Featured Articles

Multiculturalism in the Age of Coronavirus

“Promote a sense of collectivism: All messaging should reinforce a sense of community, that ‘we are all in this together.’ This will avoid increasing tensions between different groups.”
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies  (SAGE)

The above advice was given to the British government in late March, and represents a propaganda strategy designed to stop the flimsy fantasy of multicultural harmony coming apart at its threadbare seams. From a purely strategic point of view, of course, it makes perfect sense. Whether readers believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is a real health crisis or a contrived one, the fact remains that a crisis scenario has been fully realized. Millions are now unemployed, with no immediate prospect of finding new jobs. Many thousands are being taken into hospitals with rapidly diminishing capabilities to treat them. Resources, in terms of jobs, material goods, and services, are becoming scarce. Entire populations have been placed under a kind of house arrest, with some losing their minds and adding their own families to a “string of domestic killings.” A state of emergency now prevails, and the “normal” that we knew isn’t coming back any time soon, and perhaps never will. Multiculturalism, built on the hitherto monolithic foundations of global liberal finance capitalism, and “normalised” by an equally monolithic academic-media complex, is thus subjected to its first “earthquake” from outside the system. One would naturally expect this system to respond by shoring up its more vulnerable structures. And so, I’d been waiting for advice on protecting multiculturalism, like that from SAGE, for about two weeks before it finally arrived. We can be sure it’s been repeated, more or less verbatim, in the halls of every Western government.

In all genuine crises, the superfluous and the artificial within one’s ecology are abandoned quickly. Consult with any survival expert and he will tell you that the core strategy in any survival situation is to strip all activity back to extreme basics — fire, shelter, water, and food. Anything else, any attempt to divert energy into unnecessary rest or leisure, could prove fatal. When societies encounter genuine crises, the same philosophy prevails. Central infrastructure is protected, and superfluous entertainments and distractions are either repurposed as propaganda for the maintenance of morale or dispensed with entirely. The flow of information, outside propaganda, is streamlined to the essential and the relevant. When was the last time you heard about a “Drag Queen Story Hour” or tranny bathrooms? These things were part of our civilisational decline, but they were also merely a form of cultural ephemera produced by a corrupt, rootless cosmopolitanism. To put it in the new language of our times, these things were examples of viral shedding rather than the virus itself. They were the means by which the ideological virus reproduced itself in impressionable or vulgar minds. It may be some time before we are exposed to this kind of ephemera again, which we can applaud and self-congratulate ourselves about, but what about the real virus at the heart of it? What about multiculturalism under coronavirus?

All dissident circles and political outliers have explained lack of success in recent decades by arguing that the false consciousness of the masses, induced by materialism and the saturation of culture with the prevailing ideology, can only be broken by a crisis of global proportions. For the Far Left, this has involved speculation about identifying “emancipatory opportunities” in events such as the migrant crisis, the 2008 financial crash, and the putative future collapse of capitalism itself. Those on the Far Right have equally made gains through crises such as ethnic riots, Muslim terrorism, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would therefore appear natural, to some extent, to assume that the bigger the crisis, the bigger the possible gains for those outside the mainstream. The assumption would be that a global health emergency ushering in a new Great Depression, would be just what dissidents are looking for. The difficultly thus far, however, is that coronavirus doesn’t seem to be delivering. Why?

Multiculturalism in stasis

Although we are still in the relatively early stages of this outbreak, and a long way from the mass production of a vaccine, the system has taken extremely good care of itself and has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to absorb and deflect damage. I’m not referring here to medical systems, or to the production and distribution of supplies and equipment, which has been problematic and haphazard. I’m talking about the fundamental governmental and financial structure of how we live our lives. My initial impression is that the tensions induced by multiculturalism and mass migration are now under a kind of situational permafrost. Quite simply, just like its manifestations of viral shedding, multiculturalism has itself been quarantined. If multiculturalism was sustained in the past by a vast network of creeping legal, educational, social, and cultural controls, then it shouldn’t be surprising that it should be held firmly in place at a time when government controls are expanding rapidly.

Multiculturalism is a political and economic problem, but it is primarily social in that it involves direct competition and negative interpersonal interactions between races (social groups). With the introduction of social distancing and forms of mass house arrest, there would be a predictable decline in flashpoints and confrontations. Of course, people still need to exercise, and to procure food and medicines. And, unfortunately, even these meagre opportunities have already provided ample opportunities for Whites to be targeted. In England there have been examples of Muslims and Africans harassing elderly Whites by coughing on them, but the butchering of a seven-year-old English girl, who had been taken on a bike ride through a park by her father, by a Somali immigrant is probably the most horrific recent example. Overall, however, with streets emptying and social gatherings all but eliminated, multiculturalism, along with its symptoms, has been largely sidelined by immediate medical and financial concerns.

This is a valuable lesson for those of us, myself included, who had been convinced in recent years that any kind of serious crisis would prove to be a tipping point in Western consciousness about multiculturalism. Certainly I did not foresee a situation in which multiculturalism could be sequestered within a crisis. And yet it has been. Since the imposition of social distancing measures, crime has plummeted throughout the West. In some areas of the UK, crime has dropped by 20% thanks to the almost complete elimination of snatch-thefts and assaults in public spaces, crimes in which non-Whites feature disproportionately as perpetrators. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have witnessed falls in crime of around 25%, with the most marked declines in burglary and assault. Sex crimes have in some areas declined by almost 50%. These falls are almost entirely due to the dramatic reduction, even elimination, of opportunities for such crimes to take place. Whites are safer in their homes than they are in a public saturated with ethnic hostility and criminality. What prevails now is an uneasy peace, a kind of phoney war. Ethnic crime and other forms of interpersonal hostility between the races, something we should unashamedly acknowledge as a propaganda advantage in our confrontation with the broader phenomenon of multiculturalism, is for the time being more or less neutered.

A New False Consciousness

The advice given to the British government by SAGE quite bluntly argues for the manufacturing of a “a sense of collectivism: All messaging should reinforce a sense of community, that ‘we are all in this together.’” This is something that we should all have expected when something like “the crisis” we’d been waiting for finally arrived. That being said, I never imagined it would work. What I have instead observed in the last few weeks is something like the creation of a new false consciousness to mask the cracks in the old one. Yes, economic uncertainty and a daily drumbeat of morbid fear is being disseminated by the mass media. But, for me personally, the more unsettling aspect of what has occurred is the development of a sense of collectivism bred on social media and rooted entirely in fantasy, self-congratulation, and a cloying, ad hoc, insincere, and entirely temporary sentimentality about health workers.

Quite frankly, we aren’t all in this together. Regardless of the insane bathtub ranting of Madonna, the mega-rich have absconded from their city dwellings en masse, in search of private islands replete with “Covid-19 tests abroad, personal medics and subterranean hideouts.” Otherwise normal people have engaged in riotous behavior against one another in order to obtain vast quantities of toilet paper. Competition and tension between nations has increased over access to supplies from China. The old and infirm are more or less at the mercy of younger generations who’ve either failed to take the virus seriously or openly celebrated it as a “Boomer Remover.” Muslims and ultra-Orthodox Jews have proven themselves to be especially prone to spreading infection (see here and here) and dying from COVID-19 (so far, Jews are over-represented in UK deaths by a factor of eight), due to their large families, sometimes with three generations under one roof, and other social habits. Blacks and the disabled have each made the case that they are being uniquely discriminated against in government responses to coronavirus. It’s a psychological free-for-all, and fertile ground for physical disquiet, disguised only by the fact we’re barely allowed out of our homes.

Part of the conditioning of false collectivism is the easily observed widespread employment of the language of warfare. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard politicians and media figures talk about the “battle” against “the enemy.” Donald Trump has declared he is a “wartime president” against “an invisible enemy.” Emmanuel Macron announced that his country is at war with an “invisible, elusive” enemy. Italy’s special commissioner said the country must equip itself for a “war economy.” Prior to becoming infected and entering intensive care, Boris Johnson announced to his fellow Britons that theirs was a fight in which each and every citizen was “directly enlisted.” Doctors and nurses are said to be on the “front line.” One intention of this nomenclature is probably to reinforce the seriousness of the situation, and to encourage a sense of sacrifice. On the other hand, and more subversively, it’s designed to pacify aggression (by encouraging people to accept their losses as part of a “war effort”), to normalise the expansion of emergency powers and the national security state, and to try to manufacture popular unity by positing a common enemy upon which we are supposed to vent our anxieties and psychological aggression.

The problem is that coronavirus is no more an “enemy” than a bushfire, tornado, or flood. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine an enemy that’s more of a non-entity than a virus, which is really a kind of nonliving, parasitic, reproducing combination of chemicals than a living organism. A virus is a medical puzzle and a clinical complication; it is nothing more. We therefore find ourselves in the grotesque scenario in which Europe’s politicians have dismissed decades of mass migration, casualty-strewn Muslim terrorism, and annual escalations in ethnic crime with mawkish appeals to sentimentality and “coming together,” only to later mobilize the language of war and national defense in a feeble attempt to get us to band together with our new “fellow citizens” on the “front line” against a collection of molecules. They think us fools, and the most tragic aspect of all this is that they are correct.

Mainstream news is awash with propaganda stories (for example, see here, here, and here) of migrant or refugee workers doing “heroic” work in the health system. The Guardian has reported that New Jersey recently became the second state, after New York, “to invoke emergency powers to temporarily relax restrictions on foreign-born medical professionals. … In Germany, hundreds of foreign doctors and nurses who don’t yet have licences to practice signed up to work, following callouts from local authorities who promised training.” Conveniently forgotten is the fact that, for years, foreign medics have been sexually assaulting and abusing their patients in vastly disproportionate numbers. The American Medical Association has called for opening visa processing at embassies and consulates worldwide for physicians seeking to join U.S. residency programs starting in July, meaning sick Americans can very soon look forward to many thousands more examples of the best medical care that Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Middle East have to offer.

You struggle to absorb the sheer stupidity and tragicomedy of the situation, until you recall we are the generation that made Harry Potter and Fifty Shades of Grey the cultural touchstones of our time, simultaneously reflecting our civilization’s newfound penchant for infantile magical thinking and sadomasochism. Faced with a succession of crises, we have perfected our capacity to bewitch ourselves and make them worse.

The Changing Rules of the Game

If the true nature of multiculturalism involves racial competition then we might say, as discussed above, that coronavirus has brought about a pause in play. With quarantine and social distancing, the various teams are locked down in their respective dressing rooms, awaiting further instructions. But what rules will we play under when competition resumes? Already the system has shredded the existing rule book. Every Western nation has introduced massive stimulus packages, some more socialistic than others, in an effort to ensure the corporations can continue to suck profits from a debt-based feeding tube stretching far into the distant future, and to create the illusion that the basic income expectations of their populations are going to be met. Unemployment is soaring, but it remains too early to gauge the level of social disquiet this might give rise to. The point here is that resource competition is being artificially numbed by the debt-based financial system. For now, these measures might help a little. Many people will still be able to make their mortgage payments, buy food, stockpile toilet paper until their instinctive fear is assuaged even a little, and even absorb everything that Netflix and the rest of the entertainment-industrial complex wants to throw at them. They can be made to feel that everything might just work out alright, just like it did in Harry Potter. This infantile sense of hope and expectation is fatal to every revolution, and essential to the maintenance of every status quo. Our people are obedient servants of the state not because they are physically locked down, but because they’re mentally locked down, and have been for decades.

All financial assistance for the average man is being offered on the basis of massive future debt. Everything handed to us now will eventually need to be paid back, and if the sums become high enough, and I believe they already have, that debt will remain for our children and grandchildren. The system is coming to the rescue of itself, even enriching itself, while posturing as saving us. Post-coronavirus, we will once more emerge into the sunshine land of mass migration, low wages, cheap foreign labor, and the meaningless gluttony of consumerism, only this time our taxes will be higher, our children will be poorer, and our governments, staffed with hostile elites, will have more powers of surveillance and coercion than at any time in history. It is here, I think, in the dismal aftermath rather than in the eye of the coronavirus storm, that resource competition will intensify. I hesitate to offer such a theory, for fear that it might be construed as yet another instance of kicking the can of revolution down the road, making of it an event of religious expectation always on the horizon but never coming to fruition. And yet I can’t escape the feeling that no matter what rule changes are brought into the game, when we once more emerge from our homes to resume play there will be less to lose and we will be against an opponent that, if not staggered, will be weakened by having had to redraw its game plan during half-time.

Silver Linings?

Coronavirus may subliminally contribute to a rise in White consciousness, as part of a broader phenomenon in which ethnocentric attitudes increase as a function of perceived disease vulnerability. In its coarser form, it’s fodder for those running on instinct rather than intellect. We saw it in Donald Trump’s reference to the “China virus,” a small number of random assaults of East Asians in several countries, and other examples of anti-Chinese actions. From my own perspective, I’ve found such baiting of the Chinese to be crass and ultimately counter-productive. On a personal level, I feel a sense of revulsion for much of East Asian culture, and I can think of many reasons for an anti-Chinese, anti-Asian stance among Whites that do not involve viewing these people as harbingers of a plague. I view the East Asians as no less a negative force within multiculturalism than any other foreign group, with the exception of the Jews, who are probably finding all of the recent events very unsettling indeed — especially when it emerged that Italian crematoria, with the most modern equipment available, were struggling to cremate any more than 25 bodies a day. But I digress.

The East Asians are a largely silent problem, who bring with them a more subtle form of criminality, and who allow themselves to be used as models of multicultural success. They have no contribution to make to our culture, and have made little or none in the past. Their ethnocentrism is strong but understated, less flamboyant than that of the Jews and the Arabs but carrying ominous potential when combined with international power. Much of their psychology is totally alien to ours, and their treatment of animals is shocking to the European soul. I have seen videos of dogs in Chinese markets that have made my skin scrawl and my blood boil. The East Asians are a rival to the Europeans; we have never been friends. There should have been a mass ban on the entry of all East Asians at the very moment it became known that there had been an outbreak of a novel disease in a Chinese city, and I view any later political rhetoric on the Chinese as a rather late and pathetic attempt at damage-limitation. In other words, I have little patience for GOP lip-service ethnocentrism that begins and ends with mere rhetoric. Hate the Chinese all you want, but if you hate them, hate them with a pure and genuine hatred that is backed with a consideration of all facts on the table.

It’s my sincere and wishful hope that this outbreak contributes to White ethnocentrism by focusing attention on the broader vulnerabilities of porous borders to globalised infection, terrorism, mass migration, and the much deeper transformation of our way of life. I might believe, to borrow the words of Ezra Pound, that our civilization is now little more than an “old bitch gone in the teeth,” but I’m not yet prepared to write it off. When this quarantine ends, we will have to dust ourselves off and once more enter the fray, perhaps with more intensity than ever before. We will have to be adaptive and flexible. In this regard, I find it extremely heartening that Italy has very recently decided to use the coronavirus outbreak to close its ports to all migrant ships, declaring that they “cannot guarantee the requisites needed to be classified and defined as a place of safety.” Genuine concern or exquisite statecraft? Who knows, and who cares? By taking this action, they have turned the very concept of asylum on its head. “Why come to Europe? Europe isn’t safe. Go home.” “Why come to Europe? Europe has no jobs. Go home.” This is the kind of flexible and subtle thinking that will be required moving forward. Opportunities should be sought in every misfortune.

