Featured Articles

“Like the Roman”: Simon Heffer’s Biography of Enoch Powell

Now that immigration has become the greatest concern in the rather archaically named United Kingdom, the name of Enoch Powell is once again a familiar one in what passes for political discourse in Britain. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in a recent speech intended to show that he is suddenly concerned about illegal immigration, claimed that the UK risked turning into “an island of strangers”. He was immediately charged by the media as “channeling Powell”, who used a similar phrase in his most famous speech. This allegation spooked Starmer, who immediately disowned the speech, claiming to have been tired when he made it, and that he “didn’t really read” the speech his advisers had prepared. Some associations are just too toxic for a modern politician.

For the political Left, of course, John Enoch Powell is the Devil incarnate —he once claimed to have shown Parliament “the cloven hoof” in a debate about devolution—and the epitome of racism, despite (as Powell claimed) never having spoken about race in his life, but only about immigration.

In fact, Powell did mention race on a number of occasions, albeit incidentally and never thematically, but his vision was not what he would have accepted as a “racialist” one. He merely, and accurately, predicted an England “rent by strife, violence and division on a scale for which we have no parallel”. For today’s Parliamentary Right, and despite his status as one of the most famous Conservatives in history, Powell is an untouchable, and it is left to the dissident Right to laud Powell as a prophet without honor in his own land.

Powell did not want an official biography, believing this was the province of film stars, but his Cambridge friend Simon Heffer was accepted by the ageing politician as his biographer on condition that the book not be released in Powell’s lifetime. After Powell’s death in 1996, Heffer’s book came out two years later, a year before Tony Blair’s coronation and the beginning of the future against which Powell warned. Heffer was given access to Powell’s life, although it lacked a diary, the keeping of which Powell regarded as “like returning to one’s vomit”. Heffer added to this treasure trove by interviewing friends and colleagues. Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime Minister who called Powell a “super-egotist” and fired him as a result of the misnamed (and misunderstood) “Rivers of blood” speech, would not speak to Heffer.

Powell is remembered above all for his 1968 speech on immigration in Birmingham, but Heffer paints a broader picture of a man who excelled in everything he did. A classics scholar who took his House of Commons notes in Ancient Greek, an amateur in architecture, a noted poet, a soldier, an academic, and the speaker of half-a-dozen languages by his teenage years, Powell was a polymath who sought to put his learning to good use. Later in life, Powell also became a keen hunter at hounds, taking risks in the field but enjoying the adrenaline as a counter to the intensity of his political life.

Foremost, however, Powell was an exceptional scholar. His mother was a teacher, and Powell’s education—like John Stuart Mill’s—continued at home. His family nicknamed him “the Professor” although always referring to him as “Jack”. At the age of three he had mastered the alphabet, and ten years later, while his peers were doubtless reading comics, Powell was reading J. G. Frazer’s study of comparative religion, The Golden Bough. Later in life, on discovering another John Powell working in classics, Powell became known by his other first name, Enoch, for the rest of his life. Famously an atheist (although he would return to the Church later in life, and always referred to himself as “an Anglican”) Powell decided of the Gospel that “the historical and internal evidence would not support the narrative”. His growing love for German literature, and Nietzsche in particular, did nothing to promote religiosity in the young man. Powell read everything Nietzsche wrote, including his letters, and even admitted that his moustache was a reference to the Lutheran pastor’s son. When he flew to Australia in 1937 to take up a teaching post, the trip was a good deal more onerous than it is today, and Powell took Nietzsche’s eccentric autobiography Ecce Homo for the journey.

Powell went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, to study classics. But, on the advice of a mathematician, he also discovered economics, something which would serve him well as Finance Secretary in Harold MacMillan’s government years later. Powell read Malthus, and was impressed by the writer’s demographic insights. He was reclusive and generally shunned social company, working diligently, writing poetry, and listening to Wagner. There was a lighter side to his amusements, however, and he would mourn the death of Jacques Tati in 1982, the French comedian whose films Powell adored.

After graduating, and in search of an academic post, Powell taught in Australia, having been offered the chair of Greek at the University of Sydney in 1937. Powell was in Australia when, as he put it half a century later, “the House of Commons fawned upon a Prime Minister for capitulating to Hitler”. Two years later, Powell desperately wanted to fight in World War II, but he worried that he was on a list streaming him towards military intelligence. “I was lucky to escape Bletchley”, he observed, referring to Bletchley Park, which housed the famous British code-breaking unit led by Alan Turing and his Enigma machine. It would have been interesting to see what Turing and Powell made of one another. But in 1939 he removed that possibility by enlisting as a private soldier. “One of the happiest days of my life”, Powell recounted, “was on the 20th of October 1939. It was then for the first time I put on the King’s coat”.

As with everything he did, Powell excelled in the army, whether on the barrack square or reading Clausewitz’s On War as a means of understanding the theory of the conflict he yearned to join at the front line. Throughout his life, Powell maintained an almost morbid attachment to the wish to die fighting for his country. He reached the rank of brigadier, a title he retained in public life.

Stationed in India, Powell developed a love for that nation to the same extent he began to foster a lifelong aversion to America, “our terrible enemy”, as he described the world’s most powerful country. Powell’s view was that one of the USA’s primary aims was to end the British Empire, and he would also come to see America’s color problem as the future for Britain if immigration was not addressed. It was in India—already fluent in Urdu—that Powell first realized that his future lay in politics.

Back in England, he was interviewed by the Conservative Party and selected to fight the Parliamentary seat of Wolverhampton South West, where Britain’s housing crisis (which seems to be always with us, for one reason or another) “provided [Powell’s] first public entry into political battle”. After the war, Britain still had the slum areas it had had since the Victorian era, and Powell was determined they should be cleared. The Conservative Party in 1955 had slum-clearance as part of its manifesto, and Powell pressured them to honor that pledge.

Powell won Wolverhampton narrowly, his 20,239 votes providing a margin of victory of just 691, although in the election which followed this margin had increased to 3,196 and would rise further to over 11,000. The people liked what Powell was saying even if his Parliamentary colleagues and the media did not. Powell married his secretary, Pamela Wilson, in 1951, and Winston Churchill offered him the post of under-secretary for Welsh affairs in 1952. He turned down the great war-leader’s offer, and would not hold high office until Harold Macmillan replaced Anthony Eden in 1957 after the latter’s resignation over the Suez debacle. Macmillan made Powell Finance Secretary, perfect for a man who had read and absorbed the Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Von Hayek.

This was a good entrance on the political stage for Powell as “every spending proposal by every department came across his desk”.  Decades before such things as DOGE, Powell was determined to audit and restrain the fiscal extravagance endemic to socialism, and The Daily Telegraph noted his “Puritanic refusal to countenance increased government expenditure”. Powell himself worked with maxims which, although he would review them constantly in the manner of the rigorous academic he was, provided him with a simple formula for controlling the public weal:

What matters most about Government expenditure is not the size of it in millions of pounds, but the rate it grows at compared with the rate our production grows.

Now, in an age in which successive British governments of both parties believe that the answer to all problems is to “throw more money at it”, Powell’s firm grasp of economic principles—particularly the money supply—has long since vanished.

When Powell was made Financial Secretary, the country gained a man whose mother was most worried about Powell’s childhood proficiency in mathematics and science. They were his worst subjects, thought Ellen the teacher, although these things are relative. Powell’s weakest subjects would have been many fellow students’ strongest. As an acolyte of Hayek, Powell wanted low taxes, small government, and the end to financial aid to developing countries. “Don’t give them capital”, he said of these struggling nations, “give them capitalism”. We are reminded of the adage that to give a man a fish is to feed him for a day, whereas to teach him to fish is to feed him for a lifetime. Powell was understandably overjoyed (for him) when Hayek himself suggested in private correspondence that “all our hopes for England rest now on Enoch Powell”. That said, Hayek would question Powell’s mental stability after the Birmingham speech.

It was Harold Macmillan who first brought Powell into his cabinet, during the meetings of which the Prime Minister wryly noted that Powell “looks at me … like Savonarola eyeing one of the more disreputable popes”. Throughout Heffer’s book, it is notable that politicians of the time still had a common reference point in their shared knowledge of history. In today’s UK government of midwit lawyers, no such grounding exists. Powell was given a new role as Health Minister, in which, Heffer writes, “he unquestionably laid the foundations of a modern health service”. But Heffer’s book is always leading inexorably to the turning-point which divided Powell’s political career into two halves.

While Shadow Defence Secretary, Powell forewarned of his upcoming and (in)famous Birmingham speech. “I’m going to make a speech at the weekend”, he said, “that is going to go up ‘fizz’ like a rocket. But whereas all rockets fall to earth, this one is going to stay up”. In this he was, as always, prescient. The transformation of areas of Britain, and England in particular, into enclaves in which the native population were becoming outnumbered by foreigners was increasingly being addressed at government level, and various panaceas mooted, but Powell would prove to be the coalmine canary for attitudes towards this replacement.

Powell’s Birmingham speech in April, 1968, was explosive. His beloved Nietzsche wanted his words to be dynamite, but Powell got closer to detonation than the German philosopher. And yet the blast struck both sides of the social divide. There were two attempts by fellow Members of Parliament to prosecute Powell under the 1965 Race Relations Act (there would be many more), but at the same time dock-workers—solid union men—came out on strike in protest against Powell’s subsequent defenestration. He had a speaking commission in Europe cancelled at the express instruction of the man who invited him, but he also received 4,000 letters to his private, home address, of which just a dozen disagreed with his stance in the Birmingham speech. Former colleagues in the House of Commons disowned Powell while national polling showed 75% of British people agreed with him, while 69% disagreed with Heath’s decision to sack him. Powell had divided the country, not along racial or ideological lines, but rather along class differences. But the classes had changed. Now, there was the political class and everyone else.

