Featured Articles

Samefacting Franz Boas – A Review of Charles King’s “Gods of the Upper Air”

Gods of the Upper Air: How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century
Charles King
Doubleday, 2019

The description of Charles King at Amazon:

CHARLES KING is the author of seven books, including Midnight at the Pera Palace and Odessa, winner of a National Jewish Book Award. His essays and articles have appeared in the The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, and The New Republic. He is a professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University.

We all know the scenario. We see a great cultural shift occurring before our eyes and seek to ascribe a reason. It’s only natural; man is a pattern seeking creature after all. Suppose we see this shift as a net negative and can’t help but notice how a disproportionate number of Jews are behind it. Well, then the Jews and their defenders will most likely respond in two ways: they will downplay the negative (or the Jewish role in it), and they will label their accuser an anti-Semite. On the other hand, if you describe the exact same cultural shift, but as a positive thing—and can’t help but notice all the Jews behind it—well, then you’re all right. The takeaway here is that telling the truth (or not) is less important than whether or not one offends Jews.

I call this phenomenon “samefacting,” and it occurred to me while reading Charles King’s 2019 book Gods of the Upper Air. While the dust jacket summary describes it as a “history of the birth of cultural anthropology,” and while it does emphasize the lives of many of its early gentile adherents (for example, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Ella Deloria, and Zora Neale Hurston), the book focuses most closely on Franz Boas, the German Jew who founded cultural anthropology as an academic discipline at Columbia University in the 1890s—and who planted the insidious seed of cultural relativism in the Western mind.

Because Kevin MacDonald dedicated a chapter in The Culture of Critique to Franz Boas and Boasian anthropology, readers of The Occidental Observer will want to know how much samefacting is going on between MacDonald and King. Answer: quite a bit.

For example, in chapter two of The Culture of Critique, MacDonald writes:

An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution, such as those implying developmental sequences, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity . . .

Just so, claims King:

Without homogenous, easily identifiable “races,” the entire edifice of racial hierarchy crumbled. “The difference between different types of man are, on the whole, small as compared to the range of variation in each type,” Boas concluded. Not only was there no bright line dividing one race from another, but the immense variation within racial categories called into question the utility of the concept itself.

These are same facts, after all. MacDonald and King agree on quite a bit about Franz Boas and his immense contributions to the field of Anthropology. They both recount Boas’ dissent from the prevailing belief that cultures evolve from savagery to barbarism to civilization—with, of course, Nordic Caucasians representing the apotheosis of this process. They both touch on Boas’ abrasive character, his authoritarian control over his students, his irrepressible vigor, and his overtly political and ideological objectives. King states that Boas “wore his political views on his sleeve,” while MacDonald states that Boas and his students were “intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the American anthropological profession.” They also agree on the cultish nature of the Boasian circle, with MacDonald noting its “high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests.” For his part, King describes how Boas recruited new anthropologists “with a zeal approaching that of a nascent religion,” and how he excluded certain individuals from his circles, for example Ralph Linton, if they displeased him.

When Ralph Linton, a recently demobilized war veteran, showed up for his doctoral studies dressed in his military uniform, Boas berated him so strongly that Linton soon transferred to a rival program at Harvard. He would later complain that the “Jewish Ring” at Columbia had conspired to keep him down.

In Culture of Critique MacDonald essentially adopts Linton’s perspective in that it is no coincidence that so many of the Boasians were Jews. MacDonald also explicitly states what Linton in the quote above kept implicit—that Boasian behavior accorded with well-known stereotypes of Jews being clannish, stubborn, pushy, and subversive. Oddly, King never disagrees with this. He makes no secret that many of Boas’ students were Jews—in particular, Edward Sapir, Alexander Goldenweiser, Paul Radin, and Melville Herskovits. He portrays Boas at least as being pushy and stubborn. Of Boas’ time at the American Museum of Natural History in the 1890s, King writes

[Boas] had a habit of making himself more respected than liked. His time at the museum had produced new research and exhibitions but also disappointments, professional disagreements, and hurt feelings among his colleagues, who found him confident to a fault, officious, and given to pique.

Further, King describes on many pages how existentially subversive Boas was to the humanities throughout his career. He offers extensive and impeccable evidence of how Boas and his ideological progeny ultimately usurped the race-realists, the Darwinians and the eugenicists who dominated the social sciences at the time. This should come as no surprise, given the subtitle of the book: “How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century.”

As with other examples of samefacting, the primary difference is a qualitative one. King praises Boas and trumpets Boasian cultural relativism as a “user’s manual for life” meant to “enliven our moral sensibility.” Meanwhile, MacDonald criticizes Boas and condemns Boasian cultural relativism as scientifically unsound, ethically hypocritical, and ultimately destructive to white majorities since it is the lynchpin for arguments supporting mass immigration.

The question should be whether MacDonald or King is objectively correct—not whether either man likes or dislikes Jews. And a closer analysis of Gods of the Upper Air reveals that Charles King has a lot of work to do to catch up to Kevin MacDonald when it comes to the truth.

As would be expected, King’s book offers much biographical data on Boas. King is a first-rate writer, so if the reader can get past his left-wing biases (which, to be fair, he doesn’t beat anyone over the head with) then Gods of the Upper Air is an engrossing read. King dutifully covers Boas’ upbringing in Germany, his time as a young researcher in the Arctic among the Eskimos, his time as a family man and itinerant scholar in the United States, as well as his triumph at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893. King presents the intellectual zeitgeist of the day with a tolerably low level of slant, accurately recapitulating the arguments of race-realists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard and of eugenicists such as Henry Goddard and Charles Davenport. It’s as if he’s confident that such reactionary takes on the human condition will refute themselves. He’s evenhanded enough to humanize his villains. For example, he reminds the reader that Grant was a passionate conservationist who singlehandedly prevented the American bison from going extinct. King also does a splendid job in depicting America at the turn of the last century, a time now gone from living memory.

When setting the stage for the 1893 Chicago Exposition, King offers up this delightful little passage:

The Midway Plaisance featured exhibits on the peculiar ways of the world’s peoples, from a Bedouin encampment to a Viennese café, most of them thin disguises for hawkers of merchandize and cheap entertainment. An entire building was devoted solely to the lives and progress of women, while others highlighted advances in agriculture, electrification, and the plastic arts. A new fastener called a zipper made its debut over the six months of the fair’s operation, as did a chewable gum labeled Juicy Fruit, a tall circular ride presented by a Mr. Ferris, a prize-winning beer offered by the Pabst family, and a breakfast dish with the rather confusing name Cream of Wheat.

The flaws of Gods of the Upper Air become manifest as much for what King doesn’t write as for what he does. Boasian cheerleading aside, King basically commits the same sin Stephen Jay Gould committed in his infamous 1981 work The Mismeasure of Man: he’s content to refute race realism as it was a century ago but not how it is today, or even as it was fifty years ago. Further, he cherry picks some of the more egregious mistakes made by race-realist pioneers with their calipers and head measurements and outlandish classification schemes (for example, “Dolichocephalic Nordics” and “Brachycephalic Alpines”). With the confidence of momentum, King then feels he can safely claim that “[h]ow we define intelligence is the result of a social process, not a biological one.” Never once does he mention the research of Arthur Jensen or J. Phillipe Rushton or the mountain of data proving race-realism to be correct—just as he keeps mum about Kevin MacDonald. To mention any of this would require more refutation than Charles King is prepared (or could ever be prepared) to do. So, he chooses to ignore counter-argument and pretend that he and Franz Boas are comfortably on the right side of history—which they are not, because they are wrong.

King is also blind to the central Boasian contradiction (some would say double standard) which requires unreasonably vigorous standards when proving human differences and almost no standards at all when attesting to human sameness. Numerous times, King describes how Boas demanded that his students never jump to conclusions before assessing evidence. At the same time, however, King happily repeats such glib and unproven egalitarian mantras from Boas such as “Cultures are many; man is one.”

It’s about as cowardly as it is dishonest.

Another dishonorable aspect of Gods of the Upper Air is King’s kid-glove treatment of Boas’ star pupil Margaret Mead. King is not so ham-fisted as to portray her as some genius-level forward-thinking visionary, but his sympathetic take on her does come close at times. On page one of the book he describes this interesting and mysterious young woman as having “left behind a husband in New York, a boyfriend in Chicago, and had spent the transcontinental train ride in the arms of a woman.” These are good things, apparently. Mead, who never seemed to take to sexual discipline, learned the term “polygamy” in anthropology class one day, and then dedicated her life to making the Western world less sexually repressive, possibly so she could engage in the practice herself. And she did this by holding up sexually permissive Third World societies as examples. This amounted to solving the “sex problem,” as she called it—even if the societies she fetishized were in reality not as sexually permissive as she claimed. If this sounds sordid, that’s because it was. King doesn’t help matters by delving into the petty social sniping that Mead and her circle constantly engaged in. Sapir, for example, had been Mead’s lover for a time, and never seemed to overcome being spurned by her. He would constantly dismiss her work to their colleagues, and at one point suggested she be fully institutionalized. In 1933, Mead even formed a triangle between her husband Reo Fortune and her lover Gregory Bateson (both anthropologists) while all three were on site in Melanesia. She and Fortune would argue bitterly, even violently. Alcohol, for Fortune at least, was a major component.

Say what you want about Franz Boas, but according to King he was the paragon of class compared to this.

Mead was disciplined enough to work in the field and write about it. She was smart, serious, and prolific. She deserves credit for that. But, given the historical record, King simply cannot get around the woman’s perverse fixation on sex:

Mead, too, wanted to know about people’s lives: how they thought about childhood and aging, what it meant to be an adult, what they thought of as sexual pleasure, whom they loved, when they felt the sting of public humiliation or the gnawing sickness of private shame.

What he does get around to—somewhat—is Mead’s shoddy scholarship. When doing research for her first book Coming of Age in Samoa in 1925, Mead decided to leave the village of Pago Pago on the island of Tutuila because it had been “corrupted” by the influence of Christian missionaries and the American military. She traveled to the more remote island of Ta’u to continue her research. There she occupied a room in the home of an American family. This is how King describes the experience:

She had worried that this might not constitute real fieldwork. As she wrote to Boas, she was torn between the desire to live like a native and the need to have enough quiet time to write notes and reflect on her experiences, something that would have been difficult in an open-sided, communal Samoan house.

She might have been doing anthropology from the veranda—her room consisted of half of the Holts’ back porch, screened off by a thin bamboo barrier—but she was never short of informants. Children and teenagers flocked to her for conversation and impromptu dance parties, arriving as early as five in the morning and staying until midnight.

Later, after a flash of insight which suggested that primitive societies are not as ritualistic as previously believed, she began to question children and teens about sexual practices, including their own. She then claimed to have learned that sex in Samoa was no big deal compared to how it was in the United States. Samoan kids did not seem to suffer the same growing pains as adolescents did where Mead was from. Thus, Mead came to her grand conclusion about the struggles of youth: “The stress is in the civilization, not in the physical changes through which our children pass.” Thusly, nurture surpasses nature.