Everything in our nations will become less comfortable in the months and years to come, and some illusions will be dissolved as the situation worsens. Multiculturalism, one of the biggest illusions of our political culture, will eventually suffer. Not right now. Not while social distancing has us all under lockdown. And perhaps not in the immediate aftermath. But it will suffer. The system won’t be able to offer false hopes and false expectations forever. The “sense of collectivism” offered by coronavirus propaganda is a cynical and exploitative ruse that will dissipate as soon as immediate trouble passes. The sense of collectivism we offer is built on tradition, history, blood, and a radical vision of what the future can and must be. It will endure.

Tax the Rich! An Alt-Right Plan to Virtually Eliminate Income Tax

Everybody loves to hate taxes.  As the old saying implies, taxes are right up there with death among humanity’s least favorite things.  Yet they are as old as civilization itself; tax records have been found from as far back as the Ur III dynasty of 2,000 BC, and possibly older.  And we can be sure that its residents paid them grudgingly.  Tax resistance is a perennial theme in history, dating back to Jesus, at least, and his alleged “forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).  Lady Godiva’s mythic ride through Coventry was allegedly on behalf of excessive taxes.  Dozens of wars, revolts, and uprisings in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries occurred over taxation.  We all know of the infamous “no taxation without representation” and the Boston Tea Party, leading to the American Revolution.  Thoreau was briefly jailed in 1846 over a failure to pay taxes, in an act of civil disobedience against the Mexican-American War.  Among the American public, there was significant resistance to tax increases during both World Wars and the Vietnam War.  Even today, scarcely a month goes by without some anti-tax action making the news somewhere in the world.

And yet, everyone except pure anarchists wants some level of service from their government, and thus we all more or less accept the inevitable.  Everyone has their favorite governmental program that they want funded; but they always want someone else to pay for it.  We all would love to get something for nothing from the feds.  But most of us realize that government cannot function without revenue, and that it cannot simply create money out of thin air—at least, not indefinitely.  And so we pay.

Most galling of all, I suppose, is income tax:  government “tribute” taken directly from our paychecks, before we see a single penny.  Long hard hours put in, the daily grind, dealing with obnoxious bosses and coworkers, moronic customers, deadlines, 60-hour weeks…and then the government steps in and takes its “fair share.”  We can sometimes get tricky and defer payment until Tax Day, but eventually the bill comes due; and we pay.  In the US, the average worker pays 20–25 percent of income to the federal government, and another 5 percent to state or local governments: upwards of a third of our income, gone, lost, squandered.

But what if we—most of us, anyway—didn’t have to pay any income tax?  What if we could have all the same governmental services that we do today, but surrender nothing from our hard-earned paychecks?  It may surprise the reader to know that, for most of the history of the USA, citizens paid no income tax at all.  And for decades more, only a very small percentage paid them.  For 150 years, it worked.  What if we could have that again?  And what if the lost funds could be covered, in large part, by that most prosperous of ethnic minorities?  There would be a sort of sublime justice in that, would there not?

A Short History of Taxation in America

Born out of tax revolt, the early United States government was uniquely sensitive to the question of taxation.  Much of the debate centered on the role and size of a federal government.  The so-called federalists, like Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong central government and hence significant taxation, whereas others like Jefferson defended a small, decentralized, states-rights model that necessarily required lesser federal taxes.  But neither side wanted to tax the nation’s farmers and small businessmen, and so it was agreed that import taxes—tariffs—would be employed to fund the government.  These were easy to collect at ports of entry, and they had the added benefit of protecting nascent American industries.  Tariffs, along with a few selected excise taxes on specific commodities, funded the entire federal government.

Correspondingly, the early government was relatively small.  At no time in those early years did federal spending exceed 5 percent of the nation’s GDP; whereas today, the figure is around 21 percent.[1]  Jefferson’s argument evidently held sway, for well into the nineteenth century.  The US continued to rely almost exclusively on tariffs and minor excise taxes, right up to the Civil War.  Thus, for the first 85 years of its existence, the United States had precisely zero income tax.

With the advent of the Civil War in 1860, things changed, at least temporarily.  The Revenue Act of 1861 imposed a 3% tax on income over $800 (equivalent to about $25,000 today).  The income threshold was lowered the following year to $600, thus bringing in additional revenue.  In 1864, the rate increased to 5% for most wage-earners, and up to 10% for the highest incomes.  In any case, it was all justified only by the exigencies of war.  With Union victory in 1865, the on-going need vanished and the income tax was rightly abolished a few years later.

For the next two decades, the nation again relied on tariffs for the vast majority of its funding.  But meanwhile, pressure to reduce them steadily grew, in part to allow for lower prices for businesses and consumers on imported items.  Congressmen realized, however, that another tax would be needed to offset the lost revenue.  Hence came the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which reintroduced income taxes, now of 2% on earnings over $4,000—equivalent to about $120,000 today.  It was truly a tax for the well-off.

Unfortunately for the government, it was also unconstitutional.  When a New York company, Farmer’s Loan and Trust, attempted to enforce the law, a wealthy stockholder, Charles Pollock, objected, sued the company, and won in the Supreme Court.  It seems that, at the time, the US Constitution had no provision for a “direct” tax on income without a complex system of apportionment, i.e., payment back to the states.  In effect, by the court’s ruling, the income tax was functionally abolished.  For the next 20 years, the feds again had to rely on import tariffs.

This little dilemma was resolved in 1913 with the passing of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  It reads, in full:  “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”  There were some oddities connected with both the wording of the amendment and the ratification process, but I won’t go into those here.[2]  In any case, Congress wasted no time, and the Revenue Act of 1913[3] reduced tariffs but imposed a 1% tax on income over $3,000, rising to a rate of 6% on incomes over $500,000.  The income threshold of $3,000—about $78,000 today—effectively applied only to the top three percent of earners; a full 97% of Americans were unaffected.  The vast majority of people continued to pay no income tax.

The Revenue Act of 1913 was gladly signed into law on October 3rd of that year, by first-term president Woodrow Wilson.  For his part, Wilson seems to have been the first president elected with the full blessing of the Jewish Lobby.  As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews.  His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish”.[12]  His major political donors were Jews, including the likes of Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and Louis Brandeis.  Wilson was also the first president to fully reward their support; Morgenthau was named ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and Warburg was appointed as the first chairman of the newly-formed Federal Reserve.  Later, Baruch would assume vast powers in his War Industries Board, and Brandeis would become the first Jew on the Supreme Court.

Onset of War

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Europe.  A complex series of treaties and alliances, combined with the untimely assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on 28 June 1914, inaugurated the First World War.  For a full two years, the US avoided entanglement.  Wilson ran for his second term in late 1916 with the slogan “He kept us out of war.”  But to no avail; soon after winning, he declared war on Germany, in April 1917.

With the US now involved, revenues would need to be drastically increased, and one obvious means was via the income tax.  Hence the War Revenue Act of 1917: a quadrupled rate of 4% (still with a $3,000 per year income threshold), along with incremental marginal rates ranging from 1% to 50%.

Into the last year of the war, 1918, rates again increased:  combined rates ranged from 6% to 77%.  Also, the income threshold was lowered to $1,000 per year (for individuals), drawing in many more taxpayers—though still amounting to just five percent of all taxpayers.

Postwar, the US experienced both the Roaring ‘20s and the Great Depression of the ‘30s, all while retaining the same basic tax structure.  As Benjamin Ginsberg explains,

Prior to the New Deal [of the 1930s]…a high tax threshold and numerous exemptions meant that only about 3 percent of American adults were subject to [income] tax. …  The system depended on more or less voluntary compliance by a small number of well-to-do individuals.  This meant that income taxation was not at first a major source of federal revenue.[13]

Thus, right up until the eve of World War Two, and excepting for a few years during the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans paid no income tax at all—in over 150 years.  But that was about to change, thanks to Hebraic influence in the US Treasury.

Onset of War (again)

Just as Henry Morgenthau, Sr.’s political patronage of Wilson earned him a prime governmental post, so too his son, Henry Jr, earned the favors of the next wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt.  Henry Jr and FDR went back many years, well before the latter’s stint as governor of New York in the late 1920s.  As FDR prepared for his run for president, Henry and other Jews were there, happy to donate.  As Myron Scholnick explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to Roosevelt’s pre-nomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt. Gov. Lehman, Jessie Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.”  Once the primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily underwritten by Bernard Baruch”.[14]  As with Wilson, FDR did not fail to reward his donors; Morgenthau, for example, was named Secretary of Treasury in early 1934.

But it wasn’t only Morgenthau, of course.  In time-honored tradition, Henry brought in a host of fellow Jews to help direct American economic policy.  “Among those working for Morgenthau at Treasury were large numbers of Jewish economists and statisticians, including such contemporary and future luminaries as Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein, and Milton Friedman, who helped to fundamentally change America’s tax system…”[15]  And change it they did.

War came again to Europe in September 1939, and by late 1940 it was becoming increasingly apparent that the US would get drawn in, one way or another.[16]  Total federal spending in 1939 was about $8 billion, of which around $1 billion (12%) came from personal income taxes.  But with war looming, Morgenthau and friends knew that spending, and thus revenue, would need to dramatically increase.  They had three options:  personal income tax, corporate income tax, and war bonds.   So they set to work; “in the realms of both taxation and bond sales, Jews played major roles,” writes Ginsberg.[17]

Special emphasis was placed on increasing personal income taxes, both by lowering the threshold for paying, and by increasing the tax rates.  The effect was dramatic.  The number of taxpaying adults increased from a very modest 1 million in 1939, to 5 million in 1941, to 40 million in 1942—at the time, constituting virtually all non-farm wage-earning adults.  Corresponding revenues soared from $1 billion to $40 billion by the last years of the war.  Revenue increases matched spending increases, as federal expenditures rose from $8 billion in 1940 to over $100 billion by 1945.

At the start of the war, however, the Treasury Jews knew that enforcement of new tax laws would be difficult.  Millions of Americans who had never even considered the possibility of paying an income tax were suddenly asked to contribute thousands of dollars.  What to do?  Morgenthau’s boys devised a clever plan:  “a number of Jewish economists [including Milton Friedman and Morgenthau himself] championed the introduction of payroll withholding, or ‘collection at the source,’ which to this day ensures a smooth, regular flow of billions of dollars into the federal government’s coffers”.[18]  That is, the government would work with employers to extract the worker’s share of taxes prior to paying their wages.  Corporations were much easier to coerce than unruly citizens, and rates could be arbitrarily raised in the future with little fuss.  This tactic was a “central feature” of the 1943 Revenue Act, and would remain in effect for all future years.  Thanks to payroll withholding, income tax evolved “from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans”.[19]

With this glorious new cash cow in place, the Treasury Jews—currently headed by Steven Mnuchin—never looked back.  As a result, Americans today pay an astonishing $2.1 trillion in income and “payroll” (FICA, or social security plus Medicare) taxes, accounting for roughly 68% of all federal revenue.  In other words, over two-thirds of the entire funding of our federal government comes directly out of citizens’ paychecks.  This monumental burden is carried by 84% of all households, who pay either income tax, or payroll tax or, most likely, both.  Most of the remaining 16% of households—representing about 50 million people—earn too little to pay any income tax at all.

And yet even this is not enough for our voracious feds.  The $2.1 trillion is supplemented by some $760 billion in corporate taxes (income tax plus their share of payroll), and another $260 billion in excise and estate taxes.  In sum, the government currently takes in about $3.3 trillion.  But it spends around $4.1 trillion annually, mostly on defense and military-related costs, which approach a breath-taking $1.25 trillion per year.[20]  The difference—an annual deficit of about $800 billion—is pushed onto future taxpayers, in the form of additions to the federal debt, which currently stands at nearly $22 trillion.  We may be excused for holding the feds in contempt.

Return of the “3 Percent” Plan

So:  What to do?  Here’s one idea:  Let’s return to the old “3 percent” rule—that is, that the entire income tax burden should again be borne by the richest 3% of households.  It worked for the decades leading up to World War II, and it could work again.  After all, we’re not at war—the last formally-declared war was in fact World War II—and apart from sporadic ‘terrorist’ actions, the world is generally at peace.  In a peacetime economy, the wealthiest Americans should rightly bear the full cost of income taxation.

There are several ways to make this happen, but let me lay out one proposal here.  Data exists to make a reasonably accurate set of calculations.  Here are the numbers:

At present, we have about 160 million tax households in the US, representing our 325 million people.  The top one percent—that is, the richest 1.6 million households—earn an average of about $880,000 per year.[21]  The second-richest one percent earn around $400,000 on average, and the 3rd one-percent about $325,000.  Altogether, our top 3% are paid about $2.6 trillion every year.

The problem, however, is that we need to raise $2.1 trillion in taxes from these folks.  The simplest way would be to tax them at a flat rate of 80%.  Imagine:  you earn a hefty $1 million per year from your vulture capitalist hedge fund, and you have to pay $800,000 to the feds.  Hard to make those yacht payments on just $200,000 a year.

Cruel, you say?  Perhaps.  Fortunately, we have an alternative.  It turns out, unsurprisingly, that most of our top 3-percenters (in terms of income) are also millionaires or billionaires (in terms of assets).  They have real assets—assets that can be taxed.  Each household in the top one-percent, in fact, owns an average of $22 million in assets—mostly in property, stocks and bonds, and corporate equity.  The second percentile household owns some $7.5 million, on average; the 3rd percentile, $5 million.  In total, this group of individuals owns or controls about $56 trillion in assets—an utterly incredible sum, to say the least.

Here then is my proposal:  tax the upper 3-percenters income at a flat rate of 60%; this will raise about $1.5 trillion annually.  Then let’s also impose a mere 1% wealth tax on their assets, which will raise another $560 billion.  In sum, we get nearly exactly the desired total of $2.1 trillion.  Our richest people have fully funded the federal government.  And the remaining 97% of us—around 315 million people—get to keep all of our hard-earned income.  Imagine that.

And who, exactly, are these poor buggers who are about to personally fund the federal government?  We know the big names:  Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers.  But they are just the tip of the iceberg.  When we run down the list of leading names, we find a striking fact:  around half of them are Jews.  Among the top ten, we find five Jews:  Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg.  Of the top 50, at least 27 are Jews, including Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[22]  More broadly, we can cite once again Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews”.[23]

Based on such data, we can infer that up to half of the top 3-percenters are Jews.[24]  As a whole, they therefore own or control up to $28 trillion in assets.  On my proposal, they will correspondingly pay half of the annual $2.1 trillion to keep our government afloat, and to fight foreign wars on their behalf.  As the prime beneficiaries of American economic policy, this is only fair.