Powell’s prescience was not confined to his channeling his constituency in Birmingham in 1968, which he did literally. His much-quoted line about the Black man gaining the “whip-hand” over the White man was actually a comment made by one of his constituents. Powell also foresaw the rise of the Race Relations industry as well as the use that fledgling industry would be put to by the new socialism:

There are those whose intention it is to destroy society as we know it, and ‘race’ or ‘colour’ is one of the crowbars they intend to use for the work of demolition. ‘Race relations’ is one of the fastest-growing sectors of British industry.

Powell recognized that to talk of the “race relations industry” was not analogy. It really was a part of the economy, as it is today, and even more so.

Powell also predicted the arrival of BLM in the UK, which began in 2020 after the death of career criminal George Floyd thousands of miles away in Minneapolis, confessing his surprise that America’s Black Power movement had not crossed the Atlantic, and was not coming after him. Powell’s family home was under constant police surveillance, a rarity in the 1960s. The problem of immigration was moving from statistics to the real world by which those statistics are measured and to which they ultimately apply, as areas including Powell’s own constituency became overwhelmingly non-white. The public response was moving from grumbling in the queue at the butcher to flyers reading, “If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour”.

Powell had rushed in where other politicians feared to tread, and had opened Pandora’s jar. (As a consummate classicist, Powell would have known that “Pandora’s box” is a mistranslation). It is only now in Britain that the political class is facing up to the necessity of talking about immigration, and it would be fascinating to know what Powell would have made of the caliber of the modern politician, particularly with so many of them being women. Powell was not really a misogynist, but his regard for women was somewhat limited, viewing them as part of the “rhetoric of poetry” at best, and unteachable at worst due to their propensity to wonder in class whether they might be distracted either by the potential rudeness of the teacher, or whether or not they found him attractive.

Powell perhaps represents the last hurrah for the direct criticism of socialism in the Houses of the British Parliament. Now, it is occasionally alluded to, but only as an embarrassing family incident everyone at the dinner-table has forgotten, so best move on. Socialism remains the greatest enemy to the freedom of those who deserve, by their history, to have that freedom, and Powell knew that. He told the London newspaper, The Evening Standard, his political priority with admirable clarity: “The important thing is to get the case against Socialism heard from every platform, as often as possible”.

A ground-note to the book that sounds on every page is the radical difference in the political class in Britain then and now. Politicians were all men, and generally men of a certain class. Powell was quite a way down the British class ladder, but his formidable intellect intimidated many colleagues into seeing him as their social equal.

Powell turned down a peerage from Margaret Thatcher, with whom his relations were wary on both sides. Asked his reaction to Britain’s first woman PM in 1979, he replied simply; “Grim”. Thatcher later described Powell as the best parliamentarian she had ever seen. His speeches became the stuff of Westminster legend, and Powell understood the power of the speech. In an era when television still played a relatively minor role in political communications, he toured the country like a 1970s rock band, sometimes giving three speeches in different locations on the same day.

His forced retirement from political office meant that he had more time for reading and writing. His poetry had been highly rated by then Poet Laureate John Masefield, as well as Hillaire Belloc, and the academic studies on which he concentrated included translations of the Gospels. He also pursued a longstanding theory that the work of Shakespeare was not that of one man which, although not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars, was grounded in long and careful study and analysis, as was every aspect of Powell’s life. Powell was modest and frugal in his lifestyle, and would have frowned on the political class’s use of luxury cars in today’s political environment. Until his involvement as Minister for Ulster rendered heightened security necessary for the Minister, Powell always walked and took the underground from Sloane Square to Westminster.

Powell was also a journalist much in demand, writing regularly for the major British newspapers (despite The Times running a leader on the Birmingham speech headed “An Evil Speech”) as well as veteran political publication The Spectator. He was even offered a place on the board of the satirical magazine Private Eye, which he turned down. Again, imagining a great meeting which never happened, it would have been entertaining to see what Enoch Powell would have made of British comedian Peter Cook, who became part-owner of the Eye in 1962.

Powell was acutely aware of the relationship, both ideal and actual, between the politician and the country he is elected to serve. Applying his scholastic standards of reasoning into this relationship, he was able to combine cynicism with accurate observation:

I am a politician: that is my profession and I’m not ashamed of it. My race of man is employed by society to carry the blame for what goes wrong. As a very great deal does go wrong in my country there is a great deal of blame. In return for taking the blame for what is not our fault, we have learned how not to take the blame for what is our fault.

Powell’s Englishness was at the heart of his belief system, and the main cause of his conflicts with both Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher, the first of whom fired him over Birmingham, and the second of whom credited him as her biggest influence along with Sir Keith Joseph. What became known as “Powellism” was at its center a defense of an England he feared would go the same way as Empire.

What is most remarkable about Powell when compared with the current crop inhabiting—one might say “infesting” —the Mother of all Parliaments is both his sheer intellect, and the application of this gift to solvable problems. He was very aware of his academic skills, and the natural advantage it gave the conscientious politician. “I owe any success I have had”, he said, “partly to an ability to go on thinking about a subject beyond the point where other people might feel they have taken it to the limit”. Now, intellectual achievement has been devalued, but a man who could faultlessly translate Herodotus was also able to render political problems as understandable both to his colleagues and to the public at large.

His health failing, Powell suffered a fall at home which led to a brain clot and delicate surgery. He was diagnosed with the early stages of Parkinson’s Disease which, although not fatal in itself, was debilitating to a man born before World War I.  When he was finally hospitalized, and being fed intravenously, he remarked that it “wasn’t much of a lunch”. He died in February, 1998, and is buried in Warwick. Would that he were living now.

Mark Collett is back in the UK after his ordeal in Sweden — plus his interview with me from July 16

As I posted recently, Mark Collett was detained in Sweden because of being “a threat to public order, the fabric of society, and the values on which Sweden and Europe are built.” For these sins, he has been banned from the Schengen Zone for 15(!!) years. He must be a very dangerous guy.

I am happy to report that he is back home and in fine spirits. Here’s his report, followed by his interview of me from July 16:

The interview on July 16:

 

 

Protestant Conversos are important in the Evangelical Protestant movement and remain strongly pro-Israel

While the term “converso” is commonly associated with Jews who embraced Catholicism during the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions but continued to live in crypto-Jewish communities (see Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5), a lesser-known development is the emergence of Jews—by both faith and ancestry—who have embraced Protestantism in modern times. This is  yet another example of Jews infiltrating Christianity in order to shape it toward their own ends (see, e.g., here, here and here on the Catholic Church).

This dynamic was recently highlighted in a post by Chris Menahan of Information Liberation. In it, evangelical leader Laurie Cardoza-Moore, speaking with Israel National News, warned that the United States is experiencing a resurgence of 1930s-style antisemitic sentiment.

She had choice words for the “woke right,” singling out prominent figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. “These individuals are normalizing antisemitic rhetoric and questioning U.S. support for Israel. Some are even engaging with known terrorist sympathizers and hostile regimes. Carlson, for example, has interviewed leaders from Iran and Qatar—figures openly committed to Israel’s destruction. This is deeply disturbing, especially given their influence within conservative circles,” she stated.

As a filmmaker, Cardoza-Moore expressed concern over the growing influence of anti-Israel voices on the right. “Carlson interviews pastors from groups like Christ at the Checkpoint who accuse Israel of occupation. As a Christian, he should know better. Candace Owens claims to be Catholic. They should understand the biblical imperative to stand with Israel. And yet they are using their platforms to spread disinformation to Christian, conservative audiences—audiences that shape the future of the Republican Party,” Cardoza-Moore added.

Cardoza-Moore, while discussing “The Lost Jews of the Inquisition,” used the moment to criticize Carlson and Owens and reveal her ancestral connection to the Jewish victims of the Inquisition.

“This project is close to my heart. My own family descends from the conversos—Jews forced to convert during the Spanish Inquisition. On his deathbed, my grandfather told his children, ‘We are Jewish.’ That revelation opened my eyes. Many Hispanic and Latino Americans, including recent immigrants, may also descend from those same roots—without even knowing it,” the evangelical leader revealed.

Indeed, there is a nugget of truth behind Cardoza-Moore’s statement. A 2018 study found that approximately 23% of Latin Americans show genetic markers associated with Sephardic Jewish ancestry, and historians believe there could be between 80 to 100 million descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jews worldwide. However, these figures may not be so clear-cut. According to DNA tests in a previous study, Spanish-Americans in the Southwest are not descended from Jews, but from Spaniards. These scientists ultimately found no major Jewish connection.

Nonetheless, instances of Jews converting to Christianity are undeniable even into the present. While Catholicism was the destination for most historic conversos, the last two centuries have seen a small but highly influential number of Jews convert to Protestant evangelical Christianity.

Several prominent historical and contemporary figures exemplify this trend:

Michael Solomon Alexander (1799–1845) 

Born in Schönlanke, Prussia, Alexander was trained as an Orthodox rabbi.  However, after migrating to England, Solomon received his baptism in 1825. Ordained in the Church of England, he was a member of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews and became professor of Hebrew and Rabbinic Literature at King’s College London.