Now, I am by no means an expert in the history of anthropology, but having read this I knew something was amiss. Yes, King admits that Coming of Age in Samoa “was full of bravado and overstatement, loose argument, and occasionally purple writing—very much like every other work of anthropology written at the time.” He quibbles about Mead’s small sample size and mentions how many Samoans themselves were displeased with Mead’s portrayal of them. But wasn’t there more? I remembered reading that Mead had done some shady things while in Samoa. Sure enough, three volumes in my library (including The Culture of Critique) recounted some of Mead’s less than scholarly practices.

Steven Goldberg in his 1993 work Why Men Rule (the original edition of which, in the 1970s, Margaret Mead herself reviewed), provides an example of how Mead’s conclusions do not follow from her data. Further, Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson recall in their 1996 work Demonic Males how Mead left Pago Pago not because it “had little left to offer,” as King puts it, but because of (as Mead herself describes in a letter to Boas) the “nervewracking conditions of living with half a dozen people in a house without walls, always sitting on the floor and sleeping in the constant expectation of having a pig or chicken thrust itself upon one’s notice.” Mead had spent ten days in a Samoan household in Pago Pago and decided that that was enough.

King is dishonest for not mentioning this. He is dishonest for not mentioning how police reports from Samoa from the time of Mead’s visit contradict many of her rosy conclusions on sexual violence. He is dishonest also for not mentioning how Mead rarely included primitive war-making or violence (sexual or otherwise) in her analyses. (MacDonald bangs this point home nicely in Culture of Critique.) Finally, King is quite sneaky when he downplays Derek Freeman’s withering criticisms of Mead in a footnote on page 368 rather than in the body of his text.

As for samefacting Franz Boas along the MacDonald-King divide, I found one exception. In Culture of Critique, MacDonald writes that Boas “was deeply alienated from and hostile towards gentile culture, particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy.” As usual, he lists his sources right there on the page (George W. Stocking’s Race, Evolution, and Culture from 1968 and Carl Deglers’ In Search of Human Nature from 1991). Yet, in the early 1880s, when a young Boas had just left Germany on a ship bound for the Arctic where he would do his first anthropological research, he wrote in his diary, “Farewell, my dear homeland! Dear homeland, adieu!” This may not mean much, but I did find it surprising. Perhaps Boas became more alienated as he grew older. King certainly doesn’t report any general animosity from Boas towards gentile culture—but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. In Gods of the Upper Air, Boas reserved most of his ire for anyone supporting biological determinism, or who annoyed him personally.

Either way, however, this does lead us to the only episode in Gods of the Upper Air in which Franz Boas is portrayed sympathetically. During the years before America’s entry into the First World War, he was vocally in favor of Germany and against American intervention. Although I don’t challenge Boas’ Jewish identity making up a big part of his character, I wonder if his Jewishness had anything to do with his ardent pro-German stance in 1916. King seems to believe this came as result of Boas’ natural affinity towards his country of birth—which does somewhat challenge MacDonald’s interpretation above. Further, Boas did walk it like he talked it, and suffered major career setbacks after the war for his unpopular, and some would say treasonous, opinions.

Still, it can be argued that Boas’ support for Germany hinged much more on the relatively high degree of emancipation German Jews enjoyed at the time than for anything inherent about Germans or Germany. This would explain why the Germanistic Society of America (for which Boas was secretary at one point) contained so many influential and ethnocentric Jews as members—Jews such as the future Soviet financier Jacob Schiff. Boas’ support for Germany could also be explained by German antagonism toward Czarist Russia during the war. As MacDonald writes in an ongoing revision of Culture of Critique:

It is sometimes argued that a letter from 1916 decrying criticism of Germany during World War I shows the predominance of Boas’s German identity. However, it should be pointed out that by far the most prominent attitude of Diaspora Jewish communities was to oppose Czarist Russia because of its perceived anti-Semitism and thus support the German war effort. For example, immigrant Jews in the U.K. overwhelmingly refused to be drafted into military service because Germany was fighting Russia.

Regardless, this may be the exception that proves the rule. In many ways Kevin MacDonald’s chapter on Franz Boas in The Culture of Critique reads like a condensed version of the Boas chapters in Gods of the Upper Air. The facts are the same—but as it often is with the Jews, it is how you say them that makes all the difference.

Meet Blobamacron: Three Gentile Narcissists with One Jewish Agenda

Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. That’s a Latin saying that applies to a trio of once-great Western nations: Britain, America, France. The saying means “With a change of name, the tale is told of thee.” So let’s tell the tale. It goes like this:

A young and charismatic politician dazzles the electorate with promises of change and national renewal. He rides a tide of popular acclaim into the highest office in the land. Now he has the power he sought, but national renewal is slow to arrive. Critics begin to charge him with narcissism and deceit. Rumors circulate about his sexuality. He seems to be happily married, but his wife is peculiar and there are persistent whispers that he’s secretly gay or bisexual. Whatever the truth of that, one thing is certain: he’s deeply in love with the sound of his own voice. Luckily for him, he still has the media with him and he wins big again when he stands for re-election. Alas, his second term proves no more effective than his first. His promises have definitely lost their shine. When he leaves office, the voters he once dazzled are now deeply disillusioned.

Meet Blobamacron: the three narcissistic shabbos goyim Blair, Obama and Macron (images from Wikipedia)

That is, of course, the tale of Tony Blair in Britain. But it’s also the tale of Barack Obama in America. And the tale of Emmanuel Macron in France. These three politicians are so similar that you could give them a single name: Blobamacron. It’s as though Clown World has applied the same script three times in three different countries and found three almost identical actors to play the leading role. A deceitful narcissist rumored to be secretly gay first dazzles, then disillusions. After that, he leaves office and becomes very rich. The script isn’t quite finished in France, because Macron hasn’t left office, but he’s already deep into the stage of disillusion. The voters he once dazzled now understood that they were deceived.

Tony Blair performs the goy-grovel overseen by Jewish supremacist and alleged child-rapist Greville Janner (image © PA Wire/Press Association Images)

That’s why Whites in France may react to Clown World’s script in the same way as Whites in America did: by next electing someone that Clown World hates. In America Barack Obama promised racial healing and an end to national division. He delivered the opposite. So Whites elected Donald Trump. In France, Macron promised the same as Obama and, like Obama, has delivered the opposite. Like Blacks in America, Muslims and other non-Whites in France are preying on Whites worse than ever. So disillusioned French Whites may next elect the “far right” Marine Le Pen (born 1968) as president. I hope they do, but I fear that Marine could prove as disappointing in office as Meloni has in Italy. That’s Giorgia Meloni, the “far right” leader who entered power loudly promising to reverse the tide of non-White migration and has instead allowed it to rise even higher. She was called a fascist tiger; she’s proving to be Clown World’s lapdog.

The world’s most important question

Will Marine Le Pen prove the same? We shall see. One thing is certain: she’s done her best to distance herself from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen (born 1928). He was a tough ex-paratrooper who spoke his mind when he was leader of the Front National. That’s what destroyed his chances of becoming president, because one of the things he spoke his mind about was the Holocaust. He said that it was a “detail of history.” Demonized as an antisemite, Jean-Marie was destroyed as a politician. His daughter got the message loud and clear. She knows that she has to appease Jews to have any chance of power. That’s why she’s been so determined to prove that her presidency will answer the world’s most important question in the affirmative.

And what is the world’s most important question? Simple. It runs like this: “Is it good for Jews?” Marine Le Pen wants Jews in France to look at her renamed party and say “Oui!” In other words, she’s been performing the goy-grovel:

When more than 100,000 people marched in Paris against antisemitism on 12 November [2023], one participant attracted particular notice: Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-Right Rasssemblement National (“National Rally”). As many recall, the party’s founder, and her father Jean-Marie, was himself a notorious antisemite, and counted veterans of the Waffen SS among his early cadres. Was it possible that Marine’s party had showed up for the wrong march?

In fact, the RN leader has been denouncing a “new antisemitism” for many years, and trying to build Jewish support for the party. She instigated the party’s greatest rupture with its own past in 2015 when she expelled Jean-Marie from it, and has increasingly sold herself as French Jews’ “shield against Islamist ideology”, in the words of her co-leader, Jordan Bardella. But for much of France, the far-Right is still built upon and tainted by antisemitism. Le Pen’s change of position is certainly strategic; whether it is a genuine change of heart is a different question. (“Will Marine Le Pen defend French Jews?,” Unherd, 23rd November, 2023)

There has been a “march against antisemitism” in Paris for the same reason as there has been a “march against antisemitism” in London. As I pointed out in “Israel über Alles,” Jews imported Muslims and other non-Whites as “natural allies” in the Jewish war against the White Christian West. Since October 7 and the Hamas attacks on Israel, Jews have realized with dismay that their “natural allies” are in fact their natural enemies. Antisemitism has risen to horrifying levels all over the West and the political elite in Britain, America, and France have been denouncing it more loudly than ever. Because Marine Le Pen wants to join the political elite, she’s been denouncing it too.

“The first Jewish president”

She learnt the necessity of appeasing Jews from what happened to her father. But she could also have learnt it from Blobamacron. Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and Emmanuel Macron all won high office by serving Jewish interests and performing the goy-grovel eagerly and often. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell once told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” Blair was surrounded with Jews both before and after he won high office, just like Obama in America:

Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed [the eminently blackmailable — because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein] Bill Clinton “the first black president” — a title he fervently embraced. [A theme here is that Blobamacron are eminently blackmailable by the Mossad; the same goes for Clinton because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein and Joe Biden because of his financial corruption with the Chinese.] Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. “If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president,” says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.

“I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him,” explains Mikva. “It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from.” … “As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars,” Mikva said. Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama’s Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama’s “Jewish side.”

“Obama is from nowhere and everywhere — just like the Jews. He’s black, he’s white, he’s American, he’s Asian, he’s African — and so are we,” Wolf said.

Certainly, Obama is comfortable with Jews, especially Jews from Chicago. Axelrod will remain at his side as senior adviser, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel will be White House chief of staff. Billionaire Penny Pritzker, who has known Obama since the mid-1990s and served as his campaign finance chairwoman, was said to be under consideration for commerce secretary until she took herself out of the running. (Barack Obama: The first Jewish president? Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top, The Chicago Tribune, 12th December 2008)

And as Obama schmoozed Jews in America, Macron was doing the same in France: in 2008, he became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque. He performed the goy-grovel and was rewarded with the presidency. He’s never stopped grovelling. Indeed, he grovelled so hard in December 2023 that even some Jews were embarrassed by it. In blatant disregard of the long French tradition of secularism, Macron stood beside the chief rabbi of France as the rabbi lit a Hanukkah candle in a ceremony at the Elysée Palace, home of the French president and supposed heart of French democracy. Yonathan Arfi, the president of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), joined the storm of protest that followed. Arfi said that Macron had committed an “error” and that “It’s not the place, within the Elysée, to light a Hanukkah candle, because the republican DNA is to stay away from anything religious.”