At a minimum, some such proposal deserves wider discussion, given that it offers massive financial benefit to fully 97% of the nation.  By rights, something like this should be discussed in every political debate and on every nighttime news program.  The closest thing we have to this is Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal: 2% on assets between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3% on assets over $1 billion.  By my estimates, this would apply only to the top 0.1% of households (versus my 3%), and would only bring in, she says, around $275 billion annually (versus my $560 billion).  It’s weak, but at least a step in the right direction.  And yet her proposal got almost no discussion, and virtually no endorsement.  This is unsurprising, given that our media bosses include multi-millionaire Jews like Bob Iger and Ben Sherwood at Disney/ABC, David Levy and Jeff Zucker at Warner/CNN, Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC, and Sumner and Shari Redstone at Viacom/CBS.  They certainly have no interest in any wealth tax, as it would hit them directly in the pocketbook.  By definition, if it’s bad for them, it’s bad, period.

Still, such a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications.  Think of it:  A $1 trillion annual contribution from the American Jewish community, in order to provide for the health and security of all Americans.  It would go a long way toward burnishing their long-besmirched image, and lessening anti-Jewish hostility.  By draining away some of their excessive wealth, it would reduce their ability to meddle in government and the corporate world.  It would be a boon to the US economy, lifting millions out of poverty and allowing millions more to get out from under crushing debt.  It would serve as a measure of true economic justice.  And it would allow for an honest, transparent, fair, and just system of taxation.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] Federal spending is now about $4.1 trillion, which is roughly 21% of our current GDP of $21 trillion.  More on this below.

[2] See, for example, the work of Bill Benson and his book The Law That Never Was (www.thelawthatneverwas.com).

[3] Also known as the ‘Underwood Tariff’ or the ‘Underwood-Simmons Act.’

[4] To say that Stolypin was no friend of the Jews is an understatement.  He once wrote:  “It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures who cannot enter into our concept of human nature” (in A. Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 1994, p. 6).

[5] News reports of these events, especially in the New York Times, consistently referred to “6 million” suffering Jews—but that’s a story for another time.  See my book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed. 2020, pp. 53-64).

[6] In S. Singer, “President Taft and the Jews” (The Jewish Press, 23 Dec 2015).  Sazonov served from 1910 to 1916.

[7] N. Cohen, 1963, “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832,” Jewish Social Studies 25(1).

[8] Prelude to Catastrophe (2010; Ivan Dee), p. 22.

[9]  Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).

[10] For a fuller treatment of this incident and its implications, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

[11]  The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982; Transaction), p. 44.

[12]  Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921.  The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute it to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself.

[13] How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013; Rowman), p. 57.

[14] The New Deal and Antisemitism in America (1990; Taylor and Francis), p. 193.

[15] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[16] Again, as with WW1, there was a prominent Jewish role in our entry into the war; see Dalton (2019)—supra note 10.

[17] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[18] Ginsberg, p. 57.

[19] Ginsberg, p. 59.

[20] Total annual military-related spending includes several categories, far beyond simply the Dept of Defense.  In 2019, it was reported that total military-related spending exceeded $1 trillion.  This includes:  base DOD budget ($550 billion), “war” budget, aka OCO ($174 billion),  DOE and nuclear spending ($25 billion), FBI defense-related ($9 billion), Veterans Affairs ($216 billion), Homeland Security ($69 billion), international affairs and foreign military aid (mostly to Israel) ($51 billion), military intelligence, CIA, and NSA ($80 billion), and lastly, defense-related share of the national debt ($156 billion)—for a total cost of $1.25 trillion.  For details, see “America’s defense budget is bigger than you think,” www.thenation.com (7 May 2019).

[21] Howard Gold, “Never mind the 1 percent, let’s talk about the 0.01 percent”, 2017 (https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent).

[22] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[23] The Fatal Embrace (1993; Univ of Chicago Press), p. 1.

[24] For details, see my TOO article “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (7 Feb 2019).

Irresponsible Immunocompromised

In our inverted ‘reality’, any of the overwhelming majority of immunocompetent who deviate even slightly from the extreme protocols—such as crossing the 6′ barrier —and thus threaten the small minority of immunocompromised, are considered irresponsible and even hated for causing potential agonizing death to innocent people. Let’s assume that a tiny minority of the tiny minority of the immunocompromised got that way through no responsibility of their own. Let’s leave out the possibility that people who voluntarily submit to pharmaceutical drug use including immune suppressing drugs and toxic vaccines may be responsible for their own immune compromise —though doctors and the medical profession generally, established originally by the Rockefeller family, and such later criminals as the Sackler family who are up to their eyeballs in the opioid epidemic, may be more responsible. And let’s leave out old people, say in excess of 65, since we can hardly blame people for wanting to live as opposed to the alternative —although elders in the past had developed traditions of voluntary euthanasia when they recognized they had become more of a burden on their families and clans than contributors, thus making voluntary euthanasia an act of filial love. We can even leave out children who sometimes become adults whose mothers listened to ‘experts’ and bottle fed children instead of conferring the #1 factor in life-long immune health, natural nursing (C-section birth is another factor, but let’s leave out that too).

We are left with people who through their own irresponsibility contribute to their own immune compromise, threatening the rest of us. They take ‘recreational’ drugs and alcohol that lowers their immune systems. This they do voluntarily. They overeat, especially sugar and carbs, and become obese, lowering immunity and becoming a disease vector to the rest of us. They don’t exercise or get fresh air and sunshine, depressing their immune systems and making themselves transmitters of disease. They eat nutrient-deficient diets, starving their immune cells of vital nutrients they need to function, and so make of themselves incubators of disease they spread to the rest of us. They smoke tobacco, cannabis, crack and who knows what else that tar their lungs and make them particularly susceptible to airborne disease, which their deficient immune systems harbor and spread to the rest of us. They engage in a wide range of behaviors of their own free choice, and avoid other behaviors of their own free will, that make them the Irresponsible Immunocompromised.

And then they comply with the dictates of their ‘champions’ and demand the rest of us, who are making good a faith effort—the sacrifices and disciplines needed to be healthy, make further sacrifices and be even more disciplined in order to protect them! And anyone who relaxes in maintaining the new social distancing rules is shouted at as being irresponsible! Why is no one shouting —with love, mind you —at these Irresponsible Immunocompromised to get their acts together and start supporting their natural immune health and join the rest of us who are trying to be healthy and contribute to real ‘herd immunity’?

We are given an answer to this question by those  ‘champions’ of the immunecompromised mentioned earlier: They are victims. It is irresponsible to blame the victim, they can’t help it, they are the way they are and the rest of us have to adjust. Again. We must show compassion and understanding, and we must monitor ourselves for strict compliance with our sacrifices and disciplines to protect them. They are the most vulnerable after all, and what kind of society would we be if we did not do our utmost to protect the most vulnerable among us?

Well, such a society wouldn’t be ‘progressive’. An enlightened ‘progressive’ would never dream of saying “these people, these Irresponsible Immunocompromised must now make a choice. We’ll help them if they decide to change their ways and start applying the sacrifices and disciplines the rest of us make to be more immune competent. This is their opportunity. They should feel a healthy shame in their lax indulgence, and in the ways it threatens the rest of us. From this healthy shame they can start to join the majority of people doing their best to be disease-resistant and so help keep the whole population healthy. We love them too, but if they won’t…”

What? “We are not going to exert any special effort to protect you. If you won’t make any effort to protect us and yourself, we are not going out of our way for you. This is your dilemma and your motivation, not ours. If you won’t change, you may get sick and die. That is not our fault. We detach with love.”

This is simply a human decision to align with what is at the core of the natural thrust of life. It used to be called eugenics, and while that word has been demonized since World War II, nature doesn’t care. It is still the thrust of nature to continually trend toward producing stronger, faster, better, longer-lived, more virile specimens of Her species. Our confrontation with the challenges of nature does that. Disease does that. Be strong and survive and reproduce, pass along strong traits, or get sick and die having failed to reproduce and pass on deficient traits. It is the most humane, decent, dignified way to respond to the inevitable indignity of pain and death.

However, we have a couple of major problems in our post-modern age. We have largely eliminated all the natural challenges that made the specimens of our species strong. We flick switches, pull levers, turn wheels, push buttons, and our needs are met, our comforts provided. We also have lost the pride in the healthy and strong among us, and have actually been indoctrinated (an interesting word) to glorify and celebrate the weak and deficient. It is now almost shameful to be healthy and strong. Especially men. It is seen as a threat. We expend great resources and attention on the ‘vulnerable’, and neglect and even contempt the capable. We offer benefits to the deficient. Thus we Encourage the sick. I call it Weakism.

How did we reach this state of decline? Here is not the place to explore the culprits in depth, but let it be enough now to say that those same ‘champions’ of the immunocompromised who teach us to do all in our power to protect them at our own great expense, have also brought their influence on our entire society and inverted the natural eugenics to a glorified dysgenics.

Why have we not heard any of the Irresponsible Immunocompromised say “I’m sorry. I know I’m being irresponsible. I know my weak immune system is a threat to the rest of you. I know I’m causing the rest of you enormous hardship just to try and protect unworthy me. And I don’t feel right about that. I’m ashamed of myself. Tell you what: Don’t do anything special to protect me. I won’t blame you if I get sick and die. I know I am to blame. I can’t live with myself knowing I am causing such distress and difficulty for the rest of you. So I’ll risk it. I’m going to keep eating cheetos and drinking pop and sitting on my fat butt watching netflix and smoking, but I don’t want you to do anything special for me. We all die. I know with all the difficulties the extreme ‘measures’ are causing people, some of the immunecompetent are going to die who otherwise wouldn’t yet. I don’t want that on my conscience. Just forget it. Don’t wash your hands or ‘social distance’ or stay home from work or corral your kids or pay any extra taxes or endure inflation on my account. I won’t blame you.”

But we don’t hear this, do we? Why not? The victim mentality is too deeply imposed on our sorry society to trigger it. Even if we did hear it, most of us would say “Oh no don’t say that. We’ll take care of you. We love you and want everyone to survive or none of us.” In fact, our society is now counter-natural, it elevates the deficient at the expense of the sufficient and even gifted (superior? Oh no —).

The ‘champions’ have done this for their own ends. Those ends are not good. They are not natural. They are evil. Anything that is against the laws of nature is counter-life, thus it is death worshiping. Thus it is evil. We have been taught that evil is good and good is evil. We can hardly see reality anymore, so thoroughly has the System and our own disconnect from raw nature indoctrinated us. Our morality is now evil-oriented, and we think it’s good.

I may be immunocompromised. I may have a chronic infection or 3. They are not contagious unless (maybe) I donate blood, which I don’t do. I am responsible. I am doing everything I can to remain healthy and a contributing member of society. I want to do whatever I can to protect my own and other people’s health. Don’t do anything special for me. I’m not going to do anything special for you or the immunocompromised except make all the efforts and expense and sacrifice and discipline I can to have a healthy immune system and keep my infections to myself, or overcome them, as we all should.

Don’t anyone think they can just get a vaccine injection and be fine. That’s a rampant mythology it would take another complete essay to address. Immune health is not that simple, tempting as it is to believe, and vaccination is no substitute for discipline, sacrifice and real applied knowledge. Viruses keep mutating and, in any case, a vaccine for the current plague is a year off.

Then there’s the idea that maybe the immunocompetent should arrange to get certain diseases, in order to gain life-long immunity and a boost in development, greater cancer resistance, fewer diseases later on… If the Irresponsible Immunocompromised can’t attend, that’s their problem. Because we love them too, we want them to face the challenges of being healthy like the rest of us. Let them catch up with us so they can. Or not. It’s not our problem, and we shouldn’t have to stop everything —I mean everything —on their behalf. And they shouldn’t want us to.

It’s what the ‘champions’ want. And it’s not good. Health is good. Life is good. Disease resistance is good. Love is good. And in a special way, since it is the counter-point of life, death can be good. Let the good flourish.

Thoughts from a Leather Couch About COVID-19

Note: I wrote this article on March 30th.  After I finished it, I thought, “You’re ancient and losing it and unqualified to be writing about this topic.  Everybody is on board with how to come at this COVID-19 pandemic and there has to be something wrong with you.”  I set the article aside.  It’s now April 1st and I re-read it and went, “Oh, put it out there.  It’s your truth even if it isn’t the truth.  Readers will know enough to take it for what it’s worth.”   So here it is.

*   *   *

Leather couch in the title of this article refers to where I spend most all of my time these days in my living room.   I’m retired and geriatric old—80 next month—and I possess next to no energy, and spinal stenosis and arthritis are really bad, and in the morning, it’s all I can do to make breakfast and get the cereal with fruit and a cup of coffee and glass of milk to the leather couch to consume while I read The New York Times on my laptop, hell of a deal.

Today’s [March 30th] Times headline was “As U.S. Death Toll Climbs, Washington Weighs New Emergency Steps.” [April 1st, it is “Virus May Kill 100,000 to 240,000, Experts Say.”]  It’s online, but what I would call the front page of the Times had 13 stories—every one of them was about the current COVID-19 crisis.  There were 11 opinion pieces on the front page—same thing.

This has been going on for weeks.  The Times is really hyping this issue.   I’m told (I rarely leave the house except once in a while to go to the supermarket and to get books at the library, so I don’t really know for myself) that business activity is shut down and everybody is holed up in their abodes and washing their hands super carefully (I’m pretty good at that) and trying to keep from touching their faces (I could use some improvement there) and staying away from other people (my specialty).   The Times said that President Trump announced this arrangement is going to go on for another month.

I’m finding that one of the major activities in my old age, at least until the dementia sets in—or gets worse, whichever it is—is to sit on this leather couch I’m sitting on at this moment and watch, as it were, a rerun of my life’s movie being projected inside my head.

One of the very early scenes of my biopic, I was probably four, this was Minnesota, I heard a plane go overhead and pointed it out to my mother.

She replied, jokingly I now realize—or was she maliciously trying to scare me?—“That could be a German plane dropping a bomb on us.”

“A what?”

“A bomb.  We’re at war with the Germans.”

I didn’t know what a bomb, a war, or a German was at that time and I left it at that and went about my day, such as it must have been.  But for some reason that episode is in my movie over 75 years later.

Which is a lead-in to my first point in this writing:  No bomb has ever been dropped on me, literally or figuratively, in the whole of my life until now; this COVID-19 “bomb” has hit its target, I’m feeling it.   And to keep the movie scene connection going, I’m just about as clueless about what’s going on with this virus and the collective response to it as I was about the plane back in 1944.

All to say, I’ve got some personal investment in this COVID-19 issue—enough to get me to take the time to write this up—but I’m not trying to play expert here.  What I am trying to do is get across the thoughts of an average Joe—me–for your consideration.  This is what I would say to you if somehow you got yourself into the red easy chair that is six feet away from me sitting here on this couch.