Backed by Britain and Prussia, he was consecrated as the first Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem on December 7, 1841, overseeing a vast diocese that included Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Alexander advanced Hebrew liturgy, founded schools and a hospital, and laid the cornerstone of Christ Church, the city’s first Protestant church.

Leopold Cohn (1862–1937) 

Born Eisik Leib Josowitz in Berezna, Hungary, Leopold Cohn was orphaned early, trained in Hasidic yeshivot and claimed rabbinic ordination. Seeking answers about messianic prophecies, he emigrated to New York in 1892 and subsequently converted to evangelical Christianity and was ordained a Baptist minister. In Brooklyn, he founded the Brownsville Mission to the Jews in 1894, later renamed Chosen People Ministries, which became the largest U.S. mission to Jews. A prolific preacher and author of the autobiography To an Ancient People, Cohn championed what would later become modern Messianic Judaism.

Louis Meyer (1862–1913) 

Raised in a Reform Jewish family in Crivitz, Germany, Meyer earned medical and science degrees before immigrating to Cincinnati. Converted through a Presbyterian mission in 1892, Meyer graduated from the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary in 1897 and was a minister in Minnesota and Iowa. An adept writer and lecturer, he helped shape early 20th century Hebrew-Christian (proto-messianic) networks. Notably, he edited periodicals such as “The Jewish Era” and authored “Eminent Hebrew Christians of the Nineteenth Century.”

Moishe Rosen (1932–2010)

Born Martin Rosen in Kansas City, Missouri, to Ben Rosen and Rose Baker, Moishe Rosen was raised in Denver, Colorado, in a household that blended Reform and Orthodox Jewish traditions. His mother’s parents were Reform Jews from Austria, while his paternal grandfather was Orthodox. Despite attending synagogue regularly, Rosen viewed religion as a “racket.” After graduating from the University of Colorado, Rosen married Ceil Starr in 1950. In 1953, both converted to Christianity.

Ordained as a Conservative Baptist minister in 1957, Rosen worked for 17 years with the American Board of Missions to the Jews before founding Hineni Ministries in 1970. This project would later be renamed to Jews for Jesus. After leaving ABMJ in 1973, he incorporated Jews for Jesus as an independent organization, revolutionizing Jewish evangelism through confrontational street tactics inspired by the hippie counterculture and anti-Vietnam War activism. His trademark broadsides—provocatively titled pamphlets like “Jesus Made Me Kosher”—helped the organization distribute over two million tracts annually by the mid-1980s.

Jews for Jesus grew into the world’s largest Messianic Jewish organization, with a $13 million budget and international branches by the time he retired as executive director in 1996. Rosen’s organization holds distinctive Christian Zionist positions. Jews for Jesus supports Israel’s territorial claims and viewed the nation’s restoration as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

David H. Stern (1935-2022) 

A Ph.D. recipient in economics at Princeton and former professor at UCLA, David Stern embraced Christianity in 1972 and became a pioneer of the Messianic Jewish movement. After earning an M.Div. at Fuller Seminary, he made aliyah to Jerusalem in 1979 and devoted his scholarship to restoring the Jewish context of the New Testament. His landmark “Complete Jewish Bible” and “Jewish New Testament Commentary” reframed Scripture with Hebraic terminology, while his manifesto “Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past” articulated the movement’s theology.

Stern’s views on Israel were deeply theological, believing that Palestine belongs to the Jews and that Messianic Judaism would eventually form a critical mass in Israel. Through his Complete Jewish Bible translation, Stern emphasized the Jewishness of Christianity and advocated for recognizing Israel’s central role in God’s plan.

Sid Roth (1940-)

Born Sydney Abraham Rothbaum on September 7, 1940, in Brunswick, Georgia, Roth was raised in a traditional Jewish home but found organized religion irrelevant to his life. His primary goal was to become a millionaire by age 30. By 29, he had graduated college, married, become a father, and worked as an account executive for Merrill Lynch. However, feeling unsuccessful for not reaching his financial goal, he abandoned his family and career to embark on a quixotic quest for happiness.

This search led Roth into Eastern meditation and New Age practices, where he encountered what he believed was a spirit guide but which began to torment his mind with evil power. His spiritual crisis reached its peak when a Christian businessman challenged him. The businessman explained that Roth’s occult practices were condemned in Deuteronomy 18 and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah which his Orthodox upbringing had concealed from him. In desperation during a tumultuous night of his life, Roth prayed a simple two-word prayer: “Jesus, help!” The next morning, he woke up to find the evil presence gone and his mind filled with supernatural peace and love.

This encounter in 1972 transformed Roth’s life completely, leading to his restored marriage and his entire immediate family’s conversion to Christianity. In 1977, he founded Messianic Vision and launched a nationally syndicated radio broadcast aimed at reaching Jewish people with the Gospel.

His television program “Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural!” began in 1996, featuring weekly interviews with people who claim miraculous healings and supernatural encounters with God. Through his media empire, including the It’s Supernatural! Network (ISN) and Middle East Television (METV), Roth has built a global platform reaching millions with his message of supernatural Christianity while maintaining his focus on evangelizing “to the Jew first.”

Roth has been a fervent supporter of Israel, operating television networks that are “must carry” on every television set in Israel. His ministry emphasizes that Israel is central to God’s end-times plan, stating that “the center of God’s universe is NOT Washington D.C. but Jerusalem, Israel.” He frequently discusses biblical prophecy related to Israel and advocates for Christians to support the Jewish state financially and through prayer.

Curiously, Roth has been an ardent supporter of Donald Trump, predicting in 2020 that Trump would be a “two-term president” and receive Nobel Peace Prizes. He believes Trump was divinely appointed to support Israel, stating that “God directed me to mobilize as many Christians as possible to vote for Trump because of his positions on Israel and abortion.” Roth has prophesied that Trump will have “a major encounter with God himself” and that his presidency represents God’s blessing on America.

Joel Chernoff (1950-)

Born in Atlanta, Georgia, but raised from a young age in Cincinnati, Ohio, Joel Chernoff came from one of Messianic Judaism’s founding families. His parents, Martin and Yohanna Chernoff, established Congregation Beth Messiah in Cincinnati in 1970—the first modern Messianic Jewish congregation in the United States.

In 1972, Chernoff formed the music group LAMB with Rick “Levi” Coghill, a studio guitarist and fellow believer. LAMB pioneered what became known as messianic music, blending ancient Jewish musical motifs with contemporary folk-rock sounds and Hebrew lyrics. Over two decades, LAMB recorded 14 albums that sold over 600,000 copies, with several songs reaching the Top 10 on contemporary Christian music charts.

Beyond music, Chernoff has played a significant role as a Messianic Jewish leader. He has served as General Secretary and CEO of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), the largest institution representing the worldwide Messianic Jewish community. He also founded and chairs the Joseph Project International, which has delivered over $170 million in humanitarian aid to Israel and operates as the country’s largest importer of such aid.

Jonathan Cahn (1959-)

Raised in New York State by a Holocaust survivor mother within a committed Jewish family, Jonathan David Cahn attended synagogue regularly and celebrated his bar‑mitzvah in the traditional manner. Like a significant portion of American Jewry, he found organized religion irrelevant to his daily life, though he was proud of his Jewish heritage.

Cahn’s early spiritual doubts deepened as he struggled to reconcile the vibrant depictions of God in Hebrew school lessons with the dry formalism of synagogue worship. After a near-death experience at age 20, he ultimately found conviction in biblical prophecies and embraced Messianic Judaism before graduating from SUNY Purchase.

Cahn subsequently founded the Beth Israel Worship Center in Wayne, New Jersey, and serves as president of Hope of the World Ministries, an international evangelistic organization. He gained worldwide recognition with his 2011 debut novel The Harbinger, which draws parallels between ancient Israel and the United States, suggesting that events like 9/11 represent divine warnings.

The book became a New York Times bestseller for over 100 consecutive weeks and sold over 2 million copies. His subsequent bestsellers, including The Mystery of the Shemitah, The Paradigm, and The Oracle, have established him as one of the most prominent voices in modern prophetic teaching, focusing on end-times prophecy and calling for national repentance and return to biblical principles.

Cahn strongly supports Israel and views the Jewish state as central to God’s end-times plan. He teaches that Israel faces spiritual warfare from “principalities and powers,” particularly from Iran (which he identifies with the biblical “principality of Persia”). Cahn believes the “forces of hell” have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948 and that the nation’s restoration fulfills biblical prophecy.

Further, Cahn has been one of Trump’s most vocal evangelical supporters. In 2019, he prayed over Trump at Mar-a-Lago, declaring that God had “raised you up to be a Jehu to your nation” and calling Trump to safeguard Israeli interests.

Cahn has likened Trump to the biblical king Jehu, a “warrior king” called to “make his nation great again” by overturning ungodly leadership. He believes Trump was “born to be a trumpet of God” and appointed to overturn “America’s cult of Baal” (making a reference to the abortion movement). Following Trump’s 2024 election victory, Cahn praised it as “the greatest political comeback in American history” and argued that “the only real threat of fascism in America actually comes from the Left.”

Wayne Allyn Root (1961-)

In a similar vein, conservative media personality Wayne Allyn Root illustrates a similar trend of Jews embracing Christianity. Root is an ethnic Jew by birth—” 99.5% European Jewish” as confirmed by DNA testing—who became an outspoken evangelical and, for a brief moment, a high-profile member of the Libertarian Party. Root converted to Christianity in the early 1990s and has been actively involved in conservative and libertarian circles.