Mossad and Macron

In other words, Arfi was worried that Macron was making his subservience to Jews too obvious. Yiddish has a phrase for it: shande far di goyim, “shame in front of the gentiles.” It means that something harmful or embarrassing for Jews has been revealed to gentiles. But Jewish control of Macron may reside precisely in their ability to shame him before the world. As I pointed out above, one of the similarities between Blair, Obama, and Macron is that all three are rumored to be secretly gay or bisexual. That similarity may be essential, not incidental, because being secretly gay would make the three goyim highly susceptible to blackmail. Macron’s wife Brigitte is 24 years older than him and a documentary on BFM, “France’s most popular TV news channel,” has said that she once “received an anonymous telephone call alleging that her president husband Emmanuel Macron was with a gay lover.” Whether or not the allegation was true, Israeli intelligence has almost certainly done the same in France as it has done using Jeffrey Epstein in America. Epstein gathered blackmail material on the American elite for Israel. That’s part of why Jewish control of American politics and media is so complete.

Secularism shmecularism: Emmanuel Macron looks shifty as France’s chief rabbi lights a Hanukkah candle at the  Elysée Palace (image from BBC and Mendel Samama)

Does Mossad have videos and recordings of Macron travelling on the Hershey Highway? If it does, that would certainly explain his slavish dedication to serving Jewish interests. Mutato nomine, “with a change of name,” the same would be true of the rumored-to-be-secretly-gay Blair and Obama. Spying and blackmail are Jewish specialities. That’s part of why so many people are suspicious about the “surprise attack” by Hamas on Israel. Before the attack, the Gaza Strip was one of the most closely surveilled and monitored territories on earth. Israeli spying agencies like Unit 8200 have routinely spied on homosexual Palestinians and blackmailed them into working against their own people. Has Israel applied the same blackmail techniques to Blobamacron? I suspect so. I also suspect that Israel applied those techniques to one of Tony Blair’s predecessors as British prime minister and leader of the Labour party. During the Jewish hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn’s “antisemitism,” a Jewish historian called Robert Philpot published an article in the Times of Israel that looked back to a happier era:

Harold Wilson may be less well-known internationally than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, but he dominated British politics for much of the 1960s and 1970s — and remains the only modern-day prime minister to win four general elections. … Famously pragmatic — critics claimed unprincipled — the former prime minister’s name became for a time synonymous with the wheeler-dealing and political game-playing in which he undoubtedly reveled. As one contemporary newspaper columnist suggested, Wilson’s image was “a dark serpentine crawling trimmer, shifty and shuffling, devious, untrustworthy, constant only in the pursuit of self-preservation and narrow party advantage.” For the historian Dominic Sandbrook, Wilson was “a brilliant opportunist.”

There was, however, a limit to Wilson’s alleged opportunism. As the left wing and veteran Zionist Labour MP, Ian Mikardo, once argued: “I don’t think Harold … [had] any doctrinal beliefs at all. Except for one, which I find utterly incomprehensible, which is his devotion to the cause of Israel.” Wilson’s leadership arguably marked the high point of the relationship between Labour and British Jews, a bond which has today been strained by Jeremy Corbyn’s strident anti-Zionism and the allegations of anti-Semitism which continue to rock the party. (“When the UK’s left-wing prime minister was one of Israel’s closest friends,” The Times of Israel, 30th March 2019)

Harold Wilson, “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel (image from Labour Friends of Israel)

Why did the “veteran Zionist” Ian Mikardo think that Wilson’s “devotion” to Israel was “utterly incomprehensible”? Mikardo was himself Jewish and presumably realized that Wilson wasn’t a natural philosemite. But perhaps that unshakeable Zionism was only “incomprehensible” to those without the full facts. But if Israel was blackmailing the “devious” and “untrustworthy” Wilson, his devotion becomes perfectly comprehensible. Tony Blair is also “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel. And like Blair, Wilson had a close Jewish associate who became involved in a financial scandal. Blair’s associate Lord Levy was investigated, but not prosecuted and jailed, for allegedly selling honors to rich Jews who made secret donations to the Labour party. Wilson’s associate Lord Kagan actually was jailed for fraud when he was “forced to return to England” after seeking refuge (can you guess where?) in Israel.

The parallels between Blair and Wilson don’t end there. Both of them became leader of the Labour party only after the unexpected and premature death of the previous leader. As Wikipedia puts it: “The shock of [Hugh] Gaitskell’s death [in 1963] was comparable to that of the sudden death of the later Labour Party leader John Smith, in May 1994, when he too seemed to be on the threshold of [becoming prime minister].” Fancy that! Those staunch Friends of Israel Wilson and Blair both reached the highest office in the land thanks to a lucky accident. Of course, it wasn’t lucky for Hugh Gaitskell or John Smith. But it was lucky for Wilson and Blair. And even luckier for Israel, which had warm friends in power instead of the more distant Gaitskell and Smith.

Labour’s toxic transformation

So did Israel assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to clear the path to power for its shabbos goyim Wilson and Blair? Well, I started this article with some Latin, so I’ll end it and answer the question with some Italian: se no è vero, è ben trovato. That roughly means: “If it’s not true, it should be.” History clearly proves that Wilson and Blair displayed slavish “devotion to the cause of Israel.” But it also proves that neither displayed any devotion at all to the cause of the White working-class. Under Harold Wilson, the Labour party, founded to champion the White working-class, began to turn into a dedicated enemy of the White working-class.

By the time Tony Blair entered Downing Street, that transformation from champion to enemy was complete. The transformation was overseen by Jews and carried out by shabbos goyim. That’s why it would make a perfect story if Israel did indeed assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to put Wilson and Blair into office. Jews hate Whites and their shabbos goyim know that they have to harm Whites once they get into power. Harming Whites is precisely what Harold Wilson and Blobamacron have done.

Great Variance: Jewish use of atrocity stories attributed to Russian pogroms

By the beginning of the 20th century, a narrative in which these recently-immigrated Jews were refugees from Russian persecution and anti-Jewish violence had become commonplace. As David Cesarani has described, this was always largely mythical:

The anti-Jewish riots in Russia and the anti-Jewish legislation that followed triggered a wave of mass migration from the Tsarist Empire to Western Europe, America and South Africa. Between 1880 and 1914, about 2.5 million Jews migrated westward. Only a part of this migration was a direct result of the pogroms: most of it was economic migration. Jews had been leaving Russia and Poland steadily since the 1870s owing to the pressure of population on jobs and resources in the Pale [of Settlement]. The riots, which were anyway confined to two periods in 1881–2 and 1903–06, were localised. In the first period, the north-west of Russia was unaffected, yet it was from here that the bulk of emigrants departed. Similarly, Galicia in Austria-Hungary exported tens of thousands of Jews, but they left a region untouched by riots and in which Jews were full citizens.1

The success of the atrocity-and-refugee narrative in Britain owed primarily to the sustained efforts of a network of interests increasingly committed to assisting the westward migration of Jews. This network centred on well-connected, intermarried and enormously wealthy members of the so-called Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, including the Goldsmid, Mocatta, Rothschild, Montefiore, Sassoon, Cohen, Nathan, Samuel, Montagu and Henriques families. Collectively, they operated through organisations including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, founded in 1760, the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, founded in 1841, the charitable Jewish Board of Guardians, founded in 1859, and the Anglo-Jewish Association, founded in 1871. Anglo-Jewry increasingly acted simply as Jewry, a separate community enjoying propinquity with the powerful but concerned with the global Jewish nation and working to influence British foreign policy to promote Jewish interests worldwide.2 As Sharman Kadish describes,

The ‘Conjoint’ Committee of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association had been set up in 1878. It acted as the ‘Foreign Office’ of the Anglo-Jewish community. A clearing house for information which reached the community about the situation of Jews abroad, it compiled reports and memoranda and cultivated channels of communication with the real Foreign Office, in the hope that the latter could be prevailed upon to intercede on behalf of Jews overseas should the need arise (the policy of shtadlanut).3

Reports of Russian persecution of Jews by Joseph Jacobs in The Times were credited as sparking the pogrom controversy in January 1882. They prompted meetings at Mansion House and the Guildhall, at which at least £200,000 was donated; these donations were collected into the Mansion House Fund, which the Board of Guardians and other organisations drew upon to help Jews settle in London or travel on to the USA. A Mansion House Committee was formed and was soon renamed the Russo-Jewish Committee (RJC), with Julian Goldsmid as chairman and Jacobs as secretary. Fellow journalist and Jewish activist Lucien Wolf amplified Jacobs’ efforts in the press and worked to co-ordinate the efforts of the AJA and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Bishops, cardinals, authors and celebrities of the day were won to the cause by the atrocity reports.4

Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister had narrowly been prevented from starting a war against Russia in 1877-8, and anti-Russian propaganda was already commonplace in parts of the British press.5 According to John Klier the Times “habitually described it as ‘a backward country, which has not yet worked its way to the level of European life’. The paper had begun a low-level campaign against Russian mistreatment of the Jews even before the outbreak of the pogroms.”6 The Times was at pains to condemn the Russian government at least as early as 1880. The Telegraph, owned by Harry Levy-Lawson, began to promote the same line with even greater fervour. The Jewish World then, between July and October 1881, published reports from an unnamed Special Correspondent which “portrayed the pogroms dramatically, as great in scale and inhuman in their brutality”, including rape and murder of Jews on a large scale across many locations. According to Klier, “[M]any of his claims, such as the enormous number of rapes, are unconfirmed or flatly contradicted by the archival record. … His account most resembles a compilation of hearsay evidence, very little of it collected from first-hand observers. His atrocity reports, in particular, must be viewed with extreme caution.”7

The atrocity claims that began in the Jewish World had no basis in any Russian source and appear to have been the creation of an international activist network already assembled when the violence began; the perception of Jews living and dying in miserable oppression dovetailed with an organised effort to instigate and fund Jewish migration to Western countries, primarily the USA. As Klier writes, “The emigration movement represented the coming of age of the modern Jewish press. […] The period witnessed pioneering efforts to use the Jewish press for propagandistic purposes. […] [T]he proponents of emigration proved particularly skillful in this regard. Very influential too were the widely reprinted exhortations of the Memel rabbi Dr. Yitzhak Rülf, who emphasized Russian atrocities in order to mobilize an international relief and protest movement.”8 Rülf had been ‘interceding’ (shtadlanut) on behalf of beleaguered Jews through the 1870s, publicising claims of Jewish starvation in Poland and supporting the efforts of the Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU) to encourage Jewish emigration to the USA.9 The Jewish World correspondent’s salacious account of violence in Borispol “was widely disseminated by Rabbi Rülf both in Russia and abroad. As he put it, ‘the history of the world may well be declared to contain no parallels of the Russian anti-Jewish outrages.’ Through 1882, he also spread “sensationalized accounts of mass rape”. The Jewish World joined the Times and Telegraph in blaming the Russian government, characterising the Russian peasantry as dirty and ignorant dupes easily incited against Jewry as convenient scapegoats.

As emigration became more viable, many Jews opted for it, whether they had experienced rioting or not.