*   *   *

As I sit here day after day—is it Tuesday or Wednesday?—I realize what little involvement I have had in the big events of my time on earth and how little impact they have had on me.  It’s the no-bomb-has-dropped-on-my-head point in the last section.  There was a polio epidemic in the ‘40s, and my mother told me going swimming in a lake was deadly bad (you could catch polio that way, or so she thought anyway), and I’ve been afraid of the water ever since.  That’s not much.  In grade school, I practiced getting under my desk like the teacher said so I’d be protected when the Russians dropped an atomic bomb on Saint Paul, Minnesota.  Though as I think about now, I’m not sure how much good being under the desk would have done for me if that had happened, and the truth is I never caught on to exactly why I was crouching under the desk in the first place.   The Korean War was a map in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press newspaper showing a battle line near the city of Pusan at the bottom of South Korea, and then there was the Inchon landing up near the city of Seoul, and then the Chinese driving us back from where we’d gotten in North Korea to about where things were when the war started, but what that had to do with anything, I couldn’t have told you.   I didn’t have to fight in Viet Nam because I had enlisted at seventeen and was out of the army before the war escalated, and anyway, I wouldn’t have been drafted because I was teaching in a high school.  9/11 was in Manhattan and I was in Vermont teaching at the university and going to movies and watching ballgames on television.  There was the Iraq war and the AIDS crisis, and I could list other major public occurrences, but everything stayed “over there” not part of my life.  But this current COVID-19 crisis, hysteria, pre-occupation, whatever to call it, is a whole different matter.  It’s not over there, it’s right here.

With the market plunge, hundreds of thousands of dollars in my retirement account, which I had spent a half century building up, have disappeared, poof.

I have a fifteen-year old daughter, a sophomore in high school, who lives in another state from where I live.  Despite our geographical distance and my decrepitude, we are very close.  She’s been ordered to stay away from her friends.  She loves school, and it’s shut down.  She’s an elite golfer.  No more high school golf team.  The country club she plays at closed.  She was set to go to Augusta and see the Masters golf tournament.  Postponed.  I’m worried that I’m not going to be able to support her golf, which is very expensive with the coaches, equipment, country club membership fees, and travel to tournaments, and get her clothes and the other things she needs, and college is coming right up.  I’m wondering who cares about that except me.

I live next door to a restaurant and went there some and got to know the service people.  The restaurant has shut its doors.   I’m asking myself, how are the people who worked there paying their rent and buying food and putting gas in their car and taking care of those who depend on them?

The library I go to is closed.

When I last went to the supermarket, shelves were oddly empty, and I found myself in a vague panic buying more than I need, and just now I checked my supply of paper towels and toilet paper.

*   *   *

I’ve noticed that lately there have been an increasing number of stories in the media about people, both celebrities and ordinary folks, coming down with COVID-19 (infected with it or they have a case of it, the terms are used interchangeably, which can be misleading).  Celebrities that come to mind are actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson, NBA star Marcus Smart, and the playwright Terrence McNally, who just died of it.  I remember this pattern with the AIDS epidemic—this person has it, and now this other one, and this other one; the menace grows greater, comes closer, and closer, and closer . . .

These revelations of people contracting the virus are coming across to me like death sentences, a brain tumor or something—oh my god, she/he has COVID-19!  I’m asking myself, what happens with people who are infected (or have a case)?  Are they gasping for breath or what?  How are Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson doing? I know they’ve been quarantined, but I haven’t read anything about them having actual symptoms.  The ballplayer Marcus Smart says he’s feeling fine.

USA Today this morning had a front-page story with the headline, “CBS Mourns Longtime Journalist Maria Mercader, Who Died at 54 from Coronavirus.”  Buried deep in the story, this sentence caught my eye: “Mercader battled cancer and related illnesses for more than 20 years and had been on medical leave for an unrelated matter since the end of February.”  Did she die from COVID-19 or from cancer and related illnesses?    Did the virus kick her over the edge the way hepatitis did with AIDS sufferers?   Hepatitis didn’t take them, really; it was the AIDS virus.  Would Maria Mercader have died if she hadn’t had cancer?   What’s the risk for healthy people getting COVID-19?

I just now checked and found out that Terrence McNally, who was 81, had lost portions of his lungs from lung cancer and at the time of his death was living with COPD, which usually means emphysema and bronchitis, shortness of breath, wheezing, and a chronic cough.  I don’t remember reading about the COPD in the stories about his passing.  Did McNally being 81, not 21 or even 41, and having COPD have anything to do with his death?  Was COVID-19 even a contributing factor?   Did he die with COVID-19 but not from it?  Does it make any difference that my daughter is a healthy 15-year-old, and that despite my age-related limitations, I’m a healthy 79-year-old?

There’s a big problem in Italy with coronavirus, so the media keep telling us.  We better be careful to lock everything down tight or we’ll be in huge trouble like Italy.  Because I’m writing this—I wouldn’t have done it otherwise—I went online and found out that the average age of death from coronavirus in Italy is 79, and only 2% of those who have died from it didn’t have pre-existing health conditions.  Of the first nine deaths from coronavirus in Italy, seven had “grave pathologies such as heart disease.”[1]

More online perusal, I couldn’t find case fatality rates (the percentage of people who die from COVID-19) by age in the U.S.  I did, however, find data for China, South Korea, Spain, and Italy.  For those four countries, the fatality rate of children under nine-years-old is zero; ages 10 to 19, zero except for China, which is .2% (one-fifth of one percent, two out of a thousand); for those 20–30, .2% in China and Spain, no data on the other two countries; and for those 30-39, between .1 to .2.

In the U.S., how many people who are otherwise healthy are dying from COVID-19?   Healthy or unwell, how many people under 40 are dying of it?   I’m just asking.  And I’m wondering who in the media, whose job it is to ask and answer these questions, are doing it.   And if they aren’t doing it, why not?  Is the mainstream media informing us or selling something to us?

*   *   *

To make sense of anything, it helps to compare it to something else.  There are two obvious phenomena to compare to COVID-19: the regular seasonal flu, and the 2009 swine flu pandemic.  It intrigues me why neither of those comparisons is made, or at least it isn’t jumping out at me.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data, this flu season—from last October to now, the season goes from October to April each year, the cold weather months; as far as I know, April has never been the peak month with the flu—there have been 38 to 54 million cases of the flu (egad!), 17 million medical visits (!), 390,000 hospitalizations (!), and 29,000 to 59,000 deaths (!).  I don’t know why the ranges are so great with the cases and deaths numbers.  This isn’t an exceptionally bad year for deaths.  In the 2017–18 season, there were an estimated 61,000 deaths, and 34,000 in 2018-19.   Those data can be compared with a CNN report today [March 30th] of 161,698 cases of  COVID-19 and 3003 deaths in the U.S.  [April 1st: it’s 4,476 deaths.]  Why is COVID-19 causing this huge run on doctors and hospitals we’re hearing so much about and the flu isn’t?

It would help if, week-by-week, there was a chart comparing what’s happening with COVID-19 and the regular flu, and a discussion of it.  Is one of the two worse than the other?  Does one call for a different response than the other?   How does the way we deal with one inform our approach to dealing with the other?   The bottom line questions: Is COVID-19 basically no different from the regular flu?   Could the flu data this season—cases, deaths—have supported the same “the sky is falling!” media-and-politician reaction COVID-19 is getting?

Another comparison that looks promising to me is with the 2009 swine flu pandemic in the U.S.   I’m not seeing reference to that crisis in the public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic.  Two pandemics, why not compare them?  The CDC reports that from April 12th, 2009 to April 10th, 2010 there were 60.8 million cases of the swine flu, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths.[2]

How’d we deal with the swine flu health crisis just over a decade ago, and what can we learn from that experience?   I don’t remember the doomsday scenarios—“Millions will die if we don’t take drastic measures!”—that I’m hearing now, but perhaps I wasn’t paying attention.   I can say this for sure, though:  I was teaching in a university back then and I never missed a class (now my university is doing what it calls remote learning), and every restaurant in town was open.   My retirement account went south in the financial crisis in 2008, but nothing bad happened to it in 2009 and 2010.   I just checked: the Dow went down 34% in 2008, and it went up 19% in 2009 and 11% in 2010.   Now, I’m worrying about getting my daughter clothes for school and paying for college.  What’s going on?

*   *   *

I’m concerned that when people get scared they become like race horses with blinders: they can’t see left or right, just straight ahead.  And to keep the simile going, straight ahead is the direction the jockey they’ve let get on their back is driving them in.

Everything that happens affects everything else.  We need to consider the various consequences, including negative ones, of whatever we do (we need to take the blinders off). What will it mean if what we do about COVID-19 results in an economic recession or depression with millions of people unemployed?   To standards of living, to people’s sense of self-worth, and to levels of despair, depression, family disruption, drug use, and suicide rates?

Congressional leaders asked President Harry Truman how he was going to get an increase in tax money going to the military right after World War II when everybody assumed the military would be, should be, downsized.  “Scare the hell out of people,” he answered.  What he meant was that if the masses are scared, they will unquestioningly go along with whatever the government, supported by its allies in the media, says and does (let the jockey put a saddle on them and ride them around the track).  The scare was the Cold War: the Ruskies are coming!  Build a bomb shelter and get under your desks at school and fork over your tax dollars and give us the power to do whatever we feel like doing and you’ll be safe.

Korea was called “Truman’s war” (actually, it was labeled a “police action” in order to stay away from him having to run it by Congress to get a declaration of war).  Young Americans, who had no choice in the matter, wound up fighting North Koreans and Chinese to the death—40,000 of them are in their graves for eternity—in 25 below zero weather, 6,000 miles from their homes.[3]   The jockey rides.

I recently read a biography of World-War-II General Curtis LeMay.[4] LeMay was the architect of a fire bombing raid on the civilian population of Tokyo in March of 1945.  Sixteen square miles of one of the most densely populated areas in the world was reduced to twisted metal and rubble; not a building stood.  One hundred thousand people—men, women, and children—were burned, broiled, and suffocated to death.   One million were left homeless.  The media celebrated LeMay’s action and the man himself—kudos in The New York Times, he was on the cover of Time magazine, schools were named for him.

Why the standing ovation for what sickened and disgusted me as I read about it in the book?   Because the Tokyo raid and the later atomic bombs dropped on civilian populations in two Japanese cities, were necessary to avoid the cost in lives and money of a ground invasion of Japan.  Who decided we had to invade Japan?  Where did our unconditional surrender demand come from?  Where was the dialogue and debate in Congress and in the society generally about a negotiated end to the war short of Japan’s unconditional surrender?

What happened in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was barbaric, it was nuts.  Why did people go along with this insanity?  Especially when they are frightened (are race horses frightened?), people are capable of being driven to run as fast as they can go in crazy directions and believe in it.   Which is not to say definitively that’s what’s going on now with the COVID-19 crisis.   I’m just saying mass hysteria is possible.

Everyday people shutting off their minds and giving up their power has gone on all of my life.   The Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which could have resulted in a nuclear holocaust, was President Kennedy’s business alone.  We docilely gave up our personal freedoms after 9/11.

I’m getting a déjà vu feeling with this COVID-19 response.   The mainstream media fanning the flames; President Trump bossing the country around like it’s an episode of “The Apprentice.”  The message to us all, and that includes our elected representatives, shut up and don’t question the experts—like General LeMay, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara with Viet Nam, and now, the CDC and the Surgeon General—and give us your money and do what you’re told and you’ll be safe.   Two trillion dollars so far for relief; it took about two days to enact.  How’d that happen?   What part did your and my senators and congressman have in framing that bill?   What have they said about it?  What have you said about it?   Does anybody know what’s in the legislation?  Do you?  Have you heard any discussion of this law’s possible consequences?  Living on a fixed income, I’m prone to think about inflation, and I worry about the national debt.   Truman was right: scare the hell out of them.

Crises make dictators of all public officials.  Schooling in this country is the business of the people.  They elect a school board and the school board hires teachers and administrators and sets policy.  Educators work for the community and for the students and parents in a school.  It’s our schools, our children, not theirs.  With this health crisis, it has been a series of edicts from the school administrators in my daughter’s school; no explanations, no rationales.  No more classes until, first, March 23rd, and then April 27th, and, now, June 19th.  No teaching the regular curriculum until April 20th, which will then be taught on a remote basis.  Why?  None of your business.  Don’t contact us.  We’re working on it; we’ll get back to you.   I have the sense that the school people are getting off on this COVID-19 scare.  The journalist H.L Mencken said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

I’m a citizen, not a subject.  I’m a human being, not a race horse.  I’m feeble and on the outside looking in these days, but I have a right to speak my mind in this country.  And that’s what I’ve just done, and now I’m going to stop and go make breakfast and read the Times.   I’ve been up all night.


[1] My apologies, I can’t retrieve the online source for the Italy numbers.  I’m very sure of their accuracy, however.

2 The Wikipedia entry, “2009 Flu Pandemic in the United States.”

[3] I highly recommend Hampton Sides’ book on the Korean war, On Desperate Ground: The Marines at The Reservoir, the Korean War’s Greatest Battle (Anchor, 2018).

[4] Warren Kozak, LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay, Regnery, 2011.   I wrote an article after reading the book, “On COVID-19 and Curtis LeMay.”

Globalism, the Elites and COVID-19

The world is in the midst of another pandemic. The virus responsible, COVID-19, is a respiratory illness linked to the unsavory culinary habits of the Chinese. It was traced to a wet market in Wuhan, China, which sold rats, bats, snakes, cats, dogs and other “exotic” food items. Virologists have determined that COVID-19 is a zoonotic pathogen, meaning that it was able to jump the species barrier and infect humans. Urban overcrowding and high population mobility facilitated the spread of the virus across mainland China. Mortality statistics reveal the demographics most likely to be affected are the elderly and the immunocompromised.

How COVID-19 was able to spread so rapidly, affecting all 195 countries, cannot be fully understood without some knowledge of globalism. American political scientist Joseph Nye defines globalism as “networks of interdependence” whose “intensity, or thickness” is determined by globalization, which “refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale.” It is this dynamic shrinking that has increased the prevalence of globalism, making us interdependent. Nye identifies four separate dimensions of globalism: economic, environmental, military and socio-cultural.[1] He attributes the influenza epidemic of 1918–1919 to returning soldiers after the end of the Great War, thereby implicitly recognizing that mass migration can devastate entire populations by facilitating the spread of infectious disease. Historically, both phenomena are closely linked. Genoese and Venetian merchants first contracted bubonic plague from Mongols and then infected the rest of Europe, killing off one-third to two-thirds of the population. The indigenous populations of the New World were decimated by diseases introduced by Europeans for which they had no immunity. Recent examples of migration-related diseases include HIV/AIDS and SARS.

