucker Carlson’s 2024 interview with podcaster and historian Darryl Cooper, who shares much of Collum’s Second World War skepticism. The internet pretty much exploded as a result, with the Left denouncing Cooper as a Nazi apologist, and the mainstream Right—Hanson included—taking Cooper to task over the facts.
[2]The Diana West book Collum refers to refers to is American Betrayal, published in 2013. “Read her lively response to Collum here in which she rejects both Collum’s and Hanson’s characterizations of her work.
[3]The “right-hand man” of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been his advisor Harry Hopkins, whom historian Sean McMeekin claims in chapter 29 of his 2021 work Stalin’s War had passed American nuclear secrets and fissile material to his Soviet spymasters as part of the Lend-Lease program. More likely, however, the Soviet mole in the White House was the Jewish Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, whom McMeekin bluntly describes as an “NKVD asset.” Former Soviet agent Whittaker Chambers said as much in chapter ten of his famous 1952 work Witness.
[4] Surprisingly, former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir shared a similar opinion, as revealed by Gordon Thomas in his 1999 history of the Mossad Gideon’s Spies. Shamir felt a rapprochement between Roosevelt and Hitler would have allowed Hitler to complete his repatriation of Jews to Palestine as part of his “Transfer Agreement,” thus preventing the Jewish Holocaust from ever happening.
Modern Western culture has little in common with the pre-1960s West. The values which pertained in Western Europe up to the 1960s were based around the traditional family, with homosexuality and abortion being taboo and/ or illegal. This contrasts with the relatively recent obsession with the promotion of homosexuality, abortion, and transgenderism. Additionally, when the European Convention of Human Rights was written in 1950, capital punishment was considered consistent with human rights, though now it is not.
It was in the 1960s that Western countries began moving away from their traditional values and towards their present decadence. This entailed the cultural dominance of pop and rock music, and the decriminalisation of sodomy, abortion, pornography, and prostitution. A Westerner from the 1950s would recognise their values today in the societies of Hungary or Poland more so than in a Western European country.
From the death of Stalin, the whole of Eastern Europe, which had been oppressed under his totalitarian rule, began to proceed towards the ideals of dignified persons within a family and within the Nation-State. This has been a long, slow process which has led to the present situation whereby the countries of Eastern Europe somewhat resemble the societies of Westen Europe from before the 1960s. They are ethno-states which oppose mass migration, and which are opposed to the LGBT agenda.
Following the death of Stalin, popular discontent in Hungary forced the removal of Matthias Rakosi, and while the Hungarian Revolution failed, it demonstrated the desire of Hungarians for liberation. The Prague Spring was also popularly supported, and its ideals lived on with the Charter 77 movement which criticised the Czechoslovak government. Mikhail Gorbachev stated that his Glasnost policy was predicated on the policies of the Prague Spring, while the Polish Solidarity movement was successful in ending Communism in Poland.
The mutual transformation of Western and Eastern societies was described in the commencement speech that Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave at Harvard University in 1978 in which he outlined how Western culture had already by then reached a state that he could not recommend for Russia. This author’s article intersperses Solzhenitsyn’s speech within the text in italics.
Changing Consciousnesses
Under Stalin, and to a lesser extent until the end of the Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc was oppressed by Communism which “spiritually trained” those populations, as Solzhenitsyn stated at Harvard:
A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time, we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being. Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant points.
This domination by Communism strengthened the resolve in the peoples of the Eastern bloc, which spurred the end of Communism; and since when, there has been no impediment to the development of a more organic culture. By contrast, in the West, egoism became dominant from the 1960s, and as described by Solzhenitsyn:
The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
East and West have now two completely distinct attitudes towards “same-sex marriage”; while in Western Europe there is largely cross-party support in favour of this, in Eastern Europe there is cross-party support against it. This demonstrates how Eastern and Western European politics occur on different planes of consciousnesses, given that on social issues Polish liberals are to the right of Swedish conservatives, and Dutch conservatives are to the left of Hungarian liberals. It is the Eastern attitude which is organic whereas the Western attitude is symptomatic of a very modern decadence.
Execution and Abortion: A Western Inversion
Another illustration of this can be seen in regard to Western attitudes to execution and abortion. That the law regarding abortion and capital punishment changed around the same time in certain countries demonstrates how internally logical these issues are. In Britain, the last execution took place in 1965 while abortion became legal in 1967. In France, the law introducing abortion came into force in 1975 while the last execution took place in 1977. In the Unites States this can be seen by contrasting Roe v Wade with Furman v Georgia and Gregg v Georgia.
In Roe (1973), the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to abortion, while in Furman (1972) execution was found to be unconstitutional due to inconsistent application; though this was then overturned in Gregg (1977) which found that execution was in general constitutional. In Roe, the two dissenting judges— Justices White and Rehnquist — were in the majority in Gregg, while the two dissenters in Gregg- Justices Brennan and Marshall — were in the majority in Roe.