Relief funds that were set up to assist pogrom victims became the target of appeals from what would be called, in contemporary parlance, “economic migrants.” […] The desire of some emigrants to assert their status as pogrom victims may also account for the exaggerated tales of atrocities that they told. Certainly the American authorities charged with dealing with refugees expressed their skepticism about the authenticity of some self-proclaimed victims.10

Organisations involved in assisting migrants were concerned that “many of the refugees had been lured by extravagant promises of assistance and ‘glowing accounts of America given them by persons interested in inducing them to emigrate’”.11

In January 1882, the RJC persuaded the Times to publish articles which were “substantially a compendium of atrocity stories taken from the columns of the Special Correspondent of the Jewish World. Garnished with the prestige of The Times and devoid of any further attribution, subsequently published as a separate pamphlet, and translated into a variety of European languages, the account became the definitive Western version of the pogroms.” Of the Times’ editorials alongside the RJC articles, Klier says that “Russia was urged to ‘put an end to these enormities… If they are unwilling, the Russian government must be held responsible for all the crimes – some of them as atrocious as any recorded in history – which have been accomplished by letting loose the hatred of Orthodox mobs’.” Other papers then began to parrot the Jewish World reports.12

Jewish parliamentarians led by George de Worms agitated for the Russian government to be held responsible. The Foreign Office tasked its consuls in Russia to assemble their own reports on the violence, which they did without the involvement of intercessors. The consuls’ reports were at “great variance” to those in the Times, especially on the claims of rape. Other correspondents also contradicted the Times’ reports. In response, the Times stooped as low as to aver that “the indignation of this country is justified to the fullest degree, even if, as seems to be the case, there is ground for thinking that the most villainous misdeeds are in part the creations of popular fancy”.13 The paper then collaborated with the RJC on further editorials discrediting the consuls, flattering the public and informing their readers that Jews in Russia were “hated by the populace for their success” before publishing further atrocity reports from anonymous sources.14

The Foreign Office consuls responded to their disparagement in the Times with another set of reports justifying and explaining their earlier findings. As Andrew Joyce describes,

The Consuls were outraged. [Consul-General] Stanley reiterated the fact that his intensive investigations, which he carried out at great personal cost with a serious leg injury, illustrated that The Times’ accounts of what took place at each of those places contains the greatest exaggerations, and that the account of what took place at some of those places is absolutely untrue.15

Fortunately for the RJC, though, more severe violence in Balta in April 1882 could be used to support their narrative. As Klier describes, the British vice-consul visited the town in the aftermath and reported large-scale destruction of property. British consuls also informed the Foreign Office that at least one official Russian publication had understated the scale of violence in some areas. The Times declared the matter settled. The rest of the press, having already copied the Jewish World reports, welcomed the putative confirmation of their narrative. “In the public mind,” says Klier, “the Balta pogrom served to confirm all previous claims.”16 Thus did the RJC’s narrative prevail, and was built upon in the subsequent decades. The New York Times played the same role in the USA.

The eager and combative participation of both Britain and the USA’s ‘newspapers of record’ in publicising false atrocity stories is remarkable, as is the credence given to the Jewish World’s reports by them and the broader press. As Klier says, “the archival records relating to the pogrom in Balta do contain claims of rape. It is virtually the only pogrom, though, where this is actually the case.”17 In almost all the other riots, Christians targeted Jewish property for looting or destruction; bodily harm usually occurred in drunken fights. “And yet” continues Klier, “the high incidence of rape was widely reported in Western accounts of the pogroms, especially those provided by Jewish groups.”18 The editors of the Times and New York Times appear to have chosen which accounts to credit based on considerations far removed from those of journalism.

In the decades since, the media and politicians have become ever more supportive than they were in 1882 of the interests who formed the RJC and enabled Jewish migration. The refugee narrative has endured as a largely undisputed canard and is employed today as a pretext for open borders policies. Jewish groups in Western countries frequently cite their own purported refugee background as a laudable motive for assisting other refugees (defined to include all illegal immigrants) to settle in those countries (not Israel). The Board of Deputies of British Jews is one of many examples, while the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the International Rescue Committee (IRC) are two based in the US. HIAS proudly calls itself “the world’s oldest refugee organisation” and urges Western populations to “Welcome the stranger. Protect the refugee.” Subsequent articles in this series will examine the impact on the West of the 19th century Jewish immigrants and their descendants.

Reposted with permission from HORUS. Horus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

1 The Left and the Jews, David Cesarani, p41
2 See The Rise of Modern Jewish Politics, C.S. Monaco
3 Bolsheviks and British Jews, Sharman Kadish, p60
4 Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-2, John Doyle Klier, p374

5 Disraeli as Prime Minister (1874-1880) had committed Britain to supporting the Ottoman Empire as an obstacle against a potential Russian challenge to British control of India and the Suez Canal (he had also arranged the British state’s purchase of a controlling stake in the canal in 1875 with a loan from Lionel de Rothschild). The trigger for the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8 was a Turkish slaughter of Bulgarians. Disraeli publicly mocked and dismissed the reports and his cabinet narrowly prevented him from waging war against Russia. The Times, evidently having no principled objection to crimes against civilians, sided with Disraeli and the Ottomans.

Russia had fought the war for implicitly ‘pan-Slav’ reasons. Pan-Slavism among veterans of the war was cited as a motive for anti-Jewish rioting by the Jewish World correspondent mentioned below [Klier, p403]. Veterans were “a notable element in almost every pogrom.” [Klier, p51]. Klier also mentions that the Russian journal Kievlianin editorialised after the riots that “Jews should be barred from holding state contracts to provision the armed forces, a concern which harked back to military procurement scandals during the recent Russo-Turkish War.” The Levin Memorandum, produced by upper-class Jewry in Russia, blamed pan-Slavism and broader Russian nationalism for the riots and implied that the state should act against the nationalist movement. Pan-Slavism and distrust of Jewry appear to have been strongly coincident.

6 Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-2, John Doyle Klier, p398-9
7 ibid., p401
8 ibid., p296
9 ibid., p365
10 ibid., p371
11 ibid., p373
12 ibid., p404
13 ibid., p405
14 ibid., p407
16 ibid., p409
17 ibid., p47

18 ibid., p66-7


James Edwards Interviews Filip Dewinter

What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Filip Dewinter, a Member of the Flemish Parliament in Belgium.

James Edwards: You were first elected to office in 1987, when you were just 25 years old. Since 1995 you have held a seat as a Member of the Flemish Parliament. What are your signature issues?

Filip Dewinter: I think it’s the duty of a politician to be controversial if they truly want to make a difference. Topics like immigration, the rise of crime, and the deterioration of the welfare state are issues that have always been the closest to my heart. And yes, it’s not always easy to speak out about these sensitive topics because once you do, the left-liberal media immediately brands you as racist, fascist, or whatever ad hominem attack that’s in vogue at the time. Whoever talks about politically incorrect topics is immediately branded as the bad guy. Regardless of what they call me, however, I continue to speak up about what topics I view to be most important.

Edwards: You are a very well-known and unabashed advocate for the historic European majority in your country, and you cruise to reelection whenever you are challenged. How have you been able to turn your unapologetic pro-European positions into a political asset?

Dewinter: We oppose mass immigration and the ideology that makes mass immigration possible: multiculturalism. As the opposition politicians, we are the stick, the watchdog of democracy. We have put many issues on the political agenda: political corruption, asylum and migration, and fighting crime. Of course, you never get credit for that, but often other parties copy your views and run with your success. My generation and I were the icebreakers who had to build the path with a pick and shovel. That meant that sometimes we had to hit hard, provoke, and take quite radical positions.

Edwards: Vlaams Belang, the political party you have long been associated with, is currently the most popular party in Flanders, correct?

Dewinter: Yes, right now Vlaams Belang is currently polling in first place, between 25% and 30%. That said, we still have some months to go until the election. It is obvious, however, that our ideas are becoming mainstream. Our opponents, the old, mainstream parties, along with mainstream media, say that our ideas are extreme, provocative, and so on. Maybe it is they who’ve become extreme, and we are the mainstream now! After all, how can a party be considered extreme or radical when, out of all the other parties, it enjoys the most public support? It’s worth noting that this phenomenon isn’t only happening in Flanders but in many other countries across Europe.

Edwards: Can you address the liberal-left concept of multiculturalism in Europe? What are the essential values of the various European nations and how can Europeans be protected in the future?

Dewinter: For many decades, the progressive left has been trying to force multiculturalism upon us. Through an open-borders policy that facilitates mass immigration, they want to realize the “Great Replacement.” This means that the native European people are replaced by a melting pot of all kinds of cultures.

In practice, European cultures are disappearing and being replaced by Islamic culture. That cannot and must not be the intention.

Essential to our European identity is the diversity of the European people and their specific cultures. There is a lot of diversity in Europe. Not the so-called multicultural diversity in which non-European civilizations are forced upon us, but the real diversity of “The Europe of 100 flags,” each representing a unique nation and people.

We can only preserve our diverse European culture, which is Christian and Western and is based on human rights and the values of the Enlightenment (free speech, democracy, equality between men and women, separation between church and state), if we also respect the cultures of the ethnic minorities in Europe.

Edwards: What are the main threats to European identities and cultures?

Dewinter: The main threat to our European culture and certainly the smaller cultures is, of course, the mass immigration forced upon us by the EU and the globalist elite. The “Great Replacement” is imminent. The native European people are in danger of being replaced by Third World people. And whoever brings in the Third World becomes the Third World.

Everything that has to do with identity and cultural uniqueness must apparently be destroyed. Racism has become a pretext to undo our European identity and cultural uniqueness and replace it with multiculturalism and the melting pot society. As always when socialism strives for equality, this means a downward leveling. This cultural genocide must end.

Edwards: You have a new book out titled Repopulation: The Great Replacement. Our opponents allege that it is a “myth” or a “conspiracy theory” to point out that the European populations are being replaced in their homelands by others. What say you?

Dewinter: This is yet another attempt to stifle debate. Stick the label “racist,” “fascist,” “anti-Semite,” or “conspiracy theorist” on your opponent and the debate is closed. Anyone who has eyes in their head and is not multiculturally blind will find that repopulation is not a conspiracy theory, but a simple empirical observation that everyone makes when you walk around any metropolis in Western Europe. You then see the repopulation around you, full stop.

Edwards: Why did you feel it necessary to write about the Great Replacement?

Dewinter: I thought it was necessary to write this book because I don’t think the greatest danger to our democracy and to our civilization is tyranny — it’s mass immigration. If you really look at the situation at hand, the quality of life, the overburden on our welfare state, the rise of crime, and the quality of our education system, these issues are inextricably linked to immigration. Therefore, I think that mass immigration, and of course also the ideology that pushes for mass immigration, is the greatest threat.

If mass immigration continues at its current levels for much longer it will be the end of our European civilization. Demographically, Europeans will cease to be politically, culturally, and economically relevant.

Edwards: In what ways is Islam incompatible with Western civilization?

Dewinter: It is clear that Islamic ideology and Islamic culture are not compatible with our Western way of life and our European culture and civilization. We stand for the values of European civilization—freedom of speech, the separation of state and church, the equality between men and women, and democracy. We clearly need a revitalization of those values. In that regard, the rise of Muslim extremism has had one positive consequence: these fanatics have made us stop taking our traditions and cultural mores for granted.

As a result, Europe is nearly ready to start a civilizational moral offensive, based on the foundations of our greatness: Rome, Greece, Christianity, humanism, and the Enlightenment. These are the common European values that need to be promoted rather than the warped tenets of multiculturalism or the crude, dusty dogmas of Islamism.

Edwards: You wrote a previous book Inch’Allah? The Islamization of Europe, which was translated into English. What is this book all about?