In this essay, only socio-cultural globalism will concern us. This refers to “movements of ideas, information, images and of people, who of course carry ideas and information with them.”[2] It is this aspect of globalism, especially the incentivized mass movement of non-Whites from impoverished South to industrialized North, that has had―and continues to have―the profoundest impact on Western societies. It is interesting that Nye fails to make the connection between socio-cultural globalism and transmission of infectious disease, a glaring omission probably made for ideological reasons.

Since the late 1940s, globalist elites have encouraged non-Whites to uproot their lives and migrate en masse to Western countries. Nationalist policies designed to maintain ethnoracial status quos, like White Australia or the US national-origin quotas, were dismantled to accommodate the influx. This mass migration has continued without pause for decades, until now. Countries that were once 90%+ White, like the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Germany and France, have seen their White populations drastically reduced, as more and more non-Whites are resettled by elites in what used to be de jure and de facto White ethnostates. Demographers predict, often with glee, when Whites will become minorities in their own countries.[3],[4],[5] Most Western Whites, like the demographers themselves, consider the complete demographic transformation of their own nations a fait accompli, something to eagerly look forward to,[6],[7] despite the misgivings of a tiny minority of White nationalists.

The Western elites, in their zeal to reduce Whites to minorities, have seldom considered the possibility disease may end their attempt to multiculturalize the West. Their short-sightedness, stupidity and monomaniacal obsession with mass migration has apparently placed this possibility beyond the pale of globalist thinking. Again, unimpeded flows of people around the globe have always been linked to the spread of infectious disease; this is even more the case given the sheer size of the mass migrations orchestrated by Western elites. What makes the post-1960 mass migration particularly dangerous are the migrant-sending countries, which are all plagued by unsanitary dietary practices, low standards of physical hygiene and inadequate medical facilities and screening.

Given the close relationship between migration and infectious disease, it comes as no surprise that researchers have concluded the rapid spread of COVID-19 is due to mass migration. The suspected pathway of disease transmission? Chinese disease carriers flying out from Wuhan to other Chinese cities or international destinations in Europe, North America and Australia, infecting unsuspecting fellow travelers with the virus.[8] If not for globalist “open borders” and the conversion of Western countries into international economic zones, COVID-19 would not have become the worldwide pandemic it is now.

As the virus spread from China to the rest of Asia, Europe and the Americas, the casualty rate increased dramatically. According to statistics, the US has surpassed China to become the world’s disease epicenter (but this should be taken with a grain of salt, given the evidence Chinese officials lied about casualties from the disease[9]). Worldwide, there are currently 1,095,134 cases of infection and 58,791 deaths.[10] These numbers may be even much higher, since people can remain asymptomatic for weeks.

Unsurprisingly enough, world leaders were caught with their pants down. Seldom has the public witnessed so much incompetence and ineptitude from a gang of elected buffoons under the spell of a dim-witted ideology. The UK’s chief science advisor said the Boris Johnson government was looking into building up “herd immunity” by managing the spread of the virus.[11] This would have significantly increased the UK’s rate of infection and mortality. Observers thought the government’s response to the pandemic was “satire.”[12] Although initially downplaying the pandemic, Trudeau announced international traffic would be exclusively handled by major airports in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, with all passengers forced to undergo “rigorous health screening.” This apparently amounted to answering an “automated questionnaire administered by a computer touchscreen.”[13] Only Trump was able to impose travel bans on China (incomplete), Iran and western Europe, despite his earlier dismissive attitude toward the viral outbreak.

The globalist bureaucratic incompetence detailed above was due to an almost religious devotion to diversity. When combined with White racial self-loathing, it becomes apparent why mass non-White migration must continue indefinitely. Of course, given the close linkage between mass migration and transmission of infectious disease, it was only a matter of time before the world was ravaged by another pandemic.

As the crisis unfolded, governments enacted draconian measures to restrict migration flows. It was as if reality had intruded on globalist fantasies of one world under a single market. In the UK, police were granted emergency powers of arrest and detention of anyone suspected of having COVID-19;[14] later, Johnson was forced to declare a three-week lockdown as casualties mounted. Nevertheless, the UK’s borders remain wide open, even though air and train traffic are limited.[15] Despite the precautions taken, the UK continues to signal to the world that native Britons will have their noses rubbed in diversity even if it sickens and kills them. In Canada, entry was denied for most foreign travelers. The unauthorized crossing point at Roxham Rd. in Quebec, notorious for being a conduit of illegal migration, was shut down[16] (although this is disputed by some media outlets[17]). The Australian and New Zealand governments banned entry to foreign travelers, while citizens and permanent residents were expected to self-isolate for 14 days.[18] The Trump administration restricted non-essential traffic from the US-Canada and US-Mexico borders, the first time any restrictions had been imposed on cross-border traffic since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[19] [20] Despite these measures, the window of opportunity to effectively control the virus had long since closed.

If not for local Chinese officials who ignored the early warning signs of infection, the virus would have been easily contained.[21] According to a recent study:

“[I]f interventions in the country could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively – significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease.”[22]

More concerning are the Western governments taken completely unawares by the disease, despite their vast economic and material resources. For months, governments stood by and did nothing while the virus raged uncontrollably in China. Instead of being proactive, the elites waited until COVID-19 became a national health crisis in their respective countries, forcing them to declare national emergencies when they realized half-hearted measures wouldn’t be enough to contain it. If only they had the foresight to act before the situation spiraled out of control, life would have remained just the same as it was before the Wuhan outbreak. The closure of schools, universities, theaters, restaurants and other large venues would have been unnecessary. The stock market would not have crashed and the economy would not be headed towards recession.

The callous disregard of elites for the lives of their own citizens can be further seen in how they prioritize the feelings of foreigners over their own citizens’ health and safety. Instead of closing the borders and grounding air traffic, they virtue-signaled about the dangers of anti-Asian racism. There is evidence this anti-racist virtue-signaling may have contributed to the spread of COVID-19. Dr. Giorgio Palù, an Italian virologist, confirms that the first victims of COVID-19 in Italy were Chinese tourists. Through “Hug a Chinese” campaigns organized by Italian officials, Italians would hug these same Chinese tourists, become infected with the virus and spread it to others. Dr. Palù concludes the reason Italy suffered as many casualties as it did was because many feared the dreaded r-word: racist. Italians who physically distanced themselves from the Chinese out of fear of contracting the virus were berated by media and politicians for “xenophobia” and “hatred.” The media also opposed calls to quarantine travelers and ban air traffic from China, predictably denouncing these preventive measures as “racist.”[23]

Ironically, social distancing and other measures, dismissed as racist only a month ago, are now needed to help contain the virus. Although Italian media ignored the connection between mass migration and spread of infectious disease, it should be pointed out Italy’s worst affected region, Lombardy,[24] is home to the country’s largest Chinatown.[25]

Like Italian media, outlets like The Atlantic had no difficulty linking border closures to protect against viral infection with “xenophobia.”[26] The Guardian said imposing travel restrictions was harmful because, among other reasons, it would “fuel racism.”[27] Since the virus has already spread to Western countries, opined the German Health Minister, closing the border would be an exercise in futility.[28] It was as if the media wanted globalist elites to continue importing as many disease-carrying Chinese as possible so more Western citizens would become infected. Although the elites were forced to abandon their commitment to globalism (temporarily) and take proactive measures, fighting coronavirus-related anti-Asian prejudice remains a top priority.

The response of Italian elites to COVID-19, of course, is not an exceptional one. The same patterns were observed in the United States, Canada, UK, France, Germany and other Western nations, where borders were left wide open because elites feared accusations of racism. Any attempt to protect oneself from the infectious disease was demonized as “xenophobic” and “discriminatory.” While China was trying to contain the outbreak, Western media outlets would drone on endlessly about anti-Chinese racism because of COVID-19, but would never mention the real reason for mass avoidance of East Asians: the high likelihood they would be infected by an easily communicable disease simply because East Asians were likely disease carriers. This had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with public health and safety.

Like Western elites, the World Health Organization (WHO), tasked with identifying and preventing pandemics, stood by and did nothing while the virus caused havoc in China. Apparently, they were paralyzed by fear of being branded racists. They were more concerned with renaming the Wuhan flu to COVID-19, to end the stigmatization of the Chinese, than the possibility lives could be lost because of infection.[29] By the time the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, it was already too late. Epidemiologists are now predicting worst case scenarios where the American economy falls into a depression and the death toll numbers in the millions.[30]

If only governments had invested as much time in quarantining affected areas in China as they had obsessing over racism, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been easily avoided. Precious time was squandered while politicians endlessly virtue-signaled about diversity. Instead of advising their citizens on how to protect themselves, they lectured them on the virtues of inclusivity and tolerance. They encouraged people to continue patronizing Chinese businesses, despite the fact many Chinese travel back and forth between China, the original disease epicenter, North America and western Europe, exposing themselves and others to the virus. At one point, being racist was far worse than being infected by a life-threatening pathogen; in many quarters, it still is.

Globalism is a Disease

When Western elites had a more realistic appraisal of human nature, before the 1950s, nations were run in their citizens’ best interest, not the government’s, the corporation’s or the Third World’s. With the exception of elites, globalism benefits no one. While some free flow of goods, services and investment capital is beneficial from a market perspective, the real problem is the subordination of the national interest to the world economy entailed by globalism.  Under such a regime, citizens become interchangeable, faceless cogs, members of some vast “reserve army of labor.” This is why utopian policies motivated by short-sighted economic greed and White racial self-loathing are easily prioritized by globalists over domestic well-being and stability in times of crisis. Through a combination of malevolence and naivete, elites have turned their own countries into dystopian Third World dumping grounds. Apparently the purpose of government since mid-twentieth century is to elevate the needs of foreigners above those of native-born citizens.

According to the principles of Jeffersonian liberalism, it is incumbent upon citizens to replace governments no longer serving the public interest, by armed force if necessary. Even an aristocratic conservative like Burke recognized the need for “a temporary deviation from the strict order of hereditary succession” when the English constitution was in danger of monarchical subversion. These days, the prescribed course of action has become an impossible one. The present crop of Whites is virtually indistinguishable from the stereotypical Persians of the ancient world: slavish, weak, luxurious, effeminate, dominated by women and ruled over by tyrants. Herodotus was right when he used the Achaemenid king Cyrus as a mouthpiece for the following words: “Soft lands breed soft men; wondrous fruits of the earth and valiant warriors grow not from the same soil.” This was the Greek view, borne from years of experience with the Oriental despotisms of the East. There is nothing more corrupting to one’s manhood than periods of prolonged wealth and prosperity.

The real disease here isn’t COVID-19, it’s globalism. Like a disease, it spreads rapidly, destroying everything that comes within reach. Globalism even interferes with normal cognitive functioning, replacing objective reality with childish fantasies about human nature. People under its influence cease to think logically; instead, they regress, becoming just as intransigent in their beliefs as any garden-variety Christian or Muslim fundamentalist. Of course, the Cultural Marxism is only one side of the same coin; the other side is the short-sighted neoliberal economic policies pushed by the great corporations. These celebrate growth at all costs as a virtue; this growth has become the globalist’s sole measure of societal well-being. Cultural Marxism, with its emphasis on mass replacement migration and feminization of males through gynocentric policies, is a perfect fit for neoliberal capitalism, which requires a steady supply of docile consumers in its quest to endlessly grow GDP.

Like the Christian fundamentalist who cannot understand that Genesis 1 is not a scientific cosmology, globalists cannot understand that mass migration and infectious disease go hand in hand. COVID-19 would not have spread to every country around the world if it wasn’t for the stubborn, foolish insistence of Western elites on open borders, infecting significantly larger numbers of people than would have otherwise been the case if the borders had remained tightly sealed. As a disease, globalism is far more damaging than COVID-19, if only because adherents must adopt a rigid feel-good view of the world, totally at odds with objective reality. The truth is, far from having transcended his animal instincts, man’s mind and behavior remain firmly rooted in his own biology, more than he likes to think. For this reason, all utopian egalitarian ideas must founder on the solid bedrock of human nature. Since the current Western elites refuse to take biology into account, their globalist paradigm must remain an unfalsifiable one. The attempt to force society into a non-evolutionary and non-historical mold will inevitably destroy countless lives, but like all bigoted ideologues, theory must always trump reality.

Unlike COVID-19, globalism does have an antidote: White nationalism. Like governments before the 1950s, White nationalism is by and for Whites. The globalist “Evangelical Church of GDP” is repudiated in favor of GDP per capita, since White nationalism promotes White economic and material well-being. Unlike globalists, White nationalists respect human dignity, shown by their rejection of the degrading corporate exploitation of low IQ non-White serfs, whether imported or compelled to toil abroad. White nationalism replaces racial strife with racial harmony; instead of bringing a sword, it brings peace. White nationalists, unlike globalists, respect racial and ethnic diversity by wishing to preserve it, rather than blend it all away into some undifferentiated homogeneous mass. If White SJWs genuinely want to help non-Whites, they would do well to promote White nationalism in their own countries, since a Hispanicized USA or Islamicized / Africanized western Europe will not be able to feed and clothe the world’s poor and hungry. Calling White nationalism the cure for globalism is tantamount to saying the cure for fantasy is a stiff dose of reality.

Once the pandemic is over, it will be business as usual for the elites, which means shoveling more non-Whites into the West’s already overcrowded, decaying urban centers. The question is how long will elites continue to expose Whites to certain danger while busily electing a new people on the side. Mass democracy, mass immigration and multiculturalism—euphemisms for Whites handing their countries over to non-Whites—will continue indefinitely, along with the elite incompetence, short-sighted greed, willful blindness, ineptitude and rigid ideological adherence to political correctness that allowed these policies to exist in the first place.

COVID-19 shows us that neoliberal globalization is not some inevitability. Like all public policies, it remains very much under the control of Western leaders. For White advocates, this means issues of accountability at the highest levels of government must be pressed at every opportunity. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons—whether one wants to blame scheming Jews, media brainwashing, pathological altruism, herd behavior etc.—White electorates refuse to chastise their leaders at the ballot box. If no one can stop the mass non-White immigration orchestrated by Western governments, maybe infectious disease will.


[1]                     Nye, J. (2016). Globalism Versus Globalization – The Globalist. [online] The Globalist. Available at: https://www.theglobalist.com/globalism-versus-globalization/.

[2]                   Ibid.

[3]                   The Independent. (2013).White Britons “will be minority” before 2070, says professor. [online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/White-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html.

[4]                  Rowan Scarborough. “Muslim Majority in France Projected in 40 Years.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 26 Sept. 2017, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/26/muslim-majority-in-france-projected-in-40-years/.

[5]                  Rowan Scarborough. “Muslim Majority in France Projected in 40 Years.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 26 Sept. 2017, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/26/muslim-majority-in-france-projected-in-40-years/.

[6]            Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Phillip Connor. “Around the World, More Say Immigrants Are a Strength Than a Burden.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, 14 Mar. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-world-more-say-immigrants-are-a-strength-than-a-burden/.