In Gregg, Brennan stated that “The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person’s humanity […] An executed person has indeed ‘lost the right to have rights.'” Brennan did not reason thusly in Roe with regard to unborn babies but then as described here, being pro-abortion and anti-execution are logically correlated.
Thus, from the 1960s to 1990s both East and West displayed different forms of egoism:
…boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.
The transformation of Western and Eastern consciousnesses had occurred to such an extent by 1978 that Solzhenitsyn found that the West was not an attractive alternative:
But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.
Into The West
The reburial of Imre Nagy in 1989 at which Viktor Orban gave a speech demonstrates the continuity between Nagy and Orban. In Poland the two main parties, Law and Justice and Civic Platform, are descended from the anti-Communist Solidarity movement. In fact, Viktor Orban, Robert Fico, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and Călin Georgescu are the heirs of Imre Nagy, Alexander Dubcek, Vaclav Havel, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa, and Solzhenitsyn. It is therefore clear that since the 1990s Eastern Europe possesses family values in contrast to the permissive values of the modern West; this is the opposite of the nature of these societies before the 1960s.
It could be asked whether rising affluence in Eastern Europe could bring an end to their current cultures. This likely will not happen due to another factor unless there is an upsurge in Jewish influence. In the West, Jews have been at the forefront of making and promoting pornography and other degenerate media culture, and they are a pillar of the cultural left generally. Not coincidentally, the rise to political and cultural power of the Jews in the West, after increasing gradually throughout the twentieth century, surged after World War II, reaching a dominant position in the 1960s — exactly the period during which the dramatic changes alluded to above occurred throughout the West, and in addition saw the beginnings of replacement-level immigration of non-Europeans into the West, exemplified by the 1965 immigration law in the United States.
These statements captured India’s early position with respect to Israel vis-à-vis Palestine. Before independence, India consistently endorsed Arab self-determination in Palestine. In 1947, India was one of only 13 nations to oppose the United Nations’ Partition Plan. Sir Abdur Rahman, the representative for India at the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), argued, “The people of Palestine have now admittedly reached a stage of development where their recognition as an independent nation can no longer be delayed. They are in no way less advanced than the people of the other free and independent Asiatic countries.” He warned that failure to grant independence would perpetuate violence.
India recognized Israel in 1950, yet its Cold War alignment with the Soviet Union and leadership role in the Non-Aligned Movement kept relations minimal. India consistently sided with Arab states, backing Egypt during the 1956 Suez Crisis and becoming the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974. The following year, India authorized a PLO office in New Delhi, and in 1988 it officially recognized the State of Palestine.
This decades-long solidarity with Palestine only shifted after the Soviet collapse. In 1992, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government established full diplomatic relations with Israel. His decision, influenced by RSS figure Bhaurao Deoras, represented a turning point. India continued to voice support for Palestine in international forums, but its practical ties with Israel rapidly expanded.
Hindutva: Ideological Roots of a New Alignment
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the father of Hindutva, expressed explicit admiration for Zionism. In the Essentials of Hindutva, he declared: “If the Zionists’ dreams are ever realised — if Palestine becomes a Jewish state — it will gladden us almost as much as our Jewish friends.” After Israel’s creation in 1948, he stated,”I am happy that most of the four countries have given the Jewish people the right to establish a Jewish state of their own in Palestine and have provided them with arms for that.”
Savarkar condemned India’s anti-Zionist position during the early days of the formation of the Jewish state. He lamented that “it is… to be regretted that the delegation which represented our Hindusthani Government in the UNO should have voted against the creation of the Jewish State,” and celebrated Israel as a force to “checkmate the aggressive tendencies of Moslem fanaticism in general.”
Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar Golwalkar, RSS chief from 1940 to 1973, likewise praised Jewish nationalism. He described Palestine as “the natural territory of the Jewish people, essential to their aspiration for nationhood,” and admired the Jews for maintaining their “religion, culture and language.” As early as 1930, Golwalkar remarked, “The reconstruction of the Hebrew Nation in Palestine is just an affirmation of the fact that Country, Race, Religion, Culture, and Language must exist unavoidably together to form a full Nation idea.”
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, co-founder of the Jan Sangh (the BJP’s predecessor), echoed this praise in Integral Humanism (1965): “Israeli Jews lived for centuries with other peoples scattered far and wide, yet they did not get annihilated in the societies in which they lived.” He emphasized Jewish resilience, concluding, “When a group of persons lives with a goal, an ideal, a mission, and looks upon a particular piece of land as motherland, this group constitutes a nation.”
From Ideology to State Policy
The rise of the BJP transformed these ideological sympathies into policy. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee deepened ties, sending Home Minister L.K. Advani to Israel in 2000 and hosting Ariel Sharon in India in 2003.