Root’s run for vice president in 2008 alongside former Congressman Bob Barr represented a neoconservative subversion of the Libertarian Party’s presidential agenda. Root unapologetically departed from standard libertarian non-interventionist principles, saying he was a strong supporter of the War on Terror, but only believed it was mishandled.

He endorsed the “troop surge” in Iraq, saying, “I agreed with the recommendation of the Generals on the ground—to build up a troop surge. We did and it’s been a great success.” Root’s rapid ascent in the Libertarian Party naturally provoked a backlash from the more principled, non-interventionist members of the party. The now-inactive libertarian blogger “Classically Liberal” accused the Barr-Root ticket of being “neocon infiltrators” who brought “foreign interventionism” to the party. Their presence as Libertarian Party nominees betrayed libertarian principles of non-interventionism.

Like several Jewish political figures in the U.S. political arena, Root eventually changed his political stripes, leaving the Libertarian Party to embrace Trump-style populism. Since his pivot, he has adopted conventional hawkish positions toward neocon bête noire Iran, describing it as “the biggest threat to Israel’s existence ever.”

Root and his fellow Messianic Jews and Jewish converts to evangelicalism demonstrate the folly of trying to convert them Christianity. Even when they convert, they continue to pursue political agendas that advance Jewish interests at the expense of the Gentile host population. It’s quite literally in their DNA.

*   *   *

As commentators like Mike Peinovich have astutely observed, efforts to limit Jewish social mobility have been most aggressively pursued under National Socialism and in certain Muslim nations, particularly Yemen, where Jews were ghettoized and barred from achieving equal status.

Reduction of Jewish power, not conversion is the answer to the lingering Jewish problem.

History suggests that no matter how sincere the conversion, the political consequences remain the same: loyalty to the tribe persists unless Jewish power itself is checked.

Big Jew Is Watching You: Semitic Psychology and the Surveillance State

Although I’m a great admirer of the Jewish New Yorker Larry Auster (1949-2013), I’m glad that he seems never to have had any children. Why am I glad? Because of something called reversion to the mean. By Jewish standards, Auster was unusually sympathetic to White gentiles and unusually honest about non-White criminality. If he’d had children, I don’t think they would shared his sympathy and honesty. They would probably have reverted to the Jewish mean of hostility to Whites and dishonesty about non-Whites.

Good father, bad son

Or those children could have been disappointing in other ways. I was once a big fan of the writer Isaac Asimov (1920-92), a Jewish New Yorker like Auster. So I was disappointed to hear that in 1998 Asimov’s son David Asimov was caught with “the biggest child pornography collection in Sonoma County history.” Interestingly, none other than Robert Mueller of the FBI helped Asimov Jr to avoid a prison sentence and serve only home detention. Mueller was also involved when the Jewish child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein was treated with similar leniency. Many people have suggested that Jewish privilege was at work in both cases.

I agree with the suggestions. I’d also compare both Asimov and Epstein with Anthony Weiner, the Jewish New Yorker and Democrat high-flier whose energetic on-line sexual activities helped doom Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency. And Isaac Asimov presented himself as very sexually energetic, albeit not (so far as is known) in a criminal way. Jews seem to have a higher sex-drive and higher tendency to sexual perversion than White gentiles. But this is one of those patterns you are not supposed to notice. As I’ve pointed out before, the Jewish anti-racist Liz Fekete abhors the “long history of racialising sex crimes [in Britain] — Jews being associated with paedophilia in the 1930s, West Indians with pimping in the 1950s and now the focus has shifted to Muslim ‘groomers’.”

Jewish outliers

But do those racial associations reflect reality or bigotry? I’d say that they all reflect reality. It is not a coincidence that that the Jew Jeffrey Epstein raped and trafficked so many under-aged White girls or that the Jew David Asimov had such a large collection of child pornography. Both men come from the small Jewish minority in America but are sexual outliers just as mega-fraudsters like Bernie Madoff and Robert Maxwell are financial outliers. In a much more positive way, the mathematician Grigori Perelman and the chess-champion Garry Kasparov are intellectual outliers. When a small minority supplies so many outliers like that, something very interesting is going on. It’s related both to Jewish intelligence and to the “psychological intensity” identified by Kevin MacDonald as one of the traits behind Jewish success.

But Jewish outliers like Epstein and Maxwell display another Jewish trait: a quasi-psychopathic disregard for the welfare of the non-Jewish outgroup. Both men were predators who exploited goyim ruthlessly for their own gain. Which isn’t to say that goyim were blameless: Epstein found willing gentile customers like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew for his child-prostitution ring. Or so the allegations run. Indeed, some commentators say that Epstein was working with the Deep State and Israel to gather blackmail material on members of the elite. Like Epstein’s paedophilia and entrepreneurial skills, this would also fit a Jewish pattern: that of a tendency towards spying and voyeurism. As I described in “The Price of Paranoia,” the surveillance state is a thoroughly Jewish phenomenon.

Seeing the Stone Age

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) is by far the most famous prophecy of the surveillance state, but I’d like to look at a less famous literary treatment of the surveillance theme. It’s by a writer I’ve already mentioned: the Jew Isaac Asimov. In 1956 Asimov published a short story called “The Dead Past.” That’s an ironic title, because the story is about chronoscopy, an elaborate and highly expensive invention that brings the past back to life by allowing researchers to both view and hear real scenes from “Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt,” even “the Stone Age.”

Or so it’s alleged in the story. Alas, Asimov’s stories combine leaden prose with cardboard characters, which is why I now prefer his science fact to his science fiction. All the same, “The Dead Past” is a fascinating story, full of ideas and invention, and it stayed with me after I first read it decades ago. It begins with a historian called Arnold Potterley trying to gain access to a chronoscope. He wants to prove that the ancient Carthaginians did not in fact practise child-sacrifice. Potterley’s efforts are rebuffed, but he doesn’t give up, because he has strong personal reasons for wanting to exonerate the Carthaginians.

No such thing as privacy

Potterley recruits a young physicist, Jonas Foster, to investigate the curiously inactive field of chronoscopy, which has existed for decades but achieved very little. It turns out (spoiler alerts) that the government is deliberately suppressing research and choking the field off, so Foster uses new and cheaper techniques to build an illicit chronoscope of his own. He learns that the government has lied to the public: chronoscopy can’t view the distant past because it depends on tiny subatomic particles known as neutrinos. The further these particles travel through time, the less precisely they can be focused. Accordingly, the chronoscope can see little more than a century back.

But within that temporal limit, it can see anything that has happened anywhere on earth. And this omnivision turns out to be the crux of Asimov’s story. A chronoscope is the ultimate spying-device, because the past “begins an instant ago” and a chronoscope can easily view all moments of any living person’s existence. When a government official, Thaddeus Araman, uncovers Foster’s illegal research, he explains why the government doesn’t want chronoscopes to become widely available:

“There will be no such thing as privacy. The party line, the prying eye behind the curtain will be nothing compared to it. The video stars will be closely watched at all times by everyone. Every man his own peeping Tom and there’ll be no getting away from the watcher. Even darkness will be no escape because chronoscopy can be adjusted to the infrared and human figures can be seen by their own body heat. The figures will be fuzzy, of course, and the surroundings will be dark, but that will make the titillation of it all the greater, perhaps… Even the men in charge of the machine now experiment sometimes in spite of the regulations against it.” (“The Dead Past,” 1956, online text)

But it’s too late by then: Foster’s new research can’t be suppressed and Araman’s dire warning will soon become reality. As Araman says to Foster and his collaborators: “Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone, and may each of you fry in hell forever.”

“Registered parcel for Mrs Levy”

As I said, it’s an interesting story and it stayed with me after I first read it. Asimov obviously didn’t like the idea of society as a panopticon, where everyone can be watched all the time. But it’s interesting that the pornographic aspect of surveillance was central to his thinking: “the titillation of it all.” It’s also interesting to ask where he got his pessimism about the human predilection for spying. Perhaps this Jewish joke offers some clues:

The new postman is delivering a registered parcel and needs a signature so he rings the doorbell. Sadie sticks her head out of the bedroom window and says, “Nu [Yiddish for “So?” or “Well?”], what is it?”

“I have a registered parcel for Mrs Levy,” he replies.

“Is it wrapped in fancy gift paper or just plain brown paper?” Sadie asks.

“Ordinary brown paper, ma’am,” he replies.

“So who is it from?” Sadie asks.

“It’s from Cohen’s department store, ma’am,” he replies.

“Does it say from which branch?” Sadie asks.

“Yes, ma’am,” he replies, “it’s from the Jameson Street branch.”

“Does it say what’s in it?” Sadie asks.

“It says it’s from their ‘Writing Instruments’ department,” he replies. “Will you now come down and sign for it, please.”

“Sorry,” replies Sadie, “I can’t do that.”

“Why not?” he asks.

“Because,” Sadie replies, “I’m Sadie Cohen. Mrs Levy lives next door.”

That’s a Jewish joke in two senses. First, it’s about Jews and appears on Jewish sites. Second, it must have been created by a Jew. It’s an insider’s comment on Jewish psychology and culture. Isaac Asimov, who was born in Russia and grew up in New York, may have been influenced by the same psychology and culture when he wrote “The Dead Past.” Spying, prying and voyeurism are not of course unique to Jews, but there does seem to be a stronger tendency to those things among Jews.