[7]            Connor, Phillip, and Neil G Ruiz. “Majority of U.S. Public Supports High-Skilled Immigration.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, 22 Jan. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/01/22/majority-of-u-s-public-supports-high-skilled-immigration/.

[8]                Lai, S. and Bogoch, I. (2020). Assessing spread risk of Wuhan novel coronavirus within and beyond China, January-April 2020: a travel network-based modelling study. [online] www.medrxiv.org. Available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint. ‌

[9]                Wadhams, Nick, and Jennifer Jacobs. “China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says.” www.bloomberg.com, 1 Apr. 2020, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/china-concealed-extent-of-virus-outbreak-u-s-intelligence-says. Accessed 3 Apr. 2020.

[10]   https://www.worldometers.info/COVID-19/

[11]   “Government Advice Aimed at Building up ‘Herd Immunity’ to Coronavirus in UK.” Maldon and Burnham Standard, www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/national/18303553.government-advice-aimed-building-herd-immunity-COVID-19-uk/

[12]   Hanage, William. “I’m an Epidemiologist. When I Heard about Britain’s ‘Herd Immunity’ Coronavirus Plan, I Thought It Was Satire.” The Guardian, 15 Mar. 2020, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19.

[13]   “Feds Restrict Flights, Boost Screening at Airports Following Complaints.” Times Colonist, 16 Mar. 2020, www.timescolonist.com/feds-restrict-flights-boost-screening-at-airports-following-complaints-1.24098749.

[14]           Proctor, K. and Walker, P. (2020). Police and health officials to get powers to detain under UK coronavirus bill. The Guardian. [online] 19 Mar. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/coronavirus-suspects-may-be-detained-under-uk-emergency-powers.

[15]             Langton, K. (2020). UK to close borders: When will UK borders close? [online] Express.co.uk. Available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1259470/uk-close-borders-when-will-uk-borders-close-coronavirus.

[16]   Toronto SUN. EDITORIAL: Finally, Roxham Road Is Closed | Toronto Sun. 21 Mar. 2020, torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-finally-roxham-road-is-closed.

[17]             Menzies, David. “Illegal Immigrants Are STILL Flocking into Canada — SIGN THE PETITION to Close the Border Now!” Rebel News, 22 Mar. 2020, www.rebelnews.com/close_the_border_petition.

[18]     Chen, Jackie. “Australia, New Zealand Close Borders to Foreign Nationals Due to Coronavirus.” Business Traveller, 20 Mar. 2020, www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/03/20/australia-new-zealand-close-borders-to-foreign-nationals-due-to-coronavirus/.

[19]     Shribman, David, and Noah Bierman. “Canada and U.S. Close World’s Longest Land Border to ‘Nonessential’ Travel.” Los Angeles Times, 18 Mar. 2020, www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-18/coronavirus-trump-us-canada-border-close.

[20]   Alvarez, Priscilla et al. “Trump Administration Limits Nonessential Travel between US and Mexico.” CNN, 20 Mar. 2020, edition.cnn.com/2020/03/20/politics/us-mexico-border/index.html.

[21]             Duan, David. “Creating Culpability: Evaluating Central and Local Responses to the Coronavirus Outbreak in China.” MIR, 17 Feb. 2020, www.mironline.ca/creating-culpability-evaluating-central-and-local-responses-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china/.

[22]             “Early And Combined Interventions Crucial In Tackling Covid-19 Spread In China | University of Southampton.” www.southampton.ac.uk, 11 Mar. 2020, www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2020/03/covid-19-china.page.

[23]             “Fears of Being Called ‘racist’ Harmed Italy’s Coronavirus Response, Says Leading Italian Virologist.” Remix, 22 Mar. 2020, rmx.news/article/article/fears-of-being-called-racist-harmed-italy-s-coronavirus-response-says-leading-italian-virologist.

[24]             Marsi, F. (2020). Undertakers in Italy’s worst hit region at crisis point amid critical mask shortages. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-italy-undertakers-funerals-masks-death-toll-lombardy-a9419196.html.

[25]           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_Milan

[26]             McLaughlin, Y.S., Timothy (2020). The Other Problematic Outbreak. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-covid19-xenophobia-racism/607816/.

[27]             Singh, M. (2020). Will Trump’s coronavirus travel ban work? Scientists express skepticism. The Guardian. [online] 14 Mar. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/trump-coronavirus-travel-ban-europe-us.

[28]             Closing borders won’t stop coronavirus – German health minister. (2020). Reuters. [online] 11 Mar. Available at: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-germany/closing-borders-wont-stop-coronavirus-german-health-minister-idUKKBN20Y0UM.

[29]     Forster, Victoria. “Coronavirus Gets A New Name: COVID-19. Here’s Why That Is Important.” Forbes, 11 Feb. 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/02/11/coronavirus-gets-a-new-name-covid-19-heres-why-renaming-it-is-important/.

[30]     Kristof, Nicholas. “Opinion | The Best-Case Outcome for the Coronavirus, and the Worst.” The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-outcomes.html. Accessed 23 Mar. 2020. ‌

The Coronavirus and Galileo: An Interview with a Italian Nano-pathologist Dr. Stefano Montanari

Editor’s note: I am posting this not as a claim that Dr. Montanari’s ideas on the virus are correct—I do not have knowledge in this area— but only that his views should be aired. We are living in a time when science has become politicized and the claims of establishment scientists have become political orthodoxy and dissenters punished. In my field, psychology, decades-old findings have been to be unable to be replicated. Yet they are still to be found in textbooks because they favor leftist and environmentalist explanations for human behavior, particularly regarding racial differences, and dissenters are shunned and denied academic positions. Climate science has become completely politicized, so non-experts are left not knowing what to think while the establishment media and academic groups cling to an orthodoxy and brand anyone who disagrees as intellectually deficient and morally suspect. Can anyone trust the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., the Sacklers and the opioid crisis) or experts on nutrition? So much of what is produced in these fields is subject to financial motivations, and again, the average person is left wondering what drugs to take and what foods to eat. So let’s be open to Dr. Montanari’s ideas. Personally, I find many of his ideas quite compelling, and he is definitely well-versed in the field.

As the following content may be controversial, I do not pretend to truth, even to the truth of him whose thought and findings I report. My basic knowledge rests on the understanding that the property of rain is to wet and of fire to burn, and that a great cause of the night is lack of the sun.

Furthermore, given the current rapidity of the information flow, it is possible that what I relate here, by the time it is published, may have become the majority’s opinion. Though probably not, for we should keep in mind that, historically, the fabric of superstition (religious or even scientific) has often defied the feeble efforts of reason.

Which is why I begin with Galileo. It is universally known that Galileo was tried for his unorthodox notion that the earth circled around the sun, rather than otherwise. He had to recant his findings to avoid what happened to Giordano Bruno. Hence Galileo’s reported legendary mumbling as he left the court, “And yet it moves” (‘it’ being the earth in its revolution around the sun).

Theoretically speaking, the theologians may have had a point. Those readers who in their youth used trains instead of planes for transport, may recall what happened when they sat on a train waiting to depart, while another identical train was stationed on the adjacent rail. When your train, or the other began to move, for one second or so it was difficult to say if it was yours or the other train that was moving. A phenomenon consistent with the general notion of relative motion.

But Galileo’s assertions proved even more heretical when — using his DIY telescope — he discovered that Jupiter had satellites. For the finding disproved the assumption whereby the earth is the exceptional celestial object around which all other worlds orbit — the astronomical equivalent of the ‘exceptional’ nation of Obamanian memory.

Faced with the dilemma, the bishop of Pisa issued a directive to the parishes, admonishing that it was sinful to look through a telescope, because it showed objects that didn’t exist.

As of now, it is uncertain whether the world is a large assembly of bishops of Pisa or, as it may still be not sinful to hope, common sense will prevail.

One prevailing characteristic of the current Coronavirus metaphorical fever is the fantastic and logical inconsistence of the reports.

The Latin dictum or principle “Natura non facit saltus” (nature makes no leaps) has been an important principle of natural philosophy.  The sentence is attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, (1646–1746), one of the inventors of the infinitesimal calculus — though perhaps better known for his assertion, reached through elaborate reasoning, that ours is the best of all possible words.

The principle is/was also an essential element of Charles Darwin’s treatment of natural selection in his Origin of Species. And while many may take issue with Leibnitz’ opinion of our world, fewer probably disagree with the notion of natural selection.

As readers know, Italy is at the forefront of the coronavirus phenomenon because of the extraordinary higher number of cases and terrifying death toll, even exceeding China’s, where it all started.

At which some dissenting voices began to be heard, disputing the earlier findings — and/or at least disputing how they were reported.

The bitter and obstinate opposition made to those who, however clearly and with tenable arguments, disputed the data, induces the unbiased observer to at least hypothesize that some dormant privilege or as yet unexplained assumption has been attacked.

I would suggest disregarding the ‘battle of qualifications’ whereby a graduate of university X knows more than a graduate of university Y. As I mentioned before, my (however tentative) assessment of the plausibility and credibility of an explanation rests on:

  1. Whether the explanation is consistent with common sense and with what is commonly known on the debated issue;
  2. Whether the person in question has direct experience (and for how long) with the problem on which he expresses his views; and
  3. Whether his physiognomy is in reasonable harmony with perceivable symptoms of credibility—an idea elaborated in extreme detail in a massive study, by the Swiss author Johann Lavater, at the end of the 1700s.

I will begin with Dr. Stefano Montanari, a nano-pathologist who, for over twenty years, along with his wife, has researched nano-pathogens, the very minute illness-causing particles that typically float in the air of all crowded, polluted, highly trafficked, industrial cities, as well as factories.

[For Italian speakers, the link to the original interview is at https://bit.ly/2UBuRX2 ]

The prefix ‘nano’ refers to the dramatically small size of the items studied. It takes 25,400,000 nanometers to make an inch. The size of the smallest particle recognizable by the naked eye is 100,000 nanometers. Therefore nano-pathogens are dramatically small, though the damage they cause to the lungs is inversely proportional to their size.

The size of a nano-pathogen is between 5 and 200 nanometers. Considering that a virus is considered large at 250 nanometers, nano-pathogens and viruses (corona or otherwise), have the same order of magnitude. For expedience I will signal the questions put to Dr. Montanari in bold.

— Where did the virus originate?

All the news we have had so far is varied, fragmentary, and unverifiable. First it seemed it was born in China, then not in China (see previous article “Science and Fiction” — where virologist Dr. Wodarg claimed that some coronaviruses, belonging or related to the current entity called ‘the’ coronavirus, were already discovered in Georgia, USA in 2015).

Some said they come from bats, some that they were created in a laboratory to exterminate people en masse. Someone may know but they are very few. As for the bats, we may as well add the unicorn and we have completed the picture.

The fact that ‘this’ coronavirus is considered new, is anything but exceptional. There are very many coronaviruses. The common cold is often due to a coronavirus. They are viruses that by themselves cannot cause death, and very often are totally innocuous. This new strain is very infective, which means that it can more easily enter into people.

However, in the overwhelming majority of people it remains innocuous and without showing clinical indication of symptoms. But it hits, as an illness, old people, especially old people who take medicines used to treat other pulmonary diseases, or who have other pathologies.

Healthy people suffer absolutely no damage from this virus(es), which is probably ubiquitous and can be found everywhere in the billions, like billions of other viruses. Therefore I am convinced that, if we sought the virus in the 60-million Italians, we would find it at least in 30 million and probably more. As I said, this virus is found everywhere and it stays there without absolutely causing any harm, just like the enormous number of other viruses, present but harmless.

Mortality from the virus is very low and probably non-existent. But an illness with the virus is another matter. Yesterday evening [about Mar 23] we heard a primary doctor in a hospital saying that the virus is the same as an illness. This gentleman should go back to school, but not to university, a bit further back, to elementary school. It is a statement that makes no logical sense.

To die of an illness means that the illness is the cause of death. For example, a myocardial infarction is a cause of death. If someone is run over by a train, the ensuing trauma is the cause of death. If he who is run over by a train happens also to have a cold, the cold is not the cause of death. He casually happened to have a cold.

I am convinced that if all deaths were checked — about 650,000 people die in Italy physiologically every year — you would find more than half having the coronavirus, probably many more than half. For they are old people who have this coronavirus in their body. The omnipresence of the coronavirus type and other coronaviruses is a fact, not a hypothesis.

I see here the latest numbers from the official press service, indicating that Italy surpassed China in number of deaths during a single day, 475, of which 319 were in Lombardy. Therefore, I am asking you, Dr. Montanari, if you still use the adjective ‘harmless’ referring to the virus.

No, the virus is not harmless. It affects the lungs, just as there are viruses that affect the guts, hence diarrhea, the stomach, hence vomiting, the nervous system, hence headaches etc.

It means that, in certain cases, especially the old, they need respiratory care. If you examine the age of the dead, they are on average eighty-years old. A respirator is common equipment in a hospital. I have spent more than 40 years in hospital operating rooms, and it is absolutely standard equipment.

That we do not have them or have too few (in Italy) is due to our having, through the last 10 years, destroyed our health system. We have closed entire hospital departments, as well as many smaller hospitals.

The purchasing system is bad, and all that is needed in a hospital costs double than in other countries  because the purchasing system is corrupted at the capillary level. [My note: the very governor of the region of Lombardy was recently condemned to six years in jail for a monstrous misappropriation of funds (in the hundreds of millions) destined for health care.]

We are facing an emergency — if we can thus call it — because we are not prepared, due to the 10-year long process of dismantling the system. And when I hear it said that the Italian health system is the best in the world, my arms fall, and maybe not just the arms.

— But how do you explain the images of coffins carried away by military trucks from hospitals in the city of Bergamo. Would you still maintain that the cause of the death was not the coronavirus?

Look, and I am quoting the National Institute of Health, the actual deaths attributed or certified as having been caused by the corona virus were 3 (this was a few days ago when the numbers reported were already in the hundreds).  And when I hear Mario Giordano (a well-known journalist) say that we should not divulge this news, I wonder what kind of journalism we have in Italy (and maybe in the world). I’m not talking about the parish newspaper, I’m talking about a journalist of great notoriety, who says something contrary to the very ethics of journalism… This man is advocating disinformation.  It is a shame.

— If this virus mutates quickly does it mean that maybe the Italian virus is not the same as the Chinese?

It is not maybe, for sure it’s not the same as the German virus isolated in Germany, nor it is the same as the Chinese virus. It is the nature of viruses — they look for stability, for a state to be in in for a while. To achieve this, the virus mutates at great speed.   Tomorrow it will no longer be what it is today, and so on. But (the coronavirus) is not the only virus behaving this way. We host a huge number of viruses in our body. Many of them are also indispensable for our life.  They are not even beings as such — they are a kind of chemical chains. The current type (Coronavirus) is peculiar for its relationship to RNA and DNA but let’s not go into this.  There are many with similar structural characteristics.  They mutate very quickly — therefore when attempting to look for a remedy for this or that virus you run after something that runs faster than us.