The transformation from ideological sympathy to practical alliance found its embodiment in Lieutenant General Jack Farj Rafael Jacob, the highest-ranking Jewish officer to serve in the Indian Army throughout its history. Born to a Baghdadi Jewish family, Jacob’s most celebrated achievement came during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, where he served as Chief of Staff of the Eastern Command. His strategic planning and execution were instrumental in one of the most decisive military victories in modern warfare.
Jacob’s prominence within India’s defense establishment made him a symbolic bridge between Indian and Israeli strategic thinking. In 1991, Jacob was approached by Professor Manohar Sondhi to join the BJP. After three months of consideration, he agreed to be a national security advisor. Jewish media outlets consistently celebrated Jacob with reverent descriptions. The Times of Israel called him “India’s Lion of Judah,” emphasizing his role as the preeminent Jewish leader in Indian military affairs.
With Narendra Modi—a lifelong RSS pracharak (Hindi: one who propagates)—the relationship reached unprecedented closeness. Modi referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as “my friend Bibi,” and in 2017 became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel without stopping in Palestinian territories.
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat praised Israel’s national strength, arguing it was “a small nation which stood tall due to its resolve.” He frequently cited Israel’s victories in six wars as a model for India to follow.
BJP strategists have also explicitly borrowed from Zionist political practice. In 2015, BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav compared India’s diaspora strategy to Jewish lobbying for Israel, “We are changing the contours of diplomacy and looking at new ways of strengthening Bharat’s interests abroad. They can be Bharat’s voice even while being loyal citizens in those countries. This is the long-term goal behind diaspora diplomacy. It is like the way the Jewish community looks out for Israel’s interests in the United States.”
Military Cooperation: From Clandestine to Comprehensive
The 1999 Kargil War cemented the alliance. Israel supplied laser-guided bombs, drones, electronic warfare systems, and satellite intelligence at a time when the United States and Europe had imposed sanctions over India’s nuclear tests. Former Israeli ambassador Daniel Carmon later remarked: “The Indians always remind us that Israel was there for them during the Kargil war… The Indians don’t forget this and might now be returning the favour.”
Since then, cooperation has expanded into multi-billion-dollar programs: the Barak missile systems, developed jointly with India’s DRDO; the Phalcon AWACS deal of 2004, worth $1.1 billion; purchases of UAVs, from early Searcher drones to advanced Heron systems; indigenous production of Hermes 900 drones; and joint development of the Barak-8 long-range surface-to-air missile.
India is now the largest buyer of Israeli arms, accounting for 46% of Israel’s weapons exports. Annual defense trade exceeds $1.5 billion, with Israel ranking as India’s second-largest supplier.
The Mumbai Attacks: A Watershed Moment
The attacks specifically targeted multiple sites including the Nariman House Chabad Center. The Chabad House was deliberately selected, with investigators later revealing that Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency was “especially pleased with the choice of the Jewish Chabad House as a target.”
The BJP seized the opportunity to leverage the threat of Islamist terrorism and government security failures for electoral advantage. More significantly, the Mumbai attacks catalyzed deeper intelligence and defense collaboration between India and Israel. Israeli officials have repeatedly drawn direct parallels between the Mumbai attacks and Israel’s own experiences with terrorism. Israeli Consul General Kobbi Shoshani stated in 2023: “There is a direct line linking the two attacks (the 26/11 and October 7 attacks),” emphasizing that “the bond between India and Israel is not only because we are brothers or because of our history, it’s because of our DNA to fight against terrorism.”
The Rise of Philosemitism and Chabad’s Political Integration
Modi’s response demonstrated remarkable personal commitment: “Come and stay in India and Mumbai. You are most welcome. You and all your family members will get long-term visas. So you can come anytime and go anywhere.” Modi followed through by personally ensuring that 10-year multiple entry visas were issued to Moshe and his grandparents.
This relationship transcended typical diplomatic protocol. In December 2019, Modi sent a deeply personal message for Moshe’s Bar Mitzvah, calling his story “one of miracle and hope overcoming tragedy and immeasurable loss.” Modi emphasized that “the perpetrators of the cowardly terrorist attack in Mumbai clearly failed in their intent. They could not subdue our vibrant diversity. Nor could they dampen our spirit to march forward. Today, India and Israel stand together even more determined against terrorism and hatred.”
The BJP’s institutional support for Chabad reflects broader Hindu nationalist philosemitic attitudes. Many factions of world Jewry have recognized the Hindu nationalist movement’s receptiveness to Judaism. The influential American Jewish Committee explicitly praised the BJP’s stance, stating, “BJP has long been a friend to Israel and the Jewish people.” The organization noted it had “worked closely with India’s vibrant Jewish community, numbering about 4,500 – including 150 from Modi’s home state of Gujarat.”
Chabad’s political influence in India has been remarkable despite its recent establishment. Founded in Mumbai only in 2002, the organization has attracted high-level American political attention, including visits from Nancy Pelosi and congressional delegations in 2017. During Benjamin Netanyahu’s historic 2018 visit to India, the Chabad House became a centerpiece of diplomatic engagement, with the Israeli Prime Minister and Moshe unveiling plans for a memorial at the site where his parents were murdered.