The American government is not virtuous

Information is power, after all, and I suggested in “The Price of Paranoia” that the Jewish role in the surveillance state was driven partly by their paranoia about gentiles. But surveillance isn’t simply utilitarian and Asimov was right to be pessimistic about what would happen if a panoptic spying-device became widely available. Society would indeed turn into a “goldfish bowl” and no-one’s life would be safe from prying eyes. But I think Asimov was very wrong about something else: the attitude of government to such a device. In his story, the American government is virtuous and doesn’t use the chronoscope to spy on its own people. That wouldn’t happen in real life. As Edward Snowden and others have proved, the American government is eager to use technology to spy on Americans and gather useful information against them.

In part this is because the American government no longer regards the White majority as its own people. Instead, it’s hostile towards them and wants to swamp them with mass immigration from the Third World. The same is true of other White-majority nations, from Ireland in the far north-west to New Zealand in the far south-east. We are ruled by a hostile elite that is dominated by Jews and guided by their anti-White, anti-Christian attitudes. We have state surveillance because the state regards us as enemies, obstacles to the glorious multi-racial and Islamified future they are preparing for us. The official justification for this surveillance is breathtaking in its chutzpah: we’re told that they need to spy on us to keep us “safe” from terrorism and from “extremists” who “seek to divide us.”

Create real diseases, then offer fake cures

But the terrorism wouldn’t exist without the mass immigration imposed on us by our hostile elites. And what could be more “divisive” than mass immigration from primitive, alien cultures? Well, one thing could be: mass immigration accompanied by massive, state-sponsored anti-racist propaganda blaming Whites for all non-White failure. And that’s precisely what we’ve got: mass immigration accompanied by massive anti-White propaganda. The hostile elite creates the diseases to which it offers the supposed cures.

Of course, while the diseases are real, the cures are fake. They’re intended to strengthen the hostile elite and weaken the White majority, not to combat the diseases. One cure the hostile elite are desperate to introduce in America is strict gun-control. So far, I’m glad to say, the hostile elite have failed. Too many White Americans agree with William S. Burroughs (1914-97), who said: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” Burroughs also said something that is very relevant to the surveillance state: “Most of the trouble in the world has been caused by ten to twenty percent of folks who can’t mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus.”

“It’s fun to spy on people”

Western politics and media are full of people who can’t mind their own business. But I wouldn’t agree that their interference in other people’s lives is as mindless as that of a smallpox virus. If you read Edward Snowden’s revelations, you’ll discover that many employees of the National Security Agency (NSA) positively enjoyed the chance to invade the privacy of strangers. As Isaac Asimov noted: if you give people the chance to spy, they will take it. But how much does the impulse to spy and control differ between the races? I’m White and I’d like to think that lots of other Whites would be as horrified as I was by this image proudly displayed by the Chinese government in 2018:

China is proud of its surveillance technology (image from Foreign Policy)

That image accompanies a 2019 article on artificial intelligence (AI), which describes the image like this: “A screen shows visitors being filmed by AI security cameras with facial recognition technology at the 14th China International Exhibition on Public Safety and Security at the China International Exhibition Center in Beijing on Oct. 24, 2018.” There is a very old tradition of central control and state authoritarianism in China, and the willingness of the Chinese both to adopt and to accept surveillance may have genetic roots.

Israel pioneers privatized spying

Europe has had a much more centrifugal and individualistic history, but one genetically distinct group in Europe hasn’t shared in this history. As Kevin MacDonald has described, Jews also have a long tradition of authoritarianism, often based on charismatic rabbis and their adoring disciples. But those Jews who questioned Judaism were in serious danger. For example, in the seventeenth century, Dutch Jews excommunicated and would probably have murdered the heretic Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) had he not been able to live among more tolerant and individualistic Dutch gentiles (see Andrew Joyce’s discussion of Spinoza at TOO). In the twenty-first century Jews are outliers in surveillance just as they are in child-abuse and fraud. The NSA in America is much more famous than Unit 8200, its equivalent in Israel, but graduates of Unit 8200 are pioneering what the New York Times calls “privatized spying”:

Jewish porn-mogul-alikes and surveillance mavens Omri Lavie (left) and Shalev Hulio (image from Haaretz)

The man in charge of Saudi Arabia’s ruthless campaign to stifle dissent went searching for ways to spy on people he saw as threats to the kingdom. He knew where to go: a secretive Israeli company offering technology developed by former intelligence operatives.

It was late 2017 and Saud al-Qahtani — then a top adviser to Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince — was tracking Saudi dissidents around the world, part of his extensive surveillance efforts that ultimately led to the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In messages exchanged with employees from the company, NSO Group, Mr. al-Qahtani spoke of grand plans to use its surveillance tools throughout the Middle East and Europe, like Turkey and Qatar or France and Britain. …

Before NSO helped the Saudi government track its adversaries outside the kingdom, and helped the Mexican government hunt drug kingpins, and earned hundreds of millions of dollars working for dozens of countries on six continents, the company consisted of two high school friends in northern Israel with one relatively mundane idea.

Using technology developed by graduates of Intelligence Unit 8200 — Israel’s equivalent of the N.S.A. [National Security Agency] — Shalev Hulio and Omri Lavie started a company in 2008 that allowed cellphone firms to gain remote access to their customers’ devices to perform maintenance.

Word spread to Western spy services, whose operatives spotted an opportunity. At the time, American and European officials were warning that Apple, Facebook, Google and other tech giants were developing technologies that allowed criminals and terrorists to communicate through encrypted channels indecipherable to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They called the phenomenon “going dark.”

Mr. Hulio and Mr. Lavie offered a way to circumvent this problem by hacking the end points of the communications — the phones themselves — after the data were decrypted. … (A New Age of Warfare: How Internet Mercenaries Do Battle for Authoritarian Governments, The New York Times, 21st March 2019)

I dislike the New York Times as much as I dislike the Guardian, but let’s give credit where it’s due: those two newspapers have worked hard to expose and criticize the surveillance state. That article in the Times is another good example. To judge by that photo, Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio, the Israeli founders of the totalitarian-friendly NSO Group, could easily be a pair of porn moguls. They look sleazy and amoral, and I think that’s exactly what they are (among other things). The same psychology that enables Jews to flourish in pornography is now enabling Jews to flourish in “privatized spying.”

Unit 8200 Is Watching You

But that privatized spying is built on official spying, of course. As the Times notes, Lavie and Hulio are both “graduates of Intelligence Unit 8200.” And Unit 8200 should be much more widely known than it is. For one thing, if you’re a reader of the Occidental Observer, it’s highly likely that Unit 8200 or some similar Israeli agency knows you and has tracked your internet activity. But maybe Unit 8200 wasn’t the first to catch you in the act of crime-think. It might have been the NSA in America or GCHQ in Britain or their many equivalents in Germany, France and so on. One of George Orwell’s prophecies in Nineteen Eighty-Four has come true: Big Brother watches us night and day, endlessly hungry for information it can use against us.

At present, thought-criminals aren’t dragged off for torture and mind-cleansing in the cellars of the Ministry of Love, but be in no doubt: there are lots of people who would like that to happen. In fact, I’d say that Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio would be happy to run a full Big-Brother service, from sniffing out crime-thinkers to arresting them and torturing them into conformity. Live streaming of torture sessions could be very lucrative. Orwell missed the idea of commercialized tyranny in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but he got the essentials of the modern surveillance state uncannily accurate. He warned us very clearly and we didn’t listen.

Afterword: I completed this article in 2019. I can’t remember why it didn’t get published back then at the Occidental Observer, but now that it has been, I find that its themes of Semitic surveillance and commercialized tyranny have been fully vindicated. See this discussion at Unz of the “Palantir AI Police State Control Grid” by one of the Andrew Anglin Collective. Also see Janko Vukic’s “Profiling Palantir,” which Vukic describes as “the tech firm beloved by the WEF and founded by Peter Thiel and Zionist zealot, Alex Karp — that is watching every last move you make.” And see Bruce Charlton’s comment on why Tolkien’s names – Palantir is one of them – are being used by Clown World for technology that serves evil ends.

MAYORKAS TO DEATH ROW?

Biden’s Hit Man

Asked a few weeks ago why Alejandro Mayorkas, the former secretary of Homeland Security, hadn’t been arrested yet, President Trump said, “I’ll take a look at that one because what he did is beyond incompetence.”

Apparently, some rash individuals have drawn a connection between Mayorkas’ vast human trafficking operation, which brought gang members, child molesters, thieves, rapists and murderers to our country, and the crimes they committed.

C’mon — that’s like day following night — no connection whatsoever.

True, the law makes such a link, such as with the crimes of felony murder, accomplice to murder and conspiracy to murder, but that’s completely different. We’re talking about immigrants! Everyone knows that the only law that applies to illegal aliens is the invisible constitutional provision requiring years of due process before we can deport them.

What did Mayorkas do that allegedly encouraged 11 million illegals to pour in under his watch?

Federal immigration law imposes a slew of requirements before foreigners are allowed to move here. For example, as we immigration buffs know, the “law” (U.S. Code Title 8) provides that no alien may enter our country for more than 30 days without, among other things:

— a visa;

— a passport;

— being fingerprinted;

— filling out the 11-page Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application — in English!;

— being interviewed by a consular official;

— a medical exam; AND (not “or”)

— proving he will not become a public charge.

Further, the law states that any person who, operating outside of these laws, “brings to or attempts to bring” an alien to the U.S.; or who “transports, or moves” an alien within the U.S.; or who “encourages or induces an alien to come” to the U.S., has committed a felony. And if any of these violations results “in the death of any person,” the person who brought, transported or induced the illegal “[shall] be punished by death.” (8 U.S.C. 1324)

But to be fair, Mayorkas is wholly unaware of federal immigration law, so he’s in the clear, assuming ignorance of the law is a defense.