— But how about the images from hospitals showing people with respirators. Is your explanation that the phenomenon is not due to the severity of the virus but to the cuts to health care?

We are not prepared for a disease that affects the lungs. For our politicians have destroyed our health system. You know very well, as a journalist, how easy it is to manipulate text and images to create a message.

There are definitely people with respirators who definitely need it — and they must be helped by it. But all these coffins are part of the 650,000 deaths we have every year in Italy — there is no increase in mortality. And if you go to any hospital, you see coffins coming out every day. Many years ago I turned down a job in childhood oncology, precisely because I could not stand the spectacle of the white coffins that passed by me constantly. We are talking about nothing and, as I said, you know that it is possible to manipulate images and context to achieve the impression you wish to convey. (What follows are examples of unforgettable momentous events that are quickly forgotten)

Here we are talking of 3 people’s death attributable to coronavirus. If the number does not please the media, that is another matter, but the facts are what they are — and that number, as I said, comes out from the National Institute for Health.

— But then is the pneumonia caused by the covid-19 is different from the pneumonia we have known so far?

It is an interstitial pneumonia; it is a viral pneumonia, but there have been these types of viruses in Italy for several months. We never talk about it, but already, for example, in October, about 5–6 months ago, there were patients with atypical pneumonia — pneumonia not normally seen and about which we knew nothing. The source was unknown, it was impossible to counteract the virus pharmacologically, and we had to wait for those sick people to heal themselves. They healed by themselves, because, contrary to what some try to make you believe, we have immune defenses that are very much stronger than the vast majority of drugs.

We have on our skin various bacteria, fungi and viruses that are there to contrast and counteract pathogenic bacteria and fungi, meaning carriers of illness. In fact when we wear gloves to combat the coronavirus, we are not helping because we do not allow our bacteria, fungi and viruses present on the skin to interact with the pathogenic ones. Then with gloves-covered hands we touch our clothes, we touch the money handed by the cashiers from the stores still open — the same gloves on which the viruses came to rest. Hence those gloves are distinctly worse than non-gloves. We are dealing with imbeciles, ignorant of the elementary principles of biology.

— Therefore, it is as if we couldn’t build antibodies in this way …

We don’t build antibodies to this virus — we already have immune defenses. From rhinos to elephants to goldfish, we all have the capacity to heal ourselves. If you have a headache, and I give you some enamel to apply to your nails, it was not the enamel that cured the headache. It was just that by the next day the body eliminated the headache — and this happens at large.

My old professor of physiology used to say that an untreated flu lasts 7 days, a treated flu lasts one week. This means that we presumptuously interfere with nature without realizing what we are doing so.

As for the masks… they are useless. There are millions, billions of viruses for every square meter of the earth, on the sidewalk and so on.  It’s an illusion following from the (imagined) idea that viruses are as big as sewer rats. A notion that perhaps arose from the words of Ms. Lorenzin when, as Minister of Health, she said that viruses crawl and jump around (as if they were animals).

Viruses exist in enormous quantities and can enter in enormous quantities inside the cells, which are a few thousandths of a millimeter wide. Wearing a mask compares with raising a gate to prevent mosquitoes from entering your house.

— But if the disease is not so serious why every day more and more restrictive measures are placed on us? How do the authorities of the institutions justify their behavior?

The major issue at stake is, or are, the vaccines. The regime that now encompasses the world will force the world to vaccinate — that is to vaccinate with and against a virus that does not give immunity, as this (the coronavirus) is the case.

If 50 years ago, at my exam of pharmacology, I had told my examining professor — who was one of the most knowledgeable pharmacologists of the time — something like that, I would have been thrown out of the door. For only an incompetent can imagine a vaccine against a virus that does not give immunity and has no chance of being effective. We are talking about a virus that mutates at very fast speed and we cannot possibly run after it (i.e., its mutations).

It’s a virus somehow similar to the cold virus, whose family it belongs to. You can’t vaccinate against the common cold because the common cold does not give immunity. In the course of a life, a person can have a cold 200 times, and at no time will that cold will give immunity (against the next). It is a colossal fraud. We are close to 8 billion people forced to be vaccinated and it will be an unimaginably enormous business.

— But then, if the most immediate defence consists in keeping the lungs efficient how does a smoker deal with the issue?

Badly. We all have bronchi. They are tubes that become thinner and thinner (as they approach the lungs). They convey air to the 600 million small bags, called pulmonary alveoli, in which oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged.

Along the bronchial tubes all healthy people have a thin, but indispensable layer of mucus, which envelopes and blocks dust, viruses and bacteria. Furthermore healthy people have, in the bronchi, what are called vibratile cilia — they are a kind of whips whipping out of the lungs these dust, viruses, bacteria and fungi.

The smoker has a layer of mucus that is relatively enormously thicker. The vibratile cilia not only cannot throw out what has been enveloped by the mucus — which in the smoker becomes catarrh — but they become paralyzed. What happens then is that the invaders slip down, slip into the pulmonary alveoli and do not come out anymore. Consequently the smoker gets viruses, bacteria, fungi in much greater number than a non-smoker does.

— On the subject of swabs (to verify the presence of the coronavirus), I would like to know from you what do you think of the governor of Veneto (Mr. Zaia) who said that we will take swabs from everybody.

The governor is clearly incompetent and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Besides, for the analysis of the swabs special equipment is needed. The analysis cannot be done in the kitchen — both equipment and expertise are required.  And then there is a further problem. The results, in more than 80% of the cases are false positive. Therefore there is a real risk of telling a person that he is  ‘positive’ when he is not.

But there is more. Most of those who are actually positive have no symptoms — as is the case with the vast majority of viruses that exist in this world. Therefore, should we isolate and turn perfectly healthy people into sick people?

This is very serious, because — and this has been known for many decades — depressed people have lower defenses against pathologies and get sick more often. You take from these people the possibility to go out in the sun — without which the body cannot properly metabolize vitamin D, which is essential to protect our immune system.

So we stay at home in a bad mood, we cannot metabolize vitamin D and we get sick more easily. All these ideas, taken by perfectly incompetent people, are deleterious and worsen the situation.

People should be told to stay outside in the sun, to walk, to move around, to try staying healthy and eat healthily.  Not to stay indoors, in the dark and without sun. These incompetents don’t realize the harm they do or maybe they realize it, I don’t know.

— This seems a vicious circle. But, compared to the SARS (epidemic) what are the differences?

(The coronavirus) is one of the many lung viruses (like SARS), causing an atypical pneumonia. They are cousins, almost brothers. And SARS did not cause disasters.

There have been other similar pathologies, the swine flu, the avian flu… In the case of the avian flu Italy bought 27,000,000 vaccine doses and disposed of 26,700,000 of them. We paid all that money for vaccines that we threw in the sewers. We have no money for respirators but money to buy a vaccine.

We are ruled by the incompetent and I do not wish to talk about corruption, though I am tempted to. It’s like commander Schettino to the umpteenth power [Schettino was the commander of the Cruise Liner “Costa Concordia” that ran aground near an island close to Tuscany in 2012. He wanted to blow the ship’s horn to wish a Happy Birthday to a friend in the island, while showing off for his Moldavian girlfriend, a personal friend as well as unregistered passenger on board — 32 people died, the cost of the damage was in the billions range).

— There are those who claim that the coronavirus is seasonal. Could you give a prediction on when this emergency will end?

I cannot say whether it is seasonal or not. Like almost all viruses it can be affected by temperature. It is certain that nature is wiser than our statesmen and many doctors. Besides, it is not corrupt.

Nature knows well that when we get sick , the body raises the temperature because, from the point of view of fighting the illness, the higher the temperature, the more efficient is the illness-fighting system — meaning that the temperature improves the efficiency of our immune system and decreases the vital capacity of bacteria and fungi — assuming that the viruses have a life.

But what do the doctors do? They gives the patient Tachypyrine — which takes away that defense connected with higher temperature. The doctor prescribes Tachypyrine when his patient has a 37.8 C  (100.04 F) temperature. It compares to a besieged city throwing down the walls to let more air in.

It is pure folly.

As for the coronavirus, it happens that in the summer the temperature rises and it is possible that this reduces the virus’s vital capacity. Vital capacity is a wrong expression, but let’s say so for simplicity.

It is possible that in the summer the virus presence drops. Even so, the matter is not that relevant. Every year we have 20,000 deaths from influenza but no one talks about it. Furthermore, we have 49000 deaths per year due to infections contracted in the hospital. The data are official. 49000 people (130–140 people per day) die because they are admitted into a hospital, say, for an appendicitis and then they die of pneumonia. No one is talking about it, but we have many more deaths from these infections than we have had from a coronavirus, even since the beginning of this farce. We are facing something beyond absurd, which at least invites suspicion.

— Therefore, in summary, one cannot die of covid-19 unless the patient has previous pathologies.

Listen. If I throw you from the tenth floor and you had a cold or flu or had arthritis, I cannot say that you died of arthritis, flu or cold. You died because I threw you from the tenth floor.  Go and see the data from the Higher Institute of health. You find that those who died from coronavirus are all people who have cancer, who have a very strong diabetes, who are obese, who are old. Eighty-year-olds, as is the average death-norm in Italy, and 80 years also remains the death-norm associated with coronavirus, because they are all people who die of other diseases.

— How about the latest news about the death of a 32-year-old young man (from coronavirus)?

I cannot blame them but I did not understand. How sure are we that he died of coronavirus and not ‘with’ coronavirus? This patient had several health problems, some caused by an infection contracted in Cuba 2 years ago. Is this not meaningful in your opinion?

Surely you cannot think that if one is infected with coronavirus, then he should heal from cancer or from whatever other disease.  If someone has cancer, or a heart condition, and also accidentally the coronavirus, what does it mean? We are really facing a colossal scam.

— Do you agree, however, that it is good that the most affected, the weakest should stay at home?

No, it’s good for them to go out, to sunbathe, to stay outside, to stroll, to stay healthy, because if they remain locked in the house, they are more likely to die. Do you want to speed-up the death of the elderly? Should we keep them out of the air, out of the sun? They must walk, they must stay in the sun, they must exercise. In summary, they must do all that has always been said (as good for health) and that today is denied to them for interests that are abhorrent.

 

—  Let’s move on to England and Boris Johnson, as the last question. He wanted to rely on ‘’Herd Immunity’ but then he retracted…

His reasoning  resembles his hair. We are facing pure madness. First, herd immunity is a brilliant invention and fantasy created by the pharmaceutical industry. Only an imbecile can believe that there exists such a monstrosity as herd immunity, which simply doesn’t exist.

If you wish, we can make another show where I’ll explain why (herd immunity) is a scam. But even if it existed, how does herd immunity exist for a disease that does not give you immunity? It is as if you were saying that herd immunity exists for colds. We’re really in front of a character (Boris Johnson) who speaks because he has a tongue. He is dangerous and should be stopped.

— He cannot because he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We have touched on the most important points. Have we left anything out?

There is one point we did not touch — the economic, which is not part of my competence.  We are now blocking the world and, as for Italy, the economy was already at a low point. What do they do? They freeze all activities but keep the stock exchange open. Stocks reach a low bottom. What does it mean? The ultra billionaire can easily purchase companies that are now worth pennies.

When eventually it will be decided that the (coronavirus) farce is ended — and nothing will end because this virus will continue undaunted to do what it’s doing now (or its evolving strains will do), the ultra-billionaires will own everything. The rich (a degree below the billionaires) will have bought, say, 3–4 restaurants and/or 10 stores that had to close. In summary, all who were rich will be infinitely richer, But we will also have a flood-tide of people who will always be poorer. This will be another consequence of this fake epidemic, perhaps, who knows, created on purpose.

—  I would like to close with your comment on the possible correlation between pollution and the development of the virus…

We have talked and studied this for many years. When there are dusts, micro and nano particles, the viruses — all almost infinitely small —stick to the nano-particles, which then become the vehicles for the viruses, as well as for dioxins, furans (another toxic compound), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and an infinite number of other substances.

All this is widely known — but now some pundits say so as if it were a novelty.  We have been saying this for 20 years.

End of the interview.

I started with Galileo, because I had a cunning plan to bring him up again at the end. The Vatican chief prosecutor of Galileo was Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, the same, by the way, who was instrumental in condemning Giordano Bruno to the stake. In the circumstances Galileo’s decision to officially renege on the on the geo-centric theory of the universe was wise.

We should, however, consider that both Galileo and Bruno lived during the peak times of the Counterreformation. The Counterreformation was the Catholic response to Lutheranism, just as the Patriot Act (never rescinded, by the way), was the response to 9/11.

Still, Cardinal Bellarmino had some remarkable skills. One of them was persuasive oratory. He attracted both Catholic and Protestants to his debates and was skilled at counter-arguing and rebutting the Calvinist theories that were spreading rapidly in the Dutch provinces.

In the case at hand, Dr. Montanari found a contemporary Cardinal Bellarmino in the shape of a Dr. Burioni, who has become a TV celebrity (corporate official channels) and made big bucks as an adamant advocate of the universal power of all vaccines.

It goes without saying that the pharmaceutical lobby ensures that only pro-vaccine voices are heard in the syndicated (there are no other) corporate channels. The situation mirrors the US. In fact, Dr. Montanari could only be heard on an Internet channel.

But whereas Cardinal Bellarmino was acknowledged as an intelligent individual — though misguided at least from a Christian or humane point of view — Dr. Burioni is an ass who uses his ass as an instrument of cogitation.  And this not for his views on vaccines, which are a matter of opinion, but for his reaction to Dr. Montanari’s interview, when it became clear that it was circulating more widely than expected.

Among other things Dr. Burioni is the head of a nebulous “Coalition Across Science,” whose funding is obscure but whose aim is to make all scientists agree with Burioni’s interpretation of the coronavirus and with the worth of a forthcoming vaccine. Hence the “Coalition Across Science” even includes sociologists, behaviorists and ethologists who, for example, study the mating behavior of bonobo monkeys.

To fight Dr. Montanari, Burioni has filed a legal suit, seeking penalties or incarceration for Dr. Montanari and the closure of the Internet station that published the above rendered interview.

I will spare the reader the lengthy motivations in the accusations of the braggart Burioni. The most interesting and to any same person incredible are:

Montanari is a scientific popularizer — therefore his voice is perceived by people as authoritative and therefore his statements take on an even more serious aspect….

It is therefore up to the judicial authority to determine whether there are any criminal wrongdoings in Montanari’s video and in particular a breach of Art 656 (publication of criminal information or dissemination of exaggerated or tendentious false news, likely to disturb public order)….

Art 656 prescribes a prison sentence of at least 3 months and a monetary penalty.

When the judicial authority verifies criminal offences in the conduct described, it will have to consider the adoption of any measure, also aimed at obscuring and seizing the YouTube channels where these videos are present, if not already removed.