Trade Beyond Arms
Economic relations have also surged. Bilateral trade expanded from $200 million in 1992 to a peak of $10.77 billion in 2022–23 before declining to $6.53 billion in 2023–24. India consistently enjoys a trade surplus.
Key sectors include diamonds (accounting for nearly half of trade, with Indian cutters in Surat and Israeli traders in Tel Aviv forming a global supply chain), defense equipment (weapons parts, electronics, and aerospace systems), high technology (semiconductors, cybersecurity, telecommunications), agricultural technology (drip irrigation, greenhouse systems, biotech research), and water management (desalination and wastewater recycling).
Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has set a target of ten-fold growth, envisioning trade reaching $65 billion by 2037.
Hindutva’s Anti-Muslim Ethos
Hindu nationalist leaders often invoke parallels between Kashmir and Jerusalem. Vishnu Gupta once argued that “just like Jerusalem was overtaken by Muslims, holy places in India were also invaded by Muslims.”
Home Minister Amit Shah defended the 2002 Gujarat riots, stating that Muslims “were taught a lesson.” These declarations highlight how an anti-Islamic impulse has created fertile ground for India’s bond with Israel.
Surveillance, Strategy, and Zionist Influence
Strategically, Israeli authorities have reassured India that they would never “support Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.” Such alignment emboldens the BJP’s hardline approach in Kashmir, while Israel benefits from a loyal Asian partner and lucrative defense contracts.
For much of the twentieth century, India stood with Palestine, casting dissenting votes at the United Nations and championing Arab self-determination. Yet the rise of Hindutva has shifted this stance. The RSS’s admiration for Zionism—articulated by Savarkar, Golwalkar, and Upadhyaya—has been translated into state policy under BJP rule.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks served as a crucial inflection point, deepening this convergence between Israel and India through shared experiences of terrorism and expanding security cooperation. As India and Israel deepen cooperation in defense, technology, and trade, the ideological roots of their alliance reveal a convergence that transcends mere pragmatism.
Hindutva has become the vector through which Zionist influence enters Indian policy, reshaping a country that once opposed Israel’s existence into one of its most dependable partners at a time when American hegemony is being challenged by the new multipolar order.
False Gods: The Jerusalem Memoirs[1]
Adolph Eichmann
Black House Publishing, 2015
From the Amazon blurb:
In False Gods Eichmann states: “I shall describe the genocide of the Jews, how it happened and give, in addition, my thoughts of the past and of today. For not only did I have to see with my own eyes the fields of death, the battlefields on which life died away, I saw much worse. I saw how, through a few words, through the mere concise order of an individual to whom the state gave authority, such fields for the extinction of life were created. I saw the machinery of death. Grasping cogs within cogs, like clockwork. I saw those who observed the process of the work; and during the process. I saw them always repeating the work and they looked at the seconds-hand, which hurried; hurried like life to death. The greatest and cruellest dance of death of all time. That I saw. And I prepare to describe it, as a warning”. Adolf Eichmann
Adolf Eichmann (1906–1962) was born in Solingen in Germany to Adolf Karl Eichmann[2] and Maria Eichmann, née Schefferling. After his mother died in 1914, his family moved to Linz in Austria. Eichmann began working in his father’s mining company in 1923 and, from 1925 to 1927, worked as a sales clerk for the Oberösterreichische Elektobau company. He also served as district agent in the Vacuum Oil Company.
As a young man, Eichmann joined the German Austrian Young Frontline Soldiers’ Association, which was the youth wing of the paramilitary Frontline Soldiers’ Association of Hermann Hiltl. On the advice of his family friend Ernst Kaltenbrunner, he joined the Austrian branch of the NSDAP and was enlisted as an SS man in 1932. Shortly after the seizure of power of the NSDAP in January1933, Eichmann was dismissed from the oil company, and as a result he devoted all his time to working with the National Socialist party. He was promoted to SS Scharführer in November 1933 and served in the administrative staff of the Dachau concentration camp. In 1934 he moved to the Security Service and, after briefly working in the Freemasonry department, moved to the Jewish department in Berlin in November 1934.
In 1937, he travelled with his superior Herbert Hagen to the British Mandate territory of Palestine to assess the possibility of Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. In 1938, after the Anschluss, Eichmann was posted in Vienna and was entrusted with the establishment of a Central Office for Jewish Emigration In the course of this assignment Eichmann developed numerous contacts with Jewish authorities who helped him speed up the emigration of Jews from Austria. In December 1939, he was made head of division IV B 4 of the newly formed Reich Security Head Office (RSHA) and worked, under Heinrich Müller, on Jewish matters. By 1941 Eichmann had been promoted to SS Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) and was entrusted with the organisation of the deportation of the European Jews to various concentration camps in the Greater German Reich.