Dewinter: Inch’Allah? is an account of radical Islam’s inroads into Europe. The book reveals the true nature of Islam which, unlike other faiths, also comprises a dangerous totalitarian ideology, contrary to European freedoms, values, and standards. While Europeans are being lulled by multicultural indoctrination and propaganda, mass immigration serves as a Trojan horse of Islam.

By means of a cunning ghetto strategy, based on the deliberate formation of Muslim enclaves in our cities, Islam seeks to establish bridgeheads from which the only true belief can be promulgated. Radical Islam has chosen the path of conversion, infiltration, agitation, intimidation, and, if necessary, violence. Left unchecked, the demographic, cultural, and military jihad will totally transform Europe into Eurabia.

The third Muslim invasion is in full swing, but the tide can still be turned. It is not too late to bring an end to the Islamic colonization of Europe. Therefore, instead of embracing Islam and multiculturalism, Europe must pull itself together and stop the influx of ever more immigrants, halt the silent advance of Islam, and instead celebrate and propagate its own priceless cultural identity.

Edwards: Racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia — the accusations are always the same. Those who are critical of immigration are immediately accused of being a racist. What is your comment on that?

Dewinter: First and foremost, do not forget that in Western Europe and almost all major cities the population transition is already a fact. In Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam, London, and so many other large cities, the original native population has been replaced by a mixture of Third World people. The elected politicians in these cities and countries are therefore indebted to these new voters with all the consequences that entails. They are saying what these imported voters want to hear and try to outdo each other as the best and the most radical anti-racist.

Anti-racism and anti-discrimination are the new politically correct buzzwords for witch-hunting and exorcism. In the past, alleged heretics and witches were burned at the stake. Today, the same is done with so-called racists and patriots. As a politician, it is enough to be critical of immigration to be boycotted in the media, bombarded with lawsuits and legal proceedings, and treated as a political pariah. In the Middle Ages, this also happened to anyone who claimed that the Earth was not flat but round.

Edwards: What’s next for Filip Dewinter?

Dewinter: Continue my work as a politician on what is important for the Western people, namely protecting our values and standards for our own people first.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS!

Notes on Natural Allies: Applying Orwell’s Insights to the War in Gaza

If you’ve never read George Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism,” you really should. It’s one of his most important and insightful essays. It’s also one of the most unsettling. If you can read it without questioning your own motives and feeling self-doubt, you must be either a saint or a psychopath. Orwell was describing the 1930s and 1940s, but he also captured the 2020s. That’s because the essay is about political psychology and what we would today call identity politics.

Orwell called it “nationalism” and talked about the way human beings can feel passionate attachment to, or aversion from, something larger than themselves. That something might be a real nation or might be a race or ideology or religion. Orwell is careful to stress that nationalism in the sense he’s using can be positive or negative. Either way, it warps intellect, corrupts morality, and destroys any concern for truth and objective reality. This is one of the most famous passages in the essay:

INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. …

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles [sic]. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind. (“Notes on Nationalism,” 1945)

Orwell wrote that at the end of the Second World War, but his words apply perfectly to Israel’s war on Gaza and the way various groups are reacting to it. Some people rabidly support Israel, some rabidly support the Palestinians. Either way, their partisanship is corrupting their intellect and morality. For example, no pro-Israel partisan is pointing out that the poor persecuted Jewish community is now suffering from what is called “blowback,” the unintended harmful consequences of a scheme to pursue one’s own advantage. Jews played a necessary, if not sufficient role, in opening the borders of Western nations to the Third-World invasion by Muslims and other non-Whites. They saw the invaders as “natural allies” against the White Christian West, as they’ve often stated in public:

Since October 7, Jews have discovered with dismay that their “natural allies” are in fact their natural enemies. For decades, they encouraged the Third-World invaders to hate Whites and bewail “white privilege.” Alas, it turns out that the invaders regard Jews as the most privileged and oppressive Whites of all. At the Jew-run Holocaust Educational Trust, you can see Jews fantasizing about non-Whites with a photo of a Black woman dutifully accepting Jewish propaganda about the Holocaust. But the Jew-run Campaign against Antisemitism has to accept the harsh reality about non-Whites when it tweets photos of non-Whites contemptuously rejecting Jewish propaganda about Gaza. In one photo, a Black woman is shown with a sign reading “ALL ZIONISTS ARE BLOOD CLARTS.” And what is a “blood-claat”? It’s a crude Jamaican term literally meaning “blood-cloth, menstrual rag” and extended to mean “despicable or contemptible person.”

Non-Whites in Jewish fantasy: a Black woman dutifully accepts Jewish propaganda about the Holocaust (image from the Holocaust Educational Trust)

Non-Whites in harsh reality: a Black woman contemptuously rejects Jewish propaganda about Gaza —  (image from the Campaign against Antisemitism)

Oh dear! Non-Whites think Zionists are despicable. Jews should have listened to thought-criminals like me. Back in May 2019 I pointed out possible flaws in their cunning plan to aid themselves and harm Whites with non-White migration. My article was called “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege: Jews Are Losing their Status as Persecuted Victims.” But just as Orwell would have predicted, supporters of Israel can’t be honest about Jews being responsible for their own misfortunes or about Jews’ own blindness to Muslim violence. Since October 7, Jews and their supporters have been saying that a “vast crime” has “bounced off the consciousness” of far too many people. They’re complaining bitterly that the left have ignored the rapes and other sexual crimes committed by Hamas against Israeli woman.

Sheryl and Cherie

I think those complaints are right: the left have indeed revealed the insincerity of their commitment to “believing all women.” But the left didn’t start ignoring rapes committed by Muslims on October 7. The left have been doing that for decades. The British Labour party has ignored and even collaborated with the rape-gangs of Rotherham and many other British towns and cities. Not only that: Labour opened Britain’s borders to the rape-friendly Third World and ensured that even more rape and sexual exploitation would take place.

Yet Cherie Blair, wife of the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, has the chutzpah to condemn the pro-Palestine left’s indifference to the crimes of Hamas. Here’s an article from the Jewish Chronicle, a so-called British newspaper that is deeply concerned about Muslims raping Jews in far-off Israel and doesn’t care in the slightest about Muslims raping Whites right here in Britain:

Former Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg has questioned the humanity of deniers of Hamas sexual crimes on October 7. The former COO of Meta and Facebook, said she had travelled to the UK with “two very brave women to bear witness on what they and their colleagues have seen with their own eyes.

“The intention of sexual violence is to generate fear, instead we must generate justice. The unfathomable must not go unpunished, we owe that to the victims of the past, the victims of today, and to prevent victims of the future. If we can’t agree that rape is wrong; that rape is not resistance, that rape is [not] freedom fighting, then the question becomes not what is happening in the Middle East but what is happening to our humanity?” she said.

The remark was made during an event in Parliament hosted by Labour Peer Lord John Mendelsohn. Cherie Blair, who also attended the event, said that she was “ashamed” that some people in the UK “don’t want to hear” about the allegations of rape just because “it interferes with a narrative.” The barrister and wife of former prime minister Tony Blair noted that she had grown up in the era following the Nuremberg Trials and was “very proud” of the role Britain played in that, and where the world said, ‘Never Again’. She said: “But I’m ashamed it seems like at the moment we’re ignoring all that, here in our country people don’t want to hear that this is happening, because it interferes with a narrative of the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. But life isn’t just good or bad.” …

Lord Mendelsohn, who was in Israel earlier this month, said: “All the progress that has been made and all that we have achieved collectively to try and stem violence against women in conflict and the denial of crimes made against them, is at risk,” adding, “since October 7 there has been a major step back.” (“Sheryl Sandberg questions ‘humanity’ of those who deny October 7 rapes,” The Jewish Chronicle, 1st February 2024)

Will Cherie Blair and Jonathan Mendelsohn ever condemn the left for ignoring the rape-gangs of Rotherham? Of course not. If they did that, they would have to condemn themselves. They’re at the heart of Labour’s pro-Jewish, anti-White elite. The Blairs have become extremely rich by serving Jewish interests and betraying the White working-class. But traitors like them aren’t confined to the Labour party: anyone on the left who has supported mass immigration is a traitor to the White working-class. The Third-World invaders have murdered, raped, impoverished, and ethnically cleansed ordinary Whites for decades.

Grovel, goyim!

Jews have played a central role in the transformation of parties like Labour in Britain and the Democrats in American from champions of the White working-class to dedicated enemies of the White working-class. That’s why one section of Orwell’s essay needs updating:

ZIONISM. This has the unusual characteristics of a nationalist movement, but the American variant of it seems to be more violent and malignant than the British. I classify it under Direct and not Transferred nationalism because it flourishes almost exclusively among the Jews themselves. In England, for several rather incongruous reasons, the intelligentsia are mostly pro-Jew on the Palestine issue, but they do not feel strongly about it. All English people of goodwill are also pro-Jew in the sense of disapproving of Nazi persecution. But any actual nationalistic loyalty, or belief in the innate superiority of Jews, is hardly to be found among Gentiles. (“Notes on Nationalism”)

Nowadays Jewish nationalism, in Orwell’s sense, is not merely common among gentiles but a prerequisite of political success for gentiles. As I’ve often pointed out before: no matter which party is in power, you can be sure that Britain will be ruled by a government of grovelling goys. The Labour leader Tony Blair performed the goy-grovel before Jewish power. He was rewarded with three election victories and then enormous wealth once he’d left office. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to perform the goy-grovel and was punished with vilification, electoral defeat, and expulsion from the Labour party.

Rishi Sunak, trans-British prime minister, performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Fanatics for Israel (image from Conservative Friends of Israel)

Keir Starmer, the current Labour leader, is performing the goy-grovel in the expectation of following Blair to the premiership. In the terms of Orwell’s essay, he’s a nationalist in both the positive and the negative sense. He’s pro-Jewish and anti-White. That’s why the already catastrophic levels of Third-World immigration will increase under a Labour government. Yes, Jews are starting to realize that their “natural allies” from the Third World are in fact their natural enemies. But they still support the Third-World invasion. After all, it’s always been very bad for Whites, even if it’s now proving bad for Jews too. The interesting question is whether, as so often in history, Jews have gone too far and brought about the destruction of their own power and dominance. How does the Hebrew Bible put it?

כֹּרֶה־שַּׁחַת בָּהּ יִפֹּל וְגֹלֵל אֶבֶן אֵלָיו תָּשׁוּב

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him. (Proverbs 26:27)

Tucker Interviews VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow

In what I hope is a breakthrough for our side, Tucker Carlson interviewed VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow on the very expensive lawfare (~$500,000) initiated by left-activist Letitia James, New York Attorney General. James is attempting to destroy VDARE not only with the lawsuit, but also with such tactics as demanding the real names of their writers, many of whom use pen names to shield themselves from the the fallout they would endure—fallout that all too often has resulted in loss of job (some work in government) and other penalties. Another important topic here is the disgusting harassment that she and her family have gotten from the SPLC since buying their castle-meeting venue in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia.

The reason I think this may well be a breakthrough is that Tucker Carlson has huge reach. A ~nine-minute clip of the video of the interview has been watched 19.8M times on X as I write this; it was re-Xed 32K times, and got 78K likes. Further Elon Musk then commented it was “alarming” in a post that was viewed by 16M times, received 119K likes and was re-Xed 32K times.