The patient reader who read so far, may or will draw his/her own conclusions. The information published here is clearly inconsistent with the perception conveyed by the corporate channels — suggesting massive coronavirus deaths and great dangers to disbelievers or disobeyers of the safety injunctions.

Puzzled by the inconsistency — and to run a check, however minute -—I travelled around two local hospitals near the emergency section and saw nothing unusual, at least as measured by the traffic of ambulances.

As for judging who is telling the truth and who isn’t, let any of my 25 readers decide. As for me I am reminded of the advice that Timon of Athens gave to two robbers who came to see him, “Trust not the physician, for his antidotes are poison, and he slays more than you rob.”

Semitophobia

The greatest mass fear in the US is not Islamophobia. It’s not homophobia. It’s not even xenophobia. It’s Semitophobia. Fear of the Jewish Power Cabal. No other group comes close at provoking as much fear in almost the entirety of the population as Jews. Even the slightest suggestion that anyone is saying anything mildly questionable about Jews causes cold sweats, shortness of breath, hair to stand on end, muscles to clench, and all the other physical reactions that reveals the triggering of a psycho-social taboo. It’s actually a suppressed terror that amounts to a kind of paralysis.

So thoroughly has this fear reaction been implanted in the populace by means of Jewish Supremacist-owned and operated mass media, education curriculum, entertainment industries’ myth making apparatus, government propaganda, and other influences, that it is all but universal. Small pockets of people may express some ‘anti-semitism’ among themselves in private where it is relatively safe, but few dare publicly where they might be overheard. ‘Anti-semitism’ is almost thoroughly suppressed by Semitophobia.

Even plenty of Gentiles of Conservative, Liberal and of course Progressive orientation will express outrage and hate at anyone who vaguely criticizes Jews. These Gentiles are of course afraid of Jews themselves, but cover it with virtuous indignation and outrage. It’s safer that way.

A mere oblique question about the validity of the holocaust, such as that raised by Florida school principal William Latson in 2018 could lose a person his job, income, family, house, freedom (Alfred and Monika Schaefer) and sanity. Perhaps even his life. Pointing out that a particular Jew, such as Sheldon Adelson or Jeffrey Epstein, or a whole family of them such as the Sacklers behind the opiod epidemic, is responsible for causing enormous misery, cruelty and horror provokes a defensive reaction from certain Jews and their Gentile defenders of such righteous fury that fear can cause the critic to run for safety. Even pointing out the obvious atrocities the Israeli Likud Party government is inflicting on the helpless Palestinians in their Occupied Territories triggers outlashings of fury that would make a cornered bobcat proud.

It takes a strong character and profound courage to overcome Semitophobia and risk even the most gentle inquiry. Ilhan Omar as a freshman Muslim congresswoman spoke publicly about a ‘foreign lobby’ having inordinate influence on the Congress. Immediately everyone knew which Lobby she was talking about, and she was denounced as an ‘anti-semite’ and unjustly cruel on Jews and Israel, including by President Trump. Displaying more courage than most, though not sufficient for justice, she did not exactly apologize as most are forced to do, but diluted her statement by mentioning other lobbies that also have influence. This barely satisfied Jewish demands, and we have not heard any more complaints from Omar since.

In fact, perhaps no group in America is more Semitophobic than the US Congress. Such past examples as Gus Savage, James Trafficant and Cynthia Mckinney are more than enough to keep the others in line with Jewish demands. A more recent example is Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who has been denounced as an ‘anti-semite’ and ‘holocaust denier’, even though his main outrages against Jewish Supremacist power has been speaking up in favor of White people and Western civilization. King even went on a tour of holocaust sites in Poland sponsored by a Jewish group that educates US Congresspeople on seminal Jewish suffering, but King provoked outrage by also meeting with ‘actual fascists’ and asked them if the ‘Nazis’ or Soviets were worse. King lost his ability to attend Committees, but managed to retain his House seat in the last election.

Some analysis of the Jeffrey Epstein case suggests that he was collecting the worst kind of ‘dirt’ on politicians as a form of blackmail for the Israeli Mossad and Jewish power generally. Imagine the Semitophobia such grotesque material could evoke if a mainstream media figure was foolhardy enough to discuss it in public. Short of death threats, this kind of character assassination may evoke the strongest Semitophobia.

Sheldon Adelson donated at least $100 million to the Republican party for the 2016 election and more for the 2018 mid-terms. Semitophobia in this case is little more than fear that such massive funding will not go to certain candidates, but to their in-party opponents. In both parties, fear of losing Jewish funding is so breathless that candidates line up to attend the annual AIPAC meeting and express their avid support for Israel and Jews in America. The fact that this makes Omar, Savage, Trafficant, McKinney, King and relatively few others corrrect is not enough to overcome extreme Semitophobia. That takes more courage than most Congresspeople, and indeed most human beings, possess.

This year we see what appears to be a strange aversion to attending the AIPAC meeting by Democratic candidates for President, supposedly based on leftist denunciation of the policies of the right-wing government of Israel headed by PM Netanyahu, who will be a featured speaker at AIPAC, and the resistance of Israel to forming a two-state solution. It is more likely that campaign advisors realize American liberal voters have overcome a certain Semitophobia of their own, and candidates better make a show of complying. Most likely AIPAC has coordinated this ‘boycott’ of the lobby event with Democratic candidates, and wealthy Jews will certainly donate to presumptive nominee Joe Biden who is typical of old-line Democrats in his support for Israel.

Republicans have no problem with AIPAC and actually condemn Democrats as ‘anti-semitic’ for not attending. President Trump was particularly clear in calling them ‘anti-Jewish’.

In 2017, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance produced a new five-hundred word definition of ‘anti-semitism’ with eleven examples, seven of them refering to Israel. Because of the fear of life being ruined should one be labeled an ‘anti-semite’ through making even the slightest violation of this definition, Semitophobia has most people in its clutches. To be called an ‘anti-semite’ is such a horrid fate for most that they simply will never risk it, even if they know in their minds and hearts that there are legitimate, fact-based critiques of Jewish power. Yet we are told by many Jewish sources that ‘anti-semitism’ is on the rise, and given various explanations why: Americans are increasingly discontent and looking for a weak vulnerable victim to dump it on—ironic to say the least; ‘White supremacism’ is on the rise, encouraged by the President; distorted perception of the Israel/Palestine ‘conflict’ (it is no ‘conflict’, but slow genocide) is provoking unjust criticisms and even BDS of poor Israel; and the like. The real reason for rising ‘anti-semitism’ is most likely the increasing knowledge of Jewish power and influence. Knowledge leads to outrage leads to overcoming fear and risking losses and hardship in asserting truth and justice.

The key leverage point is knowledge. Semitophobia is so acute on some online platforms such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter that those risking ‘anti-semitism’ are using euphemisms in order to evade the thought police and avoid deplatforming, demonetization, prolonged bans and permanent banishment. We know from such heretical works as the US Lobby documentary produced by Al Jazeera, but distributed by Electronic Intifada, that Israel supporters are very well funded and diligent in hunting down ‘anti-semitism’ online and on campus using ruthless and dishonest tactics. Al Jazeera at first collapsed in Semitophobia and would not distribute the documentary (it since has posted it), but Electronic Intifada did. The more desperate one is when overwhelmed by Jewish Power, the easier it can be to overcome Semitophobia.

Two exemplars of different kinds who appear to be immune to Semitophobia (though I suspect it is partially appearances, no one is totally immune) are Pastor Charles Baldwin and tech entrepreneur and Jewish editor/producer of the Unz Review Ron Unz.

Baldwin  awakened from the hypnotic influence of the Scofield Bible supplement and strives to educate Evangelicals (Christian Zionists) about US politics and how the real Bible perceives Jews. He openly denounces Jewish power in America. He expresses his gratitude for this awakening, even though it has cost him many friends, much money and certain comforts and support in his life. Perhaps it is his faith in Jesus that helps him cope with Semitophobia.

I have never read in any of Ron Unz’s many essays in his American Pravda series of his gratitude for his awakening into these hidden mysteries of the Jewish Question. He says he has faced only few and mild inconveniences for his flagrant ‘anti-semitism’. He expresses mild astonishment that the ADL has not attacked him more fiercely, and speculates that to do so might only draw more attention to Unz’s powerful articles exposing such taboo topics of Jewish Power as the JFK assassination, the Leo Frank case and origins of the ADL, 911 as an Israeli job, the holocaust, the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution, ‘anti-semitism’ as weaponization, and others. Possibly Unz is some form of controlled opposition, or is it better for Jewish Power to let him continue exposing it to a relatively small but growing audience rather than draw more attention to him with public attacks? It’s hard to see how Unz could be CO, but also hard to imagine Jewish Power letting him continue. The Unz Review has after all surpassed the iconic Nation magazine in popularity, largely due to Unz’s writings on the Jewish Question along with other authors he features. Unz certainly appears immune to Semitophobia in any case, given the taboo topics he writes about boldly. Does it help that he himself is Jewish?

Entire nations are subject to Semitophobia. It goes without saying that Germany is completely prostrate to Semitophobia, but in his book The Holocaust Industry, Jewish author Normal Finkelstein recounts how the nation of Switzerland was frightened into paying enormous reparations to ‘holocaust survivors’ for not trying hard enough to find the rightful recipients of Swiss bank accounts established before or during the war by Jews.

When the nation of Poland was targeted to pay holocaust reparations, it refused, and passed an amendment to a former law, making it illegal to say any German prisons in Poland were ‘Polish’. The Polish government had established an Institute for National Remembrance, and ‘imposed fines of up to three years in prison for those who denied or belittled German or Soviet crimes during the holocaust and subsequent Soviet invasion.‘ The 2018 amendment makes it illegal to attribute responsibility for or complicity during the holocaust to the Polish nation or state. This provoked fierce criticism and outrage, and Poland was subject to enormous Semitophobia. It resisted however and enacted its new law.

Iceland was not so staunch. It proposed a law making circumcision of minors illegal, subject to up to 6 years in prison, citing the UN convention on the rights of the child and an earlier Icelandic law outlawing female circumcision. Jewish Power around the world, including in the US Congress, expressed outrage, and indirectly threatened boycott of Iceland’s essential tourism industry among other threats, such as association with ‘anti-semites’ and ‘neo-nazis’. Even though the bill had strong support among most of Iceland’s 336,000 population, of which only an estimated 250 were Jews, and most likely would have passed otherwise, the government’s own judiciary committee advised against passage, and Iceland’s parliament dropped the bill, celebrated in Jewish media. Unfortunately but understandably, Iceland caved to Semitophobia.

Though more can be named, yet they are relatively few. All have faced hardships for overcoming Semitophobia and confronting Jewish Power. Many many more have also whose names will never be known. They suffer hardships in their own families, communities, work places, online and in real life. They feel Semitophobia, but do it anyway. These are also real heroes of our times. Courage does not mean acting without fear. It is feeling fear, and acting anyway. The Jewish Power Cabal may make examples of them, and the hypnotized masses Jew and Gentile alike may confront them, denounce them, defame and demonize them, impoverish them, dehome them, deplatform them, and even physically assault and imprison them for being cruel to innocent victim Jews, but they do it anyway. Semitophobia has been made strong in America and around the world today, but the human drive for truth and justice can be stronger. As the grotesque excesses of Jewish Power in America grow worse, so too does the will to overcome Semitophobia and stand up and speak out.

It is likely to manifest as righteous outrage. Certain Jews have provoked such outrage many times in history, and suffered the consequences of expulsion in Europe, and many times more world-wide. They seem never to have learned, but continue to think that if they can just oppress and deceive and degrade and frighten their perceived racial opponents enough, they will be safe. It should be said that this refers primarily to the Jewish Power Elite, and Not All Jews, but sometimes the distinction gets lost and innocent—or at least less criminal—Jews suffer. The Jewish Power Elite has frightened the majority of the Jewish people itself in order to control and use it (for which the holocaust story is their greatest tool today), but that is a topic for another essay. Many—no, most—Gentiles succumb to Semitophobia and don’t dare speak out.

In increasing numbers and quality, more are speaking out. It is inevitable. Some White Americans feel they must secure the existence of their people and a future for White children. More are learning that certain Jews are primarily to blame for this existential threat. Semitophobia could be a weak dam to hold back this flood as the weight of the waters accumulate. New laws ‘combatting anti-semitism’ and suppressing BDS might only make the outrage stronger. The two forces—Semitophobia and legitimate ‘anti-semitism’—are increasing in strength and driving more fiercely against each other. Something has to give.

Or the Jewish Power Cabal could win this time. Fear, apathy, nihilism, hedonism, delusion could prevent the natural race reaction needed to protect Whites from eventual eradication. Could Semitophobia suppress that natural reaction even as excesses of Jewish power escalate beyond even today’s absurd levels? Would White people in America remain afraid and unresponsive, paralyzed by Semitophobia, as ‘White supremacists’ are herded into American gulags? Would Americans remain docile, limp with Semitophobia as their Second Amemdment rights were stripped piecemeal over time? Or would they take up arms and fight a civil war to retain that right of self-protection? Will Americans allow George Soros to fund Antifa to the point that it is a mass rampage vandalizing whole cities and marching as lynch mobs against ‘White supremacists’, a neo-communist revolution destroying America, or will they ovecome Semitophobia to take back the streets and make them safe again for right-wing Whites who love their country and people? Will Americans ever stop the subversive filthy mind rot that pours out of Hollywood and the porn industry , or stay stuck in Semitophobia and let it continue until all the youth have pink and purple hair, big gulps full of meth, sex change operations, and lack even a single thought in the head or impulse in the heart for responsibility and decency?

Semitophobia is strong, but it can’t be that strong. Surely the Power Jews will go too far at some point, and White Gentiles in America will react. It has happened in Europe 109 times before. But so did Jewish Soviet Communism for almost 75 years of mass horror.

It may be either Semitophobia forever or America 110.

Let’s end on a lighter note. Do any readers remember when ‘racism’ was more culturally acceptable, and people made little harmless jokes about the different types of folks, in an unconscious process of maintaining their ethnic, cultural, religious and racial identity? I remember my father calling himself and other Italians he knew ‘Guineas’, a racial slur. He also referred to other racial groups and individuals by common racial slurs, even though he played basketball in the schoolyard with them. It wasn’t scandalous, it wasn’t evil, it was simply honest and it served a function of identity.

So let’s recall a harmless and useful joke from a more innocent honest time:

“An ‘anti-semite’ is someone who dislikes Jews more than is absolutely necessary.” (Source unknown. Possibly printed in Hungary in the 1960, and an original variant in the US in 1939)

If we don’t at least dislike such Jews as Epstein, Soros, Adelson, Netanyahu and many others, and say so, then we don’t deserve to preserve our people. Break though Semitophobia and join the rising tide of voices confronting Jewish power. It is the honorable and decent thing to do.