Although arrested at the end of the war by the U.S. army, Eichmann succeeded in escaping from U.S. custody early in 1946 and lived unnoticed in Germany and Austria until 1950, when he travelled to Argentina, through Italy, under the false name of Ricardo Klement. For the next ten years he worked at mechanical jobs in Buenos Aires and, in 1952, brought his family over to Argentina from Germany. However, in 1953, Simon Wiesenthal obtained a letter to an Austrian, Baron Heinrich Mast, from a German officer in Argentina who reported that he had met Eichmann, who was working at that time in a power plant near Buenos Aires.[3] Although this information was conveyed to the Israeli consul in Vienna as well as to Dr. Nahum Goldmann of the World Jewish Congress in New York, it was 1957 before the Mossad was involved in the search for Eichmann. Walter Eyan of the Israeli Foreign Ministry was informed by the German public prosecutor Fritz Bauer that Eichmann was living in Argentina and he then relayed this information to Isser Harel,[4] the head of Mossad, whose agents succeeded in tracing Eichmann to Argentina and capturing him, three years later, on May 11, 1960. On May 21 he was flown to Israel, where he was tried by the Israeli Court in 1961,[5] found guilty and hanged on May 31, 1962.
* * *
During his stay in Argentina as well as during his internment in Israel, Eichmann dictated and wrote many versions of his memoirs.[6] In Argentina, from 1951 until 1959, he made a series of tape-recorded interviews with the former SS Dutchman Willem Sassen. The transcript of these interviews was obtained in 1991 by the historian David Irving, who then deposited it in the federal archives at Koblenz.[7] Irmtrud Wojak, who has studied these records, has established that seven reels of tape of the Sassen interviews have still to be transcribed. When the Israeli prosecutor Gideon Hausner wished to have the full Sassen transcripts admitted into evidence during Eichmann’s trial in 1961, Eichmann opposed this claiming that this record was mere “pub talk” since he had been drinking red wine during the interview and Sassen had constantly encouraged him to embellish his accounts for journalistic sensation and had even falsely transcribed the interview.
Portions of the Sassen interview were sold by Sassen to Life magazine, which published them in December 1960 (Life, Vol.49, no. 22, November 28, 1960 and no. 23, December 5, 1960), that is, after Eichmann had already been taken to Israel.
Another set of transcriptions of these interviews was taken by Eichmann’s widow Veronika to the Nuremberg defence lawyer, Dr. Rudolf Aschenauer,[8] whom she commissioned to edit the transcripts for publication. This edition by Dr. Aschenauer — which I have also translated[9] — was published by Druffel Verlag in 1980 as Ich, Adolf Eichmann: Ein historischer Zeugenbericht (I, Adolf Eichmann: A historic Testimony), a title suggested to the press by David Irving.[10] In the Foreword and Preface to this edition, Eichmann declares that this is indeed the only testimony that he wishes to be considered as genuine and not dictated under duress. However, this version does not contain certain episodes that the complete Sassen records include such as the accounts of his having witnessed a mass shooting in Minsk in late 1941 or a gassing operation in Chelmno in late 1941/early 1942.[11] It is not clear if these omissions were due to Eichmann’s widow’s wishes or to Dr. Aschenauer himself, who asseverates in his foreword merely that “Where a few cuts have been made, this occurred without any loss in the testimony” However, Dr. Aschenauer did provide, in a supplement to his edition, several original documents from the Reich which detail the frightful severity of the reprisal measures undertaken against Jews and partisans during the war.
During his detention and trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann wrote two further memoirs. The first was begun during his pretrial interrogations with Avner Less and comprised a 127–page handwritten testimony which he called “Meine Memoiren” (My Memoirs). These were later published in Germany by Die Welt between August 12 and September 14, 1999.[12]
After the conclusion of his courtroom testimony and before the delivery of his verdict in December 1961, Eichmann wrote, in August of that year, another handwritten autobiography that he wished to call “Götzen” (False Idols) or “Gnothi Seauton” (Know thyself), which ran to some 500 pages plus another 100 pages of notes and concluded with a long philosophical meditation. This record was guarded in the Israeli State Archives for nearly forty years and was released only during the Irving-Lipstadt trial in London in 2000.[13]
These final memoirs of Adolf Eichmann are more concise than the Argentina account edited by Dr. Aschenauer although they follow the same plan of an initial biographical sketch followed by a record of the deportations he conducted by country.[14] Like the earlier memoirs, the last also presents a detailed account of his career in the SS and Gestapo as the divisional head in charge of the numerous deportations of the European Jews. Through a perusal of Eichmann’s memoirs, the reader will undoubtedly be able to ascertain the scope of the anti-Jewish measures undertaken in the Third Reich. What is especially noteworthy in this account is the enormous organisational framework of this undertaking involving hundreds of political, military and police officials, and their states, across the continent. At the same time, Eichmann highlights his own constant efforts to help the Jews find an independent home territory — even, indeed, during his last posting in Hungary towards the end of the war.