This is reach that immigration patriots and the dissident right in general have been denied as long as I can remember. In fact, the entire media, including social media, has been set up to exclude voices like VDARE. We have been de-platformed, banned from from social media or had our reach and followers restricted, and we have been refused service from financial companies. Indeed, as Lydia notes, it’s at the point where it’s quite difficult for VDARE to obtain legal representation. And we all know how corrupt the courts are. Just ask Donald Trump, another of James’s victims.

Here’s one terrifying example:

[Lydia]: When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us. … It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Imagine being stalked like that. Absolute evil. And of course, I have been a victim of their evil too in a campaign led by the disgusting Heidi Beirich (joined by the ADL) at my university starting in 2006 and resulting in a very difficult eight years, until I finally retired. Happiness is seeing Long Beach in the rear view mirror.

Beirich has apparently been replaced by the equally disgusting Michael Hayden. Like Hayden, Beirich tried to stir up the faculty against me, but with a much more receptive target at the university. (At least, Beirich’s actions did not result in stalking me or my family.) She was quite successful in stirring up the university. Pretty much the entire faculty turned against me, with public statements from various departments (e.g., see here, under the heading “My Replies to the “My replies to the History Department statement of April 4, 2008). One of my VDARE articles described what happened: “Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom,” dated November 14, 2006.

. And I was inundated with hostile emails for quite a long time after, many proudly posted on the faculty listserv.

One of the good things about the Brimelows’ situation is that they reside in a small town in a red state that, apart from a few nutcases, is apparently on their side. It’s a town where character and behavior count more than the mendacious propaganda used against them—unlike your typical American university.

Tucker asks if Lydia has any information on who funds the SPLC. It will come as no surprise to readers of TOO that the money comes from Jews, noted by Jerry Kammer (“The SPLC Depends on Jewish Donors“):

Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:

Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”

Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of  helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

I am personally very proud to be associated with VDARE, with 29 articles posted there, dating from 2003. Their list of writers includes many who have written for TOO, and topics include race realism, Jewish influence, and of course our disastrous immigration policy.

The video is at TuckerCarlson.com behind a paywall. This is the machine-produced transcript, lightly edited for readability.

Targeted by Letitia James
Stalked by the SPLC

Tucker [00:00:00] Illegal immigration into the United States is at its highest levels ever. Tens of millions of people have come here illegally over the past 15 years, and none of them will ever leave. Mostly they come from the poorest countries on the planet. We don’t know anything about them, really. We don’t know if they’re pro America. We don’t know if they’re hostile to the people who already live here. We don’t know, in the case of the recent arrivals, what they’re going to do for a living as robotics eliminate low skilled jobs. So what’s happening right now at the border that what’s often mentioned on TV is really undersold as a story. This is changing America forever, and almost certainly for the worse as we’re watching it. And no one is doing anything about it. The governor of Texas occasionally makes noises about it – it’s over his border that this human wave is flowing, and yet he’s taken no real steps to stop it. There are some media outlets that let you know that it’s happening in general terms, but they don’t seem particularly outraged by it. We’re sitting here as our country is destroyed and no one’s responding, and at some point you have to ask why? Are the majority of Americans in favor of this? Of course not. In fact, no one’s in favor of this. No one will defend this in public. No one will explain why we need it. Why it’s a good idea. How it’s going to help this country. How your grandchildren will live in a better place because of it. People are just silent, like it’s not even happening. And again, you have to ask why. And the answer, of course, is really simple because they’re afraid they know they’ll be punished if they say anything about it.

The story of Peter and Lydia Brimelow explains why they’re afraid. Peter Brimelow has been a journalist for 50 years. Worked at a whole bunch of what are now called mainstream publications. Was an editor – Barron’s, Forbes, National Review, Dow Jones, a legitimate old school journalist. And in the late 90s, he began to ask questions about our immigration scheme. Is this really good idea, is it helping America? And of course, no one could answer those questions because the answer is obvious. No, it’s destroying America as it destroyed California, so it will destroy your state. That’s certain. But for asking that question, he was fired from his jobs and shunted off into what we call the fringes. But he didn’t stop. He started a website called VDARE. He runs it now with his wife, Lydia. And for the crime in the supposedly free country of opposing the immigration system currently in place — not the official system, but the actual system — where anyone from the poorest parts of America [I think he meant ‘the world’] with no skills whatsoever can come here and immediately go on welfare. That’s our current system. For saying that that’s a bad idea, powerful forces have just tried, to destroy their lives, not just their lives, the lives of their family using the justice system to do it. And needless to say, you probably guessed, using something called the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is nothing to the South or poverty. It has to do with shutting down free speech in this country. They have descended on the Brimelows and have really kind of tried to destroy them. That’s not an overstatement, but you judge for yourself because Lydia Brimelow, who helps run VDARE, joins us now to explain what’s happened to her. Lydia, thanks so much for coming on.

Lydia Brimelow [00:03:13] Thank you so much, Tucker. It’ll be very nice to have our story told.

Tucker [00:03:18] So I have known your husband, sort of, since he was not a controversial figure at all. And he became a controversial figure when he began to say things like, hey, why are we doing this? And he was immediately called a White nationalist, a White supremacist. And I remember very well his response, which is, no, I’m not. And if I was, I’d say so. But that kept up and he wound up publishing with you, VDARE online. That would seem not a particularly controversial thing to do in a free country. But for your family, it’s been, a very risky thing to do. So I hope that you would explain to us what the government, we’ll start with the government, is trying to do to you for daring to oppose the immigration system.

Lydia Brimelow [00:04:03] Yeah, absolutely. So it’s it’s hard to believe everybody who hears the story says it’s completely incredible. Peter founded VDARE Foundation, which has its main project of VDARE.com back in the late 90s. As you said, we’re in our 25th year now, and I joined about ten years ago. I do the fundraising and the back office work, and he handles everything that goes up on the website VDARE.com. We’re a nonprofit journalism enterprise. So everything that we do, all of our people are paid through generous donations from individuals. I can tell you we don’t get any government grants or big foundation grants either. It’s all just grassroots. And we’re veterans of cancel culture at this point. So we’ve been kicked off a lot of mainstream services that most people use to distribute the media that they produce. And that is nothing compared to what we’re facing right now, which started about two years ago, originating out of the hate crimes division in the state of New York. A series of subpoenas were issued by Letitia James first, to Facebook, which I can explain a little bit in a minute. And then to us and our board members, at VDARE Foundation, with no clear trigger, they have refused to tell us what they’re investigating. It’s been two years of us just being crushed under this burden of investigation. The subpoenas were, like, 47 points each. They want us to turn over essentially every document that we have interacted with, since 2016. And for a small organization, you know, at our peak, we had four full time employees. Right now, we have two. That’s Peter and myself. This has just been an absolutely crushing burden. And I will say the Facebook subpoena was interesting because we had actually been kicked off of Facebook, years previous. So we had not even been on Facebook to interact with Facebook in many years, and they were asking for all of the data that VDARE had ever accumulated, created, while we were on Facebook, which we had incidentally, also requested. VDARE was kicked off of Facebook the same day that every one of the people involved in our organization was kicked off, including myself. I had never posted anything political online, at all, but they took all my baby pictures. The video of my daughter’s first steps, which was not saved anywhere else. Facebook still has that. They have, in fact, told my lawyers that we are too dangerous to get our data back, including my daughter taking her first steps. So that was the first subpoena that, Letitia James’s hate crimes division issues.

Tucker [00:06:43] May I ask you to pause for one moment and just clarify something. So Facebook is calling you too dangerous to possess your own baby pictures? Has VDARE ever committed violence? Is there something we’re missing? Terrorism? Insurrection. Killing people?

Lydia Brimelow [00:06:59] Never.

Tucker [00:07:00] Okay, okay. Sorry. I just want to clarify that.

Lydia Brimelow [00:09:18] That’s what my lawyers have been asking. That’s what my lawyers have been asking. So there have have been no accusations. We have been desperately requesting that they tell us what it is they’re wondering about so that we can provide them with tailored, you know, rather than dumping them with this huge amount of data. Can we just provide you what it is that you’re worried about in terms of regulation? And they refused to do it. At first, they insinuated that it has to do with what we call the Castle transaction. So the backstory on that is that, around the time Trump was campaigning and electing, we were attempting as the VDARE Foundation to host conferences around the country. We tried it in Tucson, in California, multiple places in California, New York, Boston, all over the country. We would get bookings and hotels and, you know, set up normal conference activities. And as soon as we would announce that we were going to have a conference and that people could buy tickets, the contracts would be canceled by the venues. So we had, depending on how you count it, between 8 and 12 contracts canceled out from under us. We were unable to successfully host an event at all over the course of those several years, and the hotels were so adamant that they cancel us because they were afraid of protesters, not because they were afraid of my group. I was told this over and over again. We know that your group is just going to be a bunch of people, you know, wearing ties, standing in line to ask questions on a microphone. But we can’t protect our venue from the protesters that might come, or from the bad press that we might get for hosting you. They were so anxious to cancel us that they would pay out significant liquidated damages. I mean, we had one hotel in New York. They preferred to write us a check for $80,000 rather than host our conference of 50 people. And at a certain point, we have to have in-person meetings.

The whole thrust of isolating people and calling them names is to prevent them from getting to know each other, to develop communities, to come up with good ideas and to be able to organize them. Yes. And so we decided to take matters into our own hands. And we went shopping for a venue somewhere in America. And I landed in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which is in the Eastern Panhandle. It’s an absolutely beautiful place in the mountains of Appalachia. It is. And there’s this hysterical, charismatic property. It’s a stone, historic stone mountain built in the 18th. It’s historic stone castle on a mountain built in the 1880s that happened to be for sale when we were looking for a venue. And it has a what they call a great hall. It has a ballroom, it has a conference space. And so we bought it and we moved our offices there. And we have been hosting events there ever since. They’ve all been sold out. They’re all a lot of fun. Most of our speakers, all of our speakers who are not off the record, you can find their videos of their presentations publicly posted on our website, VDARE.com. And it has really irritated the people that want to shut us down. It has really irritated them. The fact that we were able to acquire our own venue, and it’s not just some fluorescent lit, you know, rundown VFW hall where, you know, everybody goes in and it feels like some kind of depressing AA meeting. No, like it represents the beauty and history of America and the truth that we speak for in the future that our children deserve. And so it’s really fun to come to events at the castle, and that is killing them.

And so at first, the attorney general insinuated that there might be something wrong with the way we had gone about buying the castle so they, you know, they threw around concepts like abuse of donor funds, when in fact we had two significant donors step forward in 2019, who conveyed to me very clearly that they wanted to donate enough, that it would make a material difference to the work that we do, and there was no more material difference to be made than allowing us to meet in peace and safety, to develop what you might call a safe space for patriots to meet. And, once we heard that through the grapevine, that that was something that had alarmed the New York Attorney General, we immediately turned over all the paperwork that had to do with it. You know, I mean, it was it was very heavily lawyered. We know that we’re vulnerable to lawfare. And so we watch our papers very carefully and have everything look over. We turned out all over, at which point the attorney general’s office continued to lie and say that they had not received it, that we were still under suspicion of not going through the right, you know, regulatory process protocols to buy this building with donor funds. So, we then pressed them, you know, what is it that you’re still looking for? What is it that that you’re still looking for? And they have now sort of moved into the zone of we think perhaps you have engaged in related party transactions. So for people who don’t know what that means, it’s like if we were giving money, we were paying money to people who were on the inside. You know, if I had family or board members that got special deals, because, you know, of their relationship, to me, this is laughable on its face because nobody is getting rich being an immigration patriot, I can tell you that.