It may look like Mayorkas hustled aliens into our country in violation of Title 8 when he fast-tracked them across the border and flew them into the U.S. interior under the cover of darkness, where they were released into our country to spawn like salmon and kill a lot of people.

In fact, the former Homeland secretary merely replaced the dusty old statutory law — and its cheap gimmicks about visas, consular interviews and medical checks — with a modern, streamlined phone app, almost guaranteeing instant admission. Simply fill out a bare-bones one-page form — name, age, citizenship, location, email and a photo — and you’re in! What else would the greatest nation on Earth require before choosing people to be our fellow citizens?

Right-wing kooks will say Mayorkas “brought” or “induced” illegals to come by virtue of making it impossible for any alien to be turned away. This is false. In fact, the CBP One app had an acceptance rate of only 95%. Although a number of murderers, child molesters, kidnappers, drug mules and terrorists got in, I stress that 5% were turned away.

Moreover, if the secretary of Homeland Security can ignore the entirety of federal immigration law, it’s only fair for us to ignore that one little section prescribing the death penalty for anyone who brings an illegal to the U.S., transports an illegal within the U.S. or induces an illegal to come to the U.S., if that alien goes on to kill someone.

What kind of law is that, anyway? Just because you intentionally let a murderer in, you’re responsible for his subsequent crimes? It ought to count for something that Mayorkas practically put the cartels out of business by doing their work for them. (By some estimates, he is the biggest human trafficker in world history. Congratulations, Alejandro!)

Mayorkas should simply deny that any of the 11 million illegals he brought in committed any crimes. He could cite The New York Times. My thorough check of Times archives does not reveal a single crime committed by an illegal alien in the last five years. Or ever. (The only crime here is that Mayorkas finally got his kitchen remodeled at a price so low it’s practically a crime.)

On the internet, you will find endless news stories about murders committed by illegal aliens let in by Mayorkas, but this simply serves as a reminder of our need for Joe Biden’s “Disinformation Governance Board.”

Here are a few of the alleged illegal alien murders:

— Convicted murderer and rapist David Antonio Calderon, fresh from a 22-year prison sentence in El Salvador, was admitted to our country by Mayorkas, whereupon he brutally stabbed one man, savagely beat two others with a baseball bat, and murdered a 33-year-old mother, cracking her skull, then setting her body on fire.

— Honduran Elmer Rueda-Linares, 18, arrested entering the country illegally in June 2021, was promptly released — on Mayorkas’ orders. In April 2024, he killed a staffer to Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Kurt Englehart, in a hit and run in Nevada. Sen. Masto now has one less adviser, but one more Hispanic constituent.

— Another Mayorkas-invited murderer, Haitian Kenol Baptiste, scheduled his illegal entry into the U.S. through the secretary’s phone app — super handy for criminals! Baptiste then murdered two people in Middletown, New York. (Weird that a citizen of the most murderous country in all of Latin America would commit murder.) Middletown police captured the Haitian by unleashing the K-9 unit on him. Luckily, he’d already had lunch.

— Illegal alien Yery Noel Medina Ulloa, who looks like Yoda, in the sense of “not human,” lied to border agents about his name and age, because he didn’t realize that Mayorkas would usher him in, whatever his name and age. Medina Ulloa was flown to Florida, where he was taken in by Francisco Javier Cuellar to work in the family business. Weeks later, Medina Ulloa, in a wild frenzy, beat and stabbed his host to death. It makes me wonder if Trump moved too fast in removing a Tren de Aragua member from that New Mexico judge’s house.

— Peruvian Roberto Emilio Vasquez-Santamaria, age 64 — because you want to get illegals of retirement age, so they can get on Medicare and Social Security right away — entered the country illegally in May 2023. Per Mayorkas’ instructions, he was immediately released into the country. A few months later, Vasquez-Santamaria bludgeoned a 40-year-old Houston man to death in his own backyard.

We shouldn’t be too hard on Secretary Mayorkas just because he let in illegals, who then killed thousands of Americans. There are no serial killers on Mount Rushmore, but maybe Mayorkas could be the first.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

Street-Fighting Man: Two Books about Horst Wessel

The Making of a Nazi Hero: The Murder and Myth of Horst Wessel by Daniel Siemens, Translation by David Burnett, I.B. Tauris, 2013.

Die Fahne Hoch: Three Biographies of Horst Wessel by Erwin Reitmann, Fritz Daum and Max Kullak, Translation and Introduction by Klokke Van Aelst. Antelope Hill Publishing, 2022.

In the summer of ‘68 rocker Mick Jagger lamented that, “in sleepy London Town there’s just no place for a street-fighting man.” The same could not be said for Berlin Town forty years earlier where violent clashes between political factions were a near daily occurrence. The mayhem, previously confined to the streets and beer halls, escalated in January 1930 when a communist gang shot and fatally wounded a Sturmabteilung (SA) leader in what today would be described as a home invasion murder. The conventional narrative views the life of Horst Wessel (Wessel) largely as a prop for Gauleiter Joseph Goebbels propaganda campaign. But a closer look finds a fascinating tale of violence, sex, and political intrigue. What more could a compelling story need?

The books considered here treat the same subject in two very different formats. Prof. Siemens’ volume is an academic work written within the general liberal-left perspective of contemporary academe, but with enough objectivity to be largely led by the evidence. What really makes Siemens an interesting read is the new archival material he uncovered. Records of the Berlin criminal police from this period were seized by the Red Army in 1945. Later they were locked away in possession of the East German Ministry for State Security (Stasi). After the fall of communism, they were “lost” until Siemens discovered them while researching his book. Thus he is the first historian to include this material. At times the use of police reports gives his account the feel of the true crime genre.

Die Fahne Hoch includes three short biographies of Wesswl published in 1933 or 1934, and written a year or two earlier. Erwin Reitmann was a fellow SA man and knew Wessel personally. His account is heavily politicized. Fritz Daum’s piece is the longest of the three and is aimed at young readers. Max Kullak’s contribution is the shortest, but to me the most interesting. Kullak was also a SA man and is identified as Prof. Dr. Max Kullak on the back cover. This collection conveys the mindset of the SA during the late Weimar and early days in power of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).  It also contains the lyrics of many SA songs. The material was translated and published by Antelope Hill Press. The company has received the seal of disapproval from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel was born in 1907 in the city of Bielefeld in the province of Westphalia. His father, Wilhelm Ludwig Georg Wessel, was an up-and-coming Lutheran minister. His mother also came from a family of Lutheran clergy. In 1913 the family moved to Berlin after Pastor Wessel received a prestigious post at the Nicolai Church (St. Nicholas). Siemens describes Rev. Wessel as a volkisch theologian — a Christian ethno-nationalist. Having grown up in a liberal Lutheran church in America during the 1960s it is hard for me to imagine such a theological orientation. One element of Lutheranism that has not changed, however, is its emphasis on music. So it is not entirely surprising that a pastor’s son became a songsmith for the SA. Pastor Wessel died unexpectedly in 1922 when Horst was 15. Though in somewhat reduced circumstances, the family was able to maintain a very respectable middle-class lifestyle with a residence on (ironically) Jüdenstraße.

Horst’s father had been a strong supporter of the German National People’s Party (DNVP) and the boy was a nationalist from an early age. According to Kullak, Wessel took a six-week summer training program with the Black Reichswehr at the age of 16. The Black Reichswehr was a semi-secret organization which received some government funding and acted as an axillary to the German army which was then limited to 100,000 men by the treaty of Versailles. At 18 he joined the Bismarck League, the youth wing of the DNVP. Besides being a political organization Siemens writes that the league was influenced by a back-to-nature movement. Young Wessel enjoyed being part of this co-ed group, but ultimately found it too bourgeois for his growing militancy.

There were a multitude of right-wing groups in Germany in the mid to late 1920s and a year later Wessel joined the Viking League. This was a serious organization, the successor to Organisation Consul, described by Wikipedia as “an ultra-nationalist and antisemitic terrorist organization that operated in the Weimar Republic from 1920 to 1922.”[1] It had an adult membership, most of whom were five to ten years older than Horst. Kullak suggests a generational divide within the German Right at the time. Those of middle age who had been established before the war wanted a restoration of the old regime. Younger men who either had fought in the war or remembered the war but were too young to have fought, wanted radical change.

In April of 1926 Wessel enrolled in Friedrich Wilhelm University to study law. According to Reitmann, Horst joined the SA in May 1926, while Siemens writes he joined the NSDAP in December in that year. At the time one could be a member of one organization, or the other, or both. So young Wessel left reactionary nationalism behind and joined the revolutionary Right.

Siemens states that the SA was then “made up of workers and the unemployed . . . as well as right-wing nationalist-minded bourgeois academics.” In Kullak’s account, however, Wessel’s solid secondary education and university study set him apart from his mostly working-class mates. He was a middle-class college kid and “there were not many of them in the SA at that time.”  Reitmann, Horst’s SA comrade, called his fellows “an uneducated, unpolished crowd.” No matter. In the SA Horst had found his calling. His enthusiasm and courage propelled him into a leadership position where he became known for his ability as a recruiter and motivator.