However, compared to the Argentinian memoirs, the present memoirs reveal an extremely sharp disillusionment with the National Socialist goals he championed during the Reich as well as a greater sympathy with the post-war attempts to establish a non-nationalistic one-world order. Although he had joined the NSDAP in order to defend Germany from the humiliation of Versailles, incidents such as the Reich Night of Broken Glass caused him early in his career to realise that he had followed “false idols”, a suspicion that was confirmed by his visits to Lublin and Auschwitz to witness mass killings of Jews. It is interesting also, in this context, that he is, in this version of his memoirs, more honest in his account of certain events such as, for example, the development of the ghetto in Theresienstadt. For, whereas in the Argentinian memoirs[15] he had suggested that it was actually a model old-age home that he himself had done much to develop, he now admits that it was not really meant by Himmler to be an exemplary ghetto but was rather a “camouflage” to deceive the outside world on the manner in which the Reich was dealing with its Jewish problem.[16]
In his Argentinian memoirs, besides, Eichmann had pointed to the contrary effects of the post-war democratic propaganda and re-education on former National Socialists in a derisory manner:
Twelve years of re-education propaganda and occupation-dictatorship have made people who would be considered as witnesses for the defence, if they are not dead or have not been killed, so afraid that they do not wish to know anything at all, or remember about anything any more. Very many would have been, in 1945 and 1946, still ready for a clear statement even under the pressure from the occupation powers, for every pressure releases a counter-reaction. But, today, that option is no longer available. For, the good life and “democratic re-education” have borne fruits, so that today, as a defendant, I would not know which witnesses for the defence would actually be pertinent. In 1945, I would, as a defendant, have had all my colleagues; today, I am no longer sure of that; one part of them will not come into question at all as witnesses for the defence because they are concerned for their survival. And another part has had to lead such a hard life in the meantime that they curse the past and the “stupidity” of having been a National Socialist.[17]
Now, in the present memoirs, Eichmann himself shows very little sympathy for the National Socialist world-view, which he now considers to have been “something half-baked, something cobbled together from all possible ideas and imaginations” and held together as a totalitarian “collective” system through the military principles of command and obedience. In the Argentinian memoirs he had indeed expressed a strong sympathy for Zionist ideals as a mirror-image of National Socialist ones:
Generally, Ben Gurion follows nothing but what the SS Reichsführer also did; the Jewish “Pioneers” root themselves in the soil and have, next to the plough, their gun ready at hand; they are the Israeli translation of our idea of “soldier peasants”. The National Socialist ancestral farm legislation represented similar norms as the “Jewish Development League”, for example, the inalienability of farming land. The organised youth presents a similar image as our National Socialist youth and is likewise the youth of a people in a state of emergency. So I often said to the Jewish representatives well known to me: “If I were a Jew, then I would be the most committed Zionist that you could imagine.” Already as the specialist in the SDHA on the World Zionist Organisation I recognised the parallels between the goals of the SS with its blood and soil ideas and Zionism; in this goal SS and Zionism are siblings.[18]
Now, he abjures nationalism itself as a primitive instinct and considers that
Mutual mistrust, the striving for domination of one over the other, grouping of men according to values and classifications, all this is from now on part of the old rubbish.
He goes so far as to suggests that such ideologies must be totally eradicated:
That is why I said that evil must be extirpated basically, radically. The organisational form that can bring men to such conflicts must be removed. In mutual coexistence man does not have to accommodate himself to the organisational form but the organisational form must be tailored to man. This alone seems to be a practical application based on the bleak experiences up to now; the other is, I think, heretical nonsense. Good perhaps for inner edification, but what is the use of this when murder and annihilation can continue to be ordered by the state.
The remedy for nationalisation is of course internationalisation: “only an internationalisation of peoples overcomes the existing basic instincts, at least one part of the additional hotbeds artificially created by men through nationalisation.” Eichmann even goes so far as to embrace what we now recognise as the globalist ideal of a world-government:
The task of regional governments, which will then have only a provincial character, will be to make the nations of the earth happier in union with the central authority. And the sooner such a thing is achieved the more the personal security and independence of the individual is provided for, and every oppression of him will be prevented.
This abjuration of National Socialism seems not to be the mere result of the broad public discussion of the events of the Reich during his trial or of his fear of a death sentence. The final part of the memoirs in which he meditates on political and philosophical issues also evokes the serenity that he seems to have discovered in the last days of his extraordinary life. As he states, “I have finally found a world-view for myself which satisfies me”.
Today, having an open mind, no anxious skulking, a lack of prejudice, no envy and no hatred are the most important advantages. Of course, I am still an egoist, but this time not at the cost of others. Now even my fellow human beings take part in this egoism with advantages to themselves.