Tucker [00:14:47] Well, it’s a little confusing.

Lydia Brimelow [00:14:48] Also, we have already turned over all that information. Who do they think we are, Black Lives Matter?

Lydia Brimelow [00:15:20] Right. So VDARE is actually incorporated in New York. This is an interesting thing. 25 years ago, our pro-bono lawyer who worked for Covington and Burling and was later banned from being able to do pro bono work for VDARE, even though he was allowed to do pro bono work for the defendants in Guantanamo Bay, set up our nonprofit in the state of New York, and our papers were signed by no other than Lois Lerner. Who you may know, went on to target the Tea Party. But, back then it was a different era politically. We were not under the kind of harsh polarization and, pressure and persecution that we are now. That was a whole different era in immigration, patriotism, where we couldn’t even get the message out. You know, there were no, peter and I would watch political campaign speeches or debates. We would watch the news and just pray just hope that somebody would mention immigration, that they would just mention it. And they didn’t. Well, people mention it now it’s on everybody’s lips now. But we also, that came at a cost. And the cost is this persecution. We’ve never operated in the state of New York. That was a convenience that our lawyer, you know, leaned on at the time. But helpful people at this point usually say, why don’t you just exit New York and you can’t. It’s like Hotel California. You cannot, if you’re a charity that’s incorporated in the state of New York, and everyone should take this as a warning, you cannot reincorporate into another state without the permission of the Attorney General’s office. You cannot sell or transfer all or significantly all of your assets without permission from the Attorney General’s office, and you cannot close up shop without permission from the Attorney General’s office. So once you are under the, jurisdiction of Letitia James, there is no getting out until she decides you’re dead enough.

Tucker [00:17:14] So at some point, and again, this is all so North Korean it’s hard to believe that it’s happening here, but that, a state prosecutor can threaten you without telling you over a period of years what crime you may have committed, and then try and bankrupt you just through threats. Like, where does this go from here? And I assume no one’s defending you, right? Of course.

Lydia Brimelow [00:17:42] Very few. You know, we have a few friends, in alternative media that have spoken up. This is the first time anybody who has any kind of significant platform has allowed us to, to share our story. So I thank you for that, Tucker. Really from the bottom of my heart, as you said, Peter was in mainstream journalism for his entire career. And, you know, that was a long career and none of his friends have been able to help him. So, or I say been able to, some of them are willing to and they’re too scared to. Others have tried and been been, you know, thwarted. The same is true with donors. We know a lot of people that can step forward and make a big difference. And the thing is, what Letitia James and cancel culture in general has done, it works. It scares people and makes them think that they they have too much to lose. They really don’t want, patriotic immigration reform to lose. They really don’t want the Brimelow’s children to be stalked by the SPLC, but they also don’t want that to happen to them. And so, despite the fact that there are many ways that people can donate anonymously, I’ve become an expert on that. And you can still even get your tax deduction in some cases. And despite the fact that if we don’t speak up, then, nobody will know that this is happening and it will continue happening to other people. We have just had a very hard time being defended, but it doesn’t stop there. It is actually very difficult for us to find lawyers who will defend us. Lawyers are too afraid to take up, our cause. And so the first thing that we have to do is to find legal representation. You know, gone are the days with the Boston Massacre, where you have an honorable lawyer who thinks everybody needs defending. Now you have to rely on whoever will help you. And sometimes those people are honest and patriotic and also really good at their trade, and sometimes they’re not. When you don’t have, the whole market available to you because they’re afraid of political persecution. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Tucker [00:19:43] It’s beyond belief. But it doesn’t end there. You’ve also been hounded and slandered by the media, and you have furthermore, and you just alluded to this, been stalked and your children have been harassed by the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is, a hate group posing as an anti-hate group. Tell us what your interactions with them have been like.

Lydia Brimelow [00:20:11] Well, I would start by saying they’ve been extensive and unpleasant. They, the Southern Poverty Law Center was tracking VDARE for years. Well, before we got the castle, the Southern Poverty Law Center I say, between them and, you know, some other smaller groups are mostly responsible for pushing cancel culture. And were really the cause, I would say, of our cancellations of all those events that I was talking about before that encouraged us to buy our own venue. And when we did buy the venue, then suddenly the fact that we had done this was so enraging to them. So we live now in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Like I said, it’s a very small town. It’s a beautiful historic town. There are natural mineral springs that bubble up out of the side of the mountain, all year round it’s 73 degrees. It was originally surveyed by George Washington. And the people there are just incredible. But there are very few of them. Only 700 people, populate the main town. Morgan County is much bigger. Berkeley Springs is much bigger. But the reason I say that is because once you live there for a little while and I think you’ve lived in some small towns, you know everybody. It doesn’t take that long. And at first when VDARE bought the castle, which is this icon of the county, you know, when you live in a rural area and you have something as much of a folly, as a stone castle looming over a tiny little resort town. Everybody wants to know what’s happening to it. So when we first bought it, people were nervous. Because of that the media said, oh my gosh, are these going to be, you know, is this the Klu Klux Klan which has now descended on our precious, you know, landmark? And, over time it became evident that no, we our main goal in Berkeley Springs is to be good, quiet neighbors. I’m raising my children there. My daughter went to the public school. We belong to the church. And so the overwhelming number of people in the town are actually good friends of ours. But there are a few bad apples, and the SPLC has really fixated on them. And starting from the first few months that we were in operations there, the SPLC would fly out journalists to embed themselves in Berkeley, little old Berkeley Springs to try to talk the locals into being quoted in the paper about how awful we are, and host secret meetings and, you know, after hours back rooms of local leftists—there’s like one leftist organization and one leftist company in our town. It’s really easy to see because they’ve got lots of colorful flags [presumably LGBT+ flags] and Black Lives Matter signs. They self-identify. It’s very like tropical fish, you know, the more colorful they are, the more poisonous they are. Destroyers. Yes. And so they their whole goal, Michael Hayden and the others who came in there to talk was to turn them against us. I mean, I think I’m certain that they would not have been happier than to organize a literal torch [parade], you know, [a] mob to come up to the castle and pull my family out of it. I mean, when I hear some patriots attend these meetings, some locals are really not having it. And I’ve heard recordings from it. I heard Tanya Gersh, [a Jewish activist] who was flown in from Whitefish, Montana, who thinks that she has endured persecution. But it is nothing like what my family has endured. And she sat here and told these West Virginia people that my family are maggots who should never see the light of day. And, you know, here I am sending my daughter to to first grade in the public school and I’m thinking, wow, this is what you’re sowing in my community. And then on top of that, when that didn’t scare us off, Michael Hayden has now decided to write a book about our family, and in support of this supposed book that he’s supposedly writing, he is spending a lot of time in town. He hangs around my church and pesters my priest about what my faith habits are. He inquires with the town council who are my neighbors. You know what are you actually friends with, Lydia? What’s your relationship with her? Have you seen their children in town? He actually bought tickets to a local Christmas, fundraiser. So there’s a nonprofit in my town. It’s all volunteer operated people who decorate the whole town for Christmas just for the benefit of the town. Our municipality is too impoverished to decorate the town for Christmas, you know, sponsored by any kind of town thing. And so some of the local townspeople decided they wanted some Christmas cheer. And they all get together and they decorate the town every year. And what we do is we, offer the castle space to nonpolitical groups, non-VDARE groups who want to have events there. And they had rented the castle for the night. We had actually donated the space to them, and they sold tickets to have a little champagne reception with our, 13 foot live Christmas tree. And they get to, you know, the guests get to wander around and see the Christmas decorations. And Michael Hayden and Hannah Geist drove from New York City to the mountains of Appalachia, bought a ticket under a fake name, and then came in there so that they could spy on VDARE’s headquarters and approach my eight year old daughter to ask her questions about the off-limits areas of the building, and then wrote about it, and the piece was run in The Daily Beast. Now, he didn’t mention my daughter, but he has lots of pictures of himself, you know, prowling around the public spaces of the Berkeley Springs Castle. And, is surprised when the security guy at the party tells him on the way out that he’s not welcome there. When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us.

Tucker [00:26:54] Wait, wearing guns?

Lydia Brimelow [00:26:58] Yeah. So you know they have their their regular clothes on and then maybe a trench coat or something. And then they just have all their open-carry guns, just like, you know, multiple guns on the outside of their bodies.

Tucker [00:27:09] Well, they’re, I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:11] In my church who don’t even … .

Tucker [00:27:13] I mean, they’re violent. There’s, I mean, there been a lot of shootings by people like that recently. I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:19] Absolutely.

Tucker [00:27:20] Really threatening. Absolutely. I interrupted you. I’m sorry.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:23] It’s very threatening.

Tucker [00:27:25] People in your church. How do they respond?

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:27] [They] don’t even know why they’re there. You know, they don’t think, who this person is trying to intimidate Lydia from attending mass. They think, who is this horrific, violent person who’s in our church? It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Tucker [00:27:52] Yes.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:52] And I’m very blessed to have moved from a more liberal area to Berkeley Springs, because I can actually trust the law enforcement, and I can trust my friends, and I can trust my neighbors. But, you know, I don’t want it to get to the point where I need to be calling law enforcement. One of the beautiful things about living in a coherent community where people care about each other and value things like neighborliness, is that as soon as one of these hostile people comes in, I’m getting text messages. I’m getting phone calls. Hey, you don’t want to stop by Sheetz today? There’s somebody weird up there. Hey, I took a picture of this guy because he’s been snooping around. Do you know who he is? You know, that’s actually the first line of defense. And it actually reinforces what Peter and I and VDARE have been saying from the beginning, which is that your community matters. And when you flood it with huge numbers of people who are alien to you in their in their manners, in their culture, and you don’t know them, they don’t know you, you don’t know their history, you don’t know their family. They they have different values and they have different skills and abilities. You actually don’t know what’s going to happen. And it’s to everyone’s detriment. When you no longer have relationships and an understanding of your neighbors and of your community and of your town, of your state, of your country. You have lost it. There’s nothing.

Tucker [00:29:15] That’s right. That’s exactly right.

Lydia Brimelow [00:29:17] And that’s the goal. You know, of course [what] they’re trying to [do]. I mean, our issues have won every argument that we’ve made. Their immigration exacerbates all issues. It’s the queen of all issues. When you have mass immigration, unvetted even vetted when you’re talking about legal immigration, you’re bringing in huge numbers of doctors or CEOs or whatever. I mean, it still has the same effects on the social fabric of a community. And when you have a situation with ours where it’s like we have won on every issue, but we have certainly not rewarded from it. In fact, our lives are being used as an example to others. How dare you say what you can see with your own eyes? Or you know you must lie or we will hurt you and we will hurt your children. That tells you how dedicated they are to make sure that the damage to the social fabric continues. That is what they are dedicated to.