Berlin at the time was a stronghold of the far Left. Hitler appointed Goebbels, a Rhinelander, as the party’s regional leader to fight the Battle for Berlin. If the SA could control the streets of the capital, it would send a powerful political message. But it would not be easy. The Reds ruled the streets of the Friedrichshain District. Official police statistics report 318 incidents of “political rowdyism,” or street clashes in 1928. That number increased to 579 in 1929. Although bold, Siemens states that “Wessel was hardly a good fighter, despite having trained intensely.” He had a defensive fighting style, perhaps due to “a debilitation and deformation of the arm” cause by a severe fracture from an equestrian accident.

Wessel is probably best known as a musician and song writer. He had a good strong voice and played the piano and guitar. His Die Fahne hoch, later named the Horst-Wessel-Lied, became the official anthem of the NSDAP. Siemens notes the role of music in the movement. The SA met “at central locations, sang songs, and marched through the streets with the aim of impressing curious sympathizers as well as provoking political adversaries.” He explains that songs “reinforce the singers’ sense of identification with the cause.” The rhythm must be suitable for marching because “the liberating power of song comes from the rhythm.”

To carry the tune Wessel created a shawm band. Today’s American Right appears to be musically deficient. In addition, Horst was an excellent orator; after all, his father had been known for preaching rousing sermons.

Fate determined that 1929 would be the high point of Horst Wessel’s short life. Die Fahne hoch was first sung in the streets of Berlin in May. In August as sturmfuhrer, sturm 5 he led his group to the party congress in Nuremberg where this song was also sung.

Earlier that year Horst met Erna Jaenichen a 23-year-old prostitute, a year older than Wessel. The fact that he would became associated with a former prostitute led to the smear that he was her pimp. Siemens, the detective historian, could find no evidence to support this claim. Far more likely the idealistic young SA man rescued her from the streets. Wessel came to blows with Georg Ruhnke, Erna’s former pimp. Ruhnke claimed he bested Wessel. Biographer Fritz Daum disputes this claim, but in any case, Ruhnke left the couple alone after the fight. This theme brings to mind the movie Taxi Driver (1976) where Robert DeNiro saves the young prostitute Jodie Foster. Going back further we have St. George saving the fair maiden from a dragon, or perhaps Perseus saving Andromeda.

By November Erna moved in with Wessel who had by now left his family’s home and was living in a cheap rooming house. He had also left the university without taking his degree. He became a “worker” while devoting most of his time to the cause. While I am sure there were “benefits” to having Erna as a roommate, she did complicate his life. Siemens quotes one SA leader: “Everyone knows her, no one likes her.” They tolerated her for Wessel’s sake. Daum writes: “When his comrades . . . once did not speak of her with the respect he thought was due her, he reprimanded them and told them he would become engaged to this faithful girl. From then on they all treated the quiet Erna with the greatest respect.” While this was the official party narrative there is suspicion that Erna, a former member of the Alliance of Red Women and Girls, might not have been as loyal to Wessel and National Socialism as she appeared.  I imagine that Horst’s mother, the widow of a well-known conservative clergyman, would not have welcomed a match with a former prostitute, a girl without education or family. But by this time her son had largely reject bourgeois society, though he was not estranged from his family.

There are three versions of the events leading up to Horst Wessel’s murder in the winter of 1930. One: Horst and Erna got into a dispute with their landlady Elisabeth Salm. Did Frau Salm demand additional rent now that two persons were occupying the premises? Or was she afraid that Erna’s reputation would reflect negatively on her establishment?  Widow Salm claimed to be apolitical, but her late husband had been a member of the German Communist Party (KPD). She knew some members of the Red Front Fighters League. Did she ask them to come over to beat up Wessel and throw him out of the rooming house? But Horst and Erna had already agreed to vacate by the end of the month, so why go to extreme measures to stop a stay of only two more weeks? There is probably an element of truth in this account, but it is hardly the main story.

Two: The communist version printed in the Die Rote Fahne is that Wessel was shot in a dispute between two pimps over a girl. There was nothing explicitly political about the attack. This was pure libel on the part of the communist press, and the KPD leadership knew it. Although this version has been repeated endlessly since January 1930, including in a Wikipedia entry, it was certainly not the case. Wessel was not a pimp, and the gunman was not Erna’s former pimp, but he was a KPD member.

The third version on which both the police and the NSDAP agreed was that Wessel was the victim of a political assassination. Due to his political activism, Wessel had a target on his back. He had been doxed 1930 style, and had received numerous warnings from friends and threats from foes. On the evening of January 14, 1930 Horst was expecting a visit from two SA members. He answered a knock on the door and was immediately shot in the face by Albrecht “Ali” Höhler, a communist who joined the party in 1924 and a petty criminal associated with a Ringvereine, a gang dealing in stolen goods and prostitution. Siemens reports that during this time the “KPD had close ties to the criminal underworld.”

According to SA physician Leonardo Conti the 9mm slug knocked out the victim’s front teeth and destroyed most of his tongue, uvula, and palate. The bullet lodged in a cervical vertebra but missing the brain. A report the next day by the criminal police put it more bluntly: “His case is said to be hopeless.” Yet Wessel lingered for weeks before a fatal infection set in. Without modern antibiotics this was, unfortunately, a common occurrence. U.S. President James Garfield survived for two months with festering wounds before succumbing to his assassin’s bullets.

A family tragedy three weeks before might have contributed to Wessel’s death. His nineteen-year-old brother Werner died of hypothermia “on a Nazi-organized winter excursion” in the Silesian mountains. A blizzard hit while the outing was on the trail. They were either on skis or snowshoes, accounts vary. Four young people, three boys and a girl, became separated from the group, lost their way and froze to death overnight on December 23, 1929. Understandably, Horst was deeply affected by his younger brother’s death and his funk might have made him less careful regarding his personal safety.

Wessel died on February 23, 1930. Gauleiter Goebbels, who had visited Wessel several times in the hospital, spoke at graveside. Hermann Göring was also in attendance. The police, fearing disorder, wanted a small funeral without swastika flags. The casket was draped with a swastika flag, but piled with flowers so it was not clearly visible. Thousands came out for the procession, most in support, singing the Horst Wessel Lied. The communists were also out shouting abuse and throwing stones, but there was no major disturbance.

Meanwhile Ali Höhler, who had been identified as the triggerman, was smuggled out of the country to Prague with the help of Red Aid, the KPD legal-aid organization. But Ali decided to returned to Berlin, was arrested, and cooperated with the police, no doubt hoping for a lighter sentence.

The first Wessel murder trial later that year was a sensation in Berlin at the time. The two main defendants were Ali Höhler, who fired the fatal shot and Erwin Rückert who also had been armed and accompanied Ali. There were also several other accomplices, part of the gang that stood guard at the rooming house. The landlady Elisabeth Salm was charged as well. The defense made two contradictory claims, the shot was “fired inadvertently” and that Höhler had fired in self-defense. Reitmann describes the trial: “The defendants were shady individuals with criminal records . . . defended by Jewish lawyers.” The defense must have done a pretty good job, Höhler received the longest sentence of only six years, Salm only got eighteen months.

After Hitler gained office in January 1933 things changed. Horst Wessel’s life took on almost mythic status. He became the role model for German youth. The man who wrote “Comrades shot by Red Front and reaction; March in spirit within our ranks” had been shot down by the Red Front, a martyr for the cause. There was also payback, the NSDAP took revenged on whom they thought had gotten off too lightly. A second Wessel murder trial was held in 1934. Before that happened there were a couple of extrajudicial executions. Elsa Cohn, who someone labeled “the Jewish ringleader,” was convicted in September 1930, but fled before sentencing. In May 1933 she was found dead by the side of the road near the east bank of the Oder River. Ali Höhler, now serving time in Wohlau Prison, Silesia, was transferred to Gestapo headquarters for interrogation in preparation for the second trial. On the way back to prison in September 1933 he was abducted after his transport was stopped by SA men serving as auxiliary police. The body was discovered a year later by a mushroom hunter. Of the persons convicted as participants in the Wessel murder, two were extrajudicially executed, two were judicially executed, four died in prison, and four survived the war.

Some criticized Wessel’s mother Margarete for trying to profit from her son’s fame. She fought unsuccessfully to gain copyright to the Horst Wessel Lied, much to the annoyance of Goebbels.  She did receive copyrights to two of Horst’s unpublished manuscripts, one a political testament and the other a travelogue of trips around Germany and Austria. She also sold his papers to the Prussian State Library. I guess one should give the widow a break, having lost her husband and two sons. Horst’s kid sister, Ingeborg, helped promote her brother’s legacy, speaking to many school groups around Berlin. She went on to become a physician and married a physician. They had one son, born in 1942, and named after his famous uncle.

Erna Jaenichen’s life took a different course. She was with Horst when he was shot. She testified at the first trial that she and Horst were engaged. The myth arose that she was spying on the KPD for Wessel. She denied ever spying, but she had connections with both the SA and the Red Front. Perhaps she was playing both sides. After the trial she seemed to have dropped out of sight until 1933 when she married Georg Ruhnke, her pimp back in ’29! The marriage did not last. In 1935 she married a guy named Fiedler. Then, after another change of name and address, she disappeared from the historical record.

Both the Siemens book and the Antelope Hill book tell us something about the beliefs and values of the SA during the late 1920s and early 30s. One thing that stands out is that they saw themselves as revolutionaries, opposed to both bourgeois capitalism and Bolshevik Marxism. They believed in the socialism of National Socialism. For Reitmann, socialism equals “social justice.” Kullak writes that being a nationalist is not enough. One must also be a socialist which meant building a national community that included “every decent German.” He advocated for the national welfare that puts common interest before self-interest—very idealistic indeed.