Whatever his reasons for the aversion that he developed to nationalism between the writing of the Argentinian memoirs and that of his final manuscript, a common strand in both memoirs is Eichmann’s consistent insistence on his absolute freedom from “legal guilt” — even though he may well have had reason to feel personal “moral guilt”. For, — as he repeatedly declares — while he had, in the course of his extraordinary life, been forced to witness “death and the devil”, he had never on any occasion participated more closely in this “hell” than as a mere “recipient of orders”.
[1] Taken from Adolf Eichmann, False Gods: The Jerusalem Memoirs, tr. Alexander Jacob, Black House Publishing, 2015.
[2] This is the name testified by Adolf Eichmann in the Israeli Court. However, in his memoirs written in Israel entitled “Götzen” Eichmann gives his father’s name as ‘Wolf’, which was perhaps a pet name.
[3] See the Simon Wiesenthal website:
http://www.simon-wiesenthal-archiv.at/02_dokuzentrum/02_faelle/e01_eichmann.html
[4] In 1975, Isser Harel published a Hebrew account of the search for Eichmann which was translated into English as The House on Garibaldi Street: The Capture of Adolf Eichmann, London: Deutsch, 1975.
[5] The pre-trial interrogations conducted by Avner Less between May 1960 and early 1961 have been published in two of the Israeli Ministry of Justice’s 9-volume set called The Trial of Adolf Eichmann. The courtroom testimony and cross-examination that took place between June 20 and July 24, 1961 constitute another volume of this work. The entire trial was televised and, in March 2011, the Israeli government put out this recording in 114 ‘sessions’ on Youtube.
[6] For studies of Eichmann’s memoirs, see Irmtrud Wojak, Eichmanns Memoiren: Ein kritischer Essay, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch, 2004, and Christopher Browning, Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Post-war Testimony, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003, Ch.I: ‘Perpetrator Testimony: Another Look at Adolf Eichmann’.
[7] However, David Irving has posted a small part of it on his website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/Buenos_Aires_MS.html
[8] Dr. Rudolf Aschenauer (1913-1983) served as defense lawyer in several Nuremberg trials and other German trials of war criminals from 1947 to 1968.
[9] Adolf Eichmann, The Eichmann Tapes, tr. Dr. Alexander Jacob, Black House Publishing, 2015.
[10] See the David Irving website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/Sudholt171079.html Irving may have been influenced in his choice of title by Robert Graves’ novel I, Claudius, which had been adapted by the BBC as a successful television serial in 1976. However, it is quite unsuited since Eichmann repeatedly insists in the course of these memoirs that he was not a ‘Caligula’ as the popular press wished to portray him but a mere “cog in the wheel” of a much larger political machinery.
[11] See Christopher Browning, op.cit., pp.17f.
[12] This is available online at the David Irving site: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/DieWelt0899/serial.htmlhttp://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann/DieWelt0899/serial.html
[13]At the moment of writing, it is available online at sites such as http://www.schoah.org/shoah/eichmann/goetzen-2.htm, http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/e/eichmann.adolf/memoire/Eichmann.txt and
ftp://nsl-lager.com/pub/Schriftdateien/Revisionismus/Eichmann,%20Adolf%20-%20Goetzen-Tagebuecher.pdf
[14] Cf. Chapter III of Adolf Eichmann, The Eichmann Tapes: My role in the Final Solution, tr. Alexander Jacob, Black House Publishing, 2015:
‘III: The deportations from abroad
[15] See “Theresienstadt as a model example of ghetto formation”, in Adolf Eichmann, The Aschenauer Memoirs,
[16] All references are to the present edition.
[17]See: “If I were a public prosecutor or defence counsel, whose responsibility would I examine today?” in Adolf Eichmann, op.cit.,
[18] See: “Unity of Jewry in the world?”, in Adolf Eichmann, op.cit.,
According to a Substack article from this past May [link: https://substack.com/home/post/p-162330198?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]—I just stumbled across it—a recent survey of 8th and 10th graders shows a sharp drop in the percent of boys who believe that women should have the same professional opportunities as men. Here is the graph:
Had I been asked these deceptively simple questions as a naïve eighth or tenth grader, I would certainly have given my assent. Who (I would have reasoned) could possibly be opposed to simple fairness and the impartial treatment of women? Feminism, like other utopian doctrines, can be highly plausible and seductive before it is actually put into practice.
Half a century has gone by and the American workplace is utterly saturated with women. They completely dominate certain lucrative fields such as publishing. In some cities, young women are outearning young men. You go, girl!
What have been the consequences? Two of the most obvious have been cratering fertility and the proliferation of miserable spinsters and divorcées furious at the entire male sex. These have gotten some public attention, since everyone likes children and sympathizes with unhappy women. Less attention gets paid to men, since they are largely expected to take whatever knocks life hands them and keep plugging away—not unlike a popular brand of watches promoted as able to “take a licking and keep on ticking.”
But men do not have hearts of oak or stone, and there are limits upon what can be demanded of them. Their lives have been profoundly affected by the mass invasion of the workplace by women, and it has not resembled what feminism promised them. At first, they were assured by a young and confident feminist movement that having women work would benefit men as well as the women themselves—by reducing both the pressure upon men to provide all the economic support for their families and the emphasis placed by women upon the earning-power of potential husbands.
Several decades of “women in the workforce” have ensued and the results are in. They are not pretty. For many men, the principal consequence of competing against women at work has been increased difficulty—for some an outright impossibility—of finding a wife and starting a family. In part this is because when women have their own money, they only perceive men who earn even more than they do as possible “providers,” and therefore as potential husbands. So pressure on men to earn has increased, not decreased. At the same time, the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce has increased the supply of labor, thereby reducing earnings all around. Women have gained some financial independence, it is true, but only because men have been hit with the double-whammy of lowered earnings and raised female expectations.
But there is more—much, much more. Whereas unmarried men and women used to go to dance halls or similar places of public amusement to meet members of the opposite sex, they now rub elbows every day at work. Naturally, both men and women are interested in the possibility of discovering a mate among their workplace colleagues; they would not be human if they were not. But workplace mate-seeking is not exactly treated in the same way when engaged in by women as when engaged in by men.
“Human resource” departments are a heavily female part of today’s corporate world that hardly existed before the mass entry of women into the workforce. Today they control hiring for most entry level positions. Unsurprisingly, experimental studies reveal that these female-dominated departments are more likely to extend job offers to attractive than to unattractive men. On the other hand, they incline to hire plainer women more often than pretty ones. It is not enough to bring in more handsome fellows, you see—competition from prettier girls must also be eliminated!
No doubt a company’s bottom line depends crucially on its entry level employees consisting of Adonises and plain Janes.
The obvious lesson here is that women unhesitatingly pursue their own mating strategies in the workplace. They may benefit themselves in this way, but it does nothing for efficiency, the rational allocation of resources, or edging out the competition. Yet companies tolerate the behavior. Without those HR departments, they might be liable to lawsuits over failing to hire enough women.
In a sexually integrated workplace, there will inevitably be men as well who hope to meet a nice girl to marry from among their work colleagues. But, of course, the mate-seeking behavior of such men is not indulged like that of the women in the HR department. Since the 1980s, a whole new body of law has arisen to punish male courtship behavior in the workplace under the name of “sexual harassment” (a term only coined in the late 1970s). Sexual harassment is big business now, causing countless millions of dollars to change hands every year and making a few lawyers and female plaintiffs rich. Since the term has no clear or agreed-upon definition, and since companies are legally liable if they fail to prevent the undefined phenomenon, they must assume the guilt of any man accused. Careers that took years to build up can be destroyed overnight by an unguarded word or misinterpreted gesture.
The recent #MeToo bruhaha has made the dangers clear to even the most naïve and traditionally chivalrous men. They are now deeply suspicious of their female colleagues, and with excellent reason. Cases have been uncovered of women teaming up to fabricate accusations in the hopes of getting lucrative court settlements. Many false or frivolous accusations are motivated by nothing more than the thrill of power some women experience at their ability to destroy men professionally. Much of #MeToo was of the nature of a copycat crime: women envied the attention and sympathy being expressed for accusers and waned to share in it.
Inevitably, men are adapting. An informal code has arisen under which men refuse to speak a single word to female colleagues that is not strictly work-related. No more “that’s a pretty dress,” no friendly chats around the water cooler. Every interaction that can be documented must be. Telephone calls must be recorded; complete records of all email correspondence with female colleagues must be preserved in triplicate and stored in a safe place, for any man can be called upon at any time to prove his innocence in court. In short, women have nothing more to teach men about “hostile work environments”—men are experiencing a level of hostility and suspicion in the workplace of which few women can have any conception.
Now back to that poll we cited at the beginning: it would not surprise me one bit if working men responding safely and anonymously to a pollster were to have begun telling them that women can take their “workplace equality” and stick it up their collective arse. But the really astonishing thing is that this was a poll conducted among eighth and tenth graders! As noted, this author would almost unthinkingly have agreed to feminist platitudes about equality at that age, having as yet had little experience of either women or the workplace. How is it that mere boys are now among those wising up to the feminist reign of terror over working men? Are they hearing about the realities from their fathers or elder brothers? Do they observe the privileging of girls in their own juvenile environment?
Whatever the explanation, this poll indicates that feminism is finally in serious trouble. Women have never had any right to equal work or to equal pay. At best, they have a right to support themselves in some fashion if they fail to marry. They also have a right to get married—presuming they can find a man foolish enough to propose to them, which most can if they play their cards carefully when young. They have a right to be faithful wives and dutiful mothers. And they have a right to stay out of working men’s way while men keep the world running and support their families. The future depends on women’s exercise of these rights, not the imaginary ones cooked up by utopian dreamers sixty years ago.