While not an apologist for the SA, Siemens seems to have some ambivalence towards Wessel and his cause. He notes that despite their tough guy image the SA had “echoes of the Wandervogel movement . . . and of German Romanticism too.” Ambiguously, Siemens maintains that Wessel was a man “whose intentions, however honourable in certain respects were morally discredited by virtue of his actions.” Finally, “Horst Wessel and his contemporaries can perhaps best be described as violence-prone and cold romantics behind whose ‘objective’ façade was really a burning desire for community.” One could say that there was a certain “innocence” to the movement in the late 1920s and early 30s to the extent that the SA was taking it from the Red Front and police as much as they were dishing it out.

Although neither book uses the term ‘Strasserism’, it is clear that the left-wing of the NSDAP was strong in the Berlin region at this time. This points to the fact that there were several currents within the party. Historians, who should know better, often read the history of the Third Reich backwards, that its conclusion was inevitable.  The disastrous policy in the east that led to catastrophic defeat for Germany then metastasized, evolved, and avalanched to enervate and corrupt the entire West. Surely there can be no stepping over or ignoring the topics of National Socialism and World War II. They were pivotal events in Western history that still shape today’s world. The present wars in Ukraine and the Middle East both make reference to World War II. During the Balkan conflict in the 1990s the parties involved used their experience during World War II to justify their ethnonationalism. If one thinks World War II is over in Eastern Europe, consider Belarus. Independence Day, celebrated on July 3, marks the date in 1944 when the Wehrmacht was driven out of Minsk, and the countryside is peppered with monuments to every battle and partisan action from 1941–1945.

Siemens writes that he seeks to “historicize National Socialism.” By this I believe he means to emphasize the larger historical context when interpreting this ideology. Having a temporal perspective is a good starting point for analyzing National Socialism, and it is the best we can do for now.


[1] For another account of right-wing activism of the time see: Nelson Rosit, “Political Violence in Weimar Germany: Lessons for the Contemporary US,” Occidental Observer (Sept 7, 2021).

Update on Pending Free Expression Foundation Litigation

By FEF Staff

Sines v. Damigo, Eastern District of California Bankruptcy Court, Adversary Proceeding.

In the Sines v. Kessler case  – i.e., the lawfare case devised by Roberta Kaplan based on the chaotic Charlottesville Unite the Right events in 2017 – Nathan Damigo was among many defendants who, after trial and an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, were ultimately held jointly and severally liable for damages in excess of $3 million.  A host of legal flaws, both at the trial and appellate level, led to this unfortunate and undeserved result.  An impartial observer could easily conclude Mr. Damigo should not have been held liable for any amount.  Regrettably, that litigation is now res judicata, i.e., subject to no further appeals.

Mr. Damigo, however, in 2019 filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California a petition for a bankruptcy discharge as to this liability in 2019.  If he is granted that discharge, as he deserves, Mr. Damigo, a military veteran of limited means, would not have this huge damages award hanging over his head indefinitely as he tries to make a fresh start in life.

In January 2020, Roberta Kaplan, the attorney who was the mastermind for the Sines v Kessler lawfare, stated as follows: “We absolutely can and will bankrupt these groups. And then we will chase these people around for the rest of their lives. So if they try to buy a new home, we will put a lien on the home. If they get a new job, we will garnish their wages. The reason to do that is because we want to create a deterrence impact. So we send a message to other people that if you try to do something like this, the same thing will happen to you. And it already has been a deterrence. We’re seeing lone shooters now; we’re not seeing the kind of massively organized conspiracy we saw in Charlottesville. And I think that’s in large part due to our case.” Allen Wexler, “Roberta Kaplan Takes White Supremacy to Court,” Moment Magazine, January 6, 2020,

True to this vengeful vow, the Sines v. Kessler plaintiffs have filed an adversary proceeding in Mr. Damigo’s bankruptcy case seeking to prevent his discharge of the Sines v. Kessler damages award on the ground that his conduct was “willful and malicious” and therefore not subject to bankruptcy discharge. Through Mr. Allen, Mr. Damigo has vigorously opposed this attempt.  So far Mr. Allen has filed three complex and lengthy legal memoranda on this issue. A  hearing is scheduled for late July 2025.

Jacobs, et al.  v. Catlin, et alU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The distribution of flyers, pamphlets, and similar literature has long been protected by the First Amendment. These protections apply even if the distribution is anonymous and even if the contents of the flyers or pamphlets would be regarded as offensive by many. The sheriff’s office and related state authorities in Douglas County, Georgia, however, have flagrantly ignored these protections, arresting Philip Matthew Jacobs and his wife Hilary on bogus “littering” charges for distributing flyers critical of Jewish power and influence and threatening Michael Weaver with a similar arrest.  Adding to this outrageous and unconstitutional conduct, Mr. Jacobs was physically assaulted while in jail and both of the Jacobs were required to post $30,000 bond — $60,000 total for “littering.”

Such imperious governmental lawlessness must not be ignored or tolerated.  It must be defied, and Glen Allen, Randy Sheppard (FEF board member), and Fred Kelly are doing just that.  In March 2025, they filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights) First Amendment claim and other claims on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs and Mr. Weaver against 13 Douglas County law enforcement and related persons.  In late May 2025, the government defendants responded with a lengthy motion to dismiss. The FEF lawyers responded to that motion with an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunctions. The case involves many complicated legal issues and will certainly be expensive and hard-fought, but it is an important case and deserves the support of everyone who cherishes the rule of law and our First Amendment freedoms. Ignoring governmental abuse only invites further governmental abuse.

Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys International, David Kuriakose, and OthersDistrict of Columbia Superior Court, Now on Appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Conspiracy allegations are a primary weapon used in lawfare cases to entangle political adversaries in lengthy, complex, and expensive litigation. Unfortunately, all too often such allegations are effective. The lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of the Metropolitan African Methodist Church by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights against numerous members of the Proud Boys, International is an example of abusive, lawfare use of conspiracy allegations.

The basic facts were as follows.  In December 2020, after Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 elections, a huge rally was held in the District of Columbia to show support for Trump. Many groups attended;  members from the Proud Boys International were among them. Unfortunately violence and rowdy behavior broke out and at some point certain Proud Boys jumped over a fence around the Metropolitan AME Church and destroyed a Black Lives Matter sign. Almost immediately the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights brought suit on behalf of the church against dozens of Proud Boys they identified from the voluminous videos, photographs, and media articles that were available of the Pro-Trump rally. They did not, however, sue David Kuriakose at this time.  Kuriakose was a Proud Boy who happened to be walking in the general vicinity of the church when the other Proud Boys jumped over the fence and destroyed the BLM sign. No evidence linked Mr. Kuriakose to the vandalism except that he was nearby and was a Proud Boy. He adamantly denies knowing about or approving the vandalism.

This did not keep the Lawyers’ Committee from adding him as a defendant over three years later. At this point Kuriakose appealed to FEF for help (no other attorneys would help him) and Glen Allen agreed to represent him. Allen immediately took the offensive, filing an Anti-SLAPP motion (i.e., Anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation; a streamlined procedure for dismissing lawfare suits aimed at foreclosing the exercise of First Amendment rights) based on Kuriakose’s Statute of Limitations defense. Allen’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied by the trial court but Allen has now appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Briefing begins in Mid-August 2025.

Gancarz, et al. v. Capito, U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington.

In 2021 an  Antifa / anarchist named David Capito, a.k.a. Vyacheslav Arkangelsky, a.k.a.  Richard Smith, using a false identity, infiltrated a Patriot Front group in Washington State. Deceptively gaining the confidence of the Patriot Front members by pretending to share their outlook, Capito was able after several months to illegally gain unauthorized access to confidential information regarding many Patriot Front members. He then sent this fraudulently and illegally obtained information to a leftist organization that published it. It was then used to doxx many Patriot Front members. The consequences of the doxxing in many cases were quite severe,  including loss of employment and  physical and social harassment.

In July 2023, Glen Allen, together with local counsel, filed a complaint against Capito in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of four of the Patriot Front members who were harmed by the doxxing plus one of their spouses, alleging claims of fraud, invasion of privacy, and violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Effecting service on Capito proved a major challenge, as he changed his name yet again, changed his residence repeatedly and used false addresses, and basically went into hiding. Eventually the Court permitted publication by service, i.e.,  by notices in a local newspaper. In June 2025 a group of lawyers calling themselves the Civil Liberties Defense Center filed a motion to dismiss and a separate motion under Washington’s version of the anti-SLAPP law. Essentially Capito is contending  through his attorneys that he had a First Amendment  right to infiltrate Patriot Front because, he claims, Patriot Front espouses odious views.  Mr. Allen,  together with local counsel, is preparing a response to this preposterous contention plus a response Capito’s  separate motion to dismiss.

Just as proponents of the rule of law and robust freedom of expression should not tolerate  malicious and arrogant violations of their rights by the government,  so too must they defy thugs such as Mr. Capito. We must raise their cost of inflicting their unlawful and malicious activities on others.

IN CONCLUSION, as these cases – and there are others waiting in the wings —  hopefully illustrate, FEF has a full plate of important pending First Amendment cases as it continues to make progress to becoming a force to be reckoned with in the legal arena. In addition, FEF continues to perform many other functions, including mentoring law students and young lawyers, responding to email and telephone inquiries, developing a network of sympathetic lawyers around the country, and fundraising to keep FEF solvent. As always, FEF greatly appreciates the moral encouragement and financial sustenance it receives from its donors and supporters.