Tucker [00:30:16] It’s been received.

Lydia Brimelow [00:30:16] And the situation right now Elon Musk is just tweeting about immigration all the time. Yes and yet, you know, the small mom-and-pop operations that have been doing this work slow and steady for 25 years. I mean, there’s a strong chance that while we win the day with the arguments our organization, it’s hard to see how we’re going to survive. You know, we’re praying for a miracle. Peter and I are both natural optimists. I don’t think you can do this kind of work if you aren’t. But and we love working together, and we actually truly believe in our cause. And so I think that there’s a strong chance that something will change. But something does need to change. Because, if we are never going to get relief in the courts from Letitia James, you know, who is taking the same tactics and using them against Donald Trump. But Donald Trump has way more resources than we do. I feel like I don’t even need to say that out loud. It’s so obvious. He also has a much bigger microphone than we do. You know, I remember when, General Flynn was treated so horrifically, you know, when he was removed from the White House because of these false accusations, I think he had to sell his family home to handle the investigation.

Tucker [00:31:26] He did.

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:27] You know, and this weaponized, the process is the punishment type can you call it, justice system? Injustice system.

Tucker [00:31:41] It’s a political-

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:41] Anarcho-tyranny is what it is. And the courts have become political tribunals. So all we need is one good judge to tell Letitia James that she can’t do this anymore. Or we need, you know, a big media campaign to pressure Letitia James, against forcing us. What she’s trying to do right now is to force us to turn over all of the names of our writers, contributors and vendors, many of whom operate, under a pen name because they’re afraid of being outed. We have whistleblowers. We have whistleblowers in the government. I mean, there’s a reason they don’t want their names to be known to Letitia James, even aside from the fact that the Charities Bureau and the attorney General’s office, which is what Letitia James, operates, has already even leaked Nikki Haley’s donors. Look, if they’re going to leak Nikki Haley’s donors and hope that those people get harassed, how do you think they’re going to treat the names of the whistleblowers who write for VDARE.com? So a judge needs to step forward and say enough is enough. If you’re concerned about, their financial propriety, examine the financial documents that have already been turned over. But you do not need the names of their anonymous writers.

Tucker [00:32:58] Well, because.

Lydia Brimelow [00:32:58] They don’t need, you know, gigabytes of all the emails that they have written since 2016.

Tucker [00:33:06] I think they haven’t even articulated what you’ve done wrong.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:08] No. The other thing.

Tucker [00:33:10] You haven’t been charged with anything.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:11] No. No, there have been no charges.

Tucker [00:33:16] So can I take you back just a couple paragraphs to the SPLC. What they’ve done to you is so monstrous and so obviously evil. I mean, it’s not activism. It’s a moral crime. What they’re doing to your family. I think the obvious question is, who’s paying for this? Who are who are the Southern Poverty Law Center’s donors? Who is directing this? Do you know?

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:42] I don’t know. VDARE, a few years ago, I mean, gosh, before Covid. So that seems like 20 years ago was, we had a series [in which] we wrote about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s financial situation. And what’s really interesting is that a huge amount of it is held in funds, you know, like it’s operated like a hedge fund and a lot of it’s offshore. I don’t know who their donors are. I know that to the extent that they have individual, you know, American donors, it is people who have been frightened by the rhetoric who think, you know, White supremacy is coming for my children, which, they’re very good at spreading that lie and, propping up what they think are examples of that which are actually just people being normal. So, you know, they have this, I would say bifurcated approach. One is, to scare vulnerable people into handing over lots of money , and the other is to operate it in a corrupt way. And so what I wonder is, why hasn’t the Attorney General of Alabama [where the SPLC is located] done anything about it? We have the Attorney General of New York giving us an example. And, you know, there are other attorney generals out there. West Virginia, could could step in at this point. Texas, I think has done some, where’s Alabama? Where are the other patriot states out there?

Tucker [00:35:03] Because they’re I mean, the Republican Party is utterly fraudulent, as you know. And that’s the core problem. There’s no one to defend you. Which leads me to my last question, you said, a couple of moments ago that you’re in charge of fundraising for the group. And people can assess it because it’s you still have a website and assess whether they agree with your views or not. And want to support you or not. But there is a way to donate anonymously. That is, you think, secure. Can you explain what that is?

Lydia Brimelow [00:35:33] Oh, well, there is more than one way to donate anonymously. If you have a small donation that you would like to contribute, what people often do is send in a money order and they sign it to VDARE. And that’s, you know, very well established, you’re not going to get a tax deduction for that. But usually when you’re talking about $25, that’s not an issue anyway. For more significant donations you can still go through donor-advised funds. So Fidelity Charitable, which is the world’s biggest giving vehicle for for charitable money these days, will not honor a donor advisor’s direction to donate to VDARE. But there are lots of other donor advised funds that will. So, I’m happy to mention some of those, although I don’t have official relationships with any of them. That’s the main way that people donate anonymously is through donor-advised funds that are still, allowing their donor advisors to direct the money. You can also do it through a lawyer on an individual basis. And, if you’re concerned about, the tax deduction, that’s really the best way to go. If you’re not concerned about the tax deduction, then there are other ways that can help VDARE financially. They get a little bit more esoteric. But, you know, in an environment where we are having to diversify, in order to make sure that our, business is able to survive, there are a lot of opportunities for investment and patriotic type businesses.

Tucker [00:37:07] Man, it’s just it’s unbelievable that we’re having this conversation. Lydia Brimelow, thank you very much. And Godspeed.

The Primacy of Anti-Semitism

As I write these words, the death toll in the Gaza massacre (not “war”) has surpassed 28,000, of whom some 70% are women and children.  As I write these words, nothing has evidently changed in Jewish attitudes, of which roughly 80% of American Jews and 95% of Israeli Jews are satisfied with the brutal assault.[1]  As I write these words, nothing has deterred the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish attitude of the Biden administration or of the so-called leaders in Europe—Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Jens Stoltenberg, Olaf Scholz—as they offer all possible aid and assistance to the criminal Jewish state.  These facts are extremely telling, but are unsurprising for those who have long studied the Jewish Question.

Confronted with the stark reality of Gaza, we must be clear and explicit.  We must state the obvious: Israel’s actions are crimes against humanity, out of any proportion to the Hamas attack that nominally instigated it.  As a resistance movement to a 75-year-long occupying power, Hamas is legitimate in its use of force against Israelis.  All those around the world who aid and comfort the Israeli government are themselves criminals and must be held accountable; this includes Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and virtually every national leader in Europe.  Those who refuse to speak up and condemn Israeli atrocities are moral cowards, concerned more about their personal status and personal well-being than mass human suffering.  Such people, especially those in positions of influence, should be identified, labeled, shunned, and punished by the appropriate court of law.

And it’s not just Palestine.  Jewish malfeasance around the world seems worse than ever, and with far greater consequence.  Whether it is pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, the crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, war-mongering leader of the Senate Chuck Schumer, Jewish lunatic Volodymyr Zelensky destroying the nation of Ukraine, or any number of Jewish billionaires who have used their money to corrupt politicians of all parties and all nations—enough is enough.  The time has come to take an unambiguous anti-Jewish stance.  The stakes are simply too high.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and assert here that the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption.  Things are disintegrating on several fronts around the world: war, migration, economic gyrations, physical and mental illness, environmental degradation, overpopulation, runaway technology.  When things go badly, those in charge must take the blame.  And in the West, those in charge, those who have the most leverage and the greatest control, are predominantly Jews.  This is my thesis; it is well-grounded by empirical evidence.[2]

If this is so, then the overriding concern of the day, and the primary moral imperative, is to be anti-Jewish—that is, to be an anti-Semite.  Every person of conscience needs to stand up and state, unambiguously and proudly, “I am an anti-Semite.” This is not some mindless “hatred of Jews” but rather an informed and rational challenge to Jewish influence—and really their dominant position—of Western socities.  We need to say, in so many words, “Jews are at the heart of the global poly-crisis, and therefore we must, of necessity, be anti-Jewish.”  Anything less is to evade the root cause, and anything less will effectively yield to catastrophe.

This, of course, demands a fundamental change in the social outlook of most people in the West.  As we all know, anyone today who dares challenge mainstream unconditional support for Israel, or who dares to even suggest that “Jews” have anything at all to do with the malign state of the world, is immediately branded an anti-Semite, or worse, a Nazi (or perhaps a “neo-Nazi,” as if that means anything).  Such labels are obviously intended to strike fear by tarring the subject with a hated designation, thus marking them as a racist, as deserving of punishment (loss of livelihood, ‘cancellation’, etc.), and as a generically “bad person.”  They also serve as a deterrent to any potentially like-minded individuals who may be tempted to speak up on behalf of sanity and justice.  By and large, and sadly, they work.

But the time has come for this little linguistic ploy to end.  We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by—embracing them.  The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly.  The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

But two further points at the outset.  I refer here to Jews as an ethnicity, as a genetic group, and not as a religion.  My concern is with ethnic Jews.[3]  Virtually all religious Jews are also ethnic Jews, but only a minority of ethnic Jews are religious.  The distinction is often exploited by those who would prefer to disguise their identity; it allows your dissembling, ethnically-Jewish English professor to say “I’m not Jewish!”—by which he means he is a secular Jew.

Secondly, I’ll state the following now, only once, simply to get it out of the way:  When I say “Jews” or “the Jews,” I do not mean literally every Jew.  In using such terms, I refer to most Jews, or the most powerful Jews, or the Jewish elite, as the context requires.  If you have a hard time grasping this fact, you need not read any further.

A Bit of Perspective

The Gaza situation is not an anomaly; Zelensky leading the people of Ukraine to slaughter is not an anomaly; American Zionists driving us all into World War Three is not an anomaly.  For centuries, Jews have conducted, assisted, funded, or condoned mass murder when it served their purposes.  For centuries, they have been social corruptors and destroyers of order.  Such realizations have produced countless “anti-Semites” throughout history.  In 220 AD, Cassius Dio wrote that “Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans [during the revolt of 132 AD] … and the whole earth, one might say, was being stirred up over the matter”.[4]  By 1542, Martin Luther believed that Jews had caused so much death and destruction among the Christian population that “we are at fault in not slaying them”.[5]  Voltaire was aghast: “I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race”.[6]

In the early 1770s, the philosopher and polymath Baron d’Holbach published some striking indictments:

[When] we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews…we are forced to acknowledge that this people were at all times the blindest, the stupidest, the most credulous, the most superstitious, and the most puerile that ever appeared on the Earth. …  [By Mosaic Law, the Jews] were kept…in an unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate hatred of other forms of worship. …  [T]he Jewish people distinguished themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies…  [They] lived continually in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of frightful revolutions.

If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians…we shall see that [the Jews] are considered as a horde of thieves and bandits. … And even now the remainder of this unfortunate nation is looked upon as the vilest and most contemptible of all the Earth…

[The Jewish god Jehovah] is a truly savage god, made for a stupid, cruel, and immoral people; he is always furious, breathes nothing but vengeance, commands carnage, theft, and unsociability.[7]

And of course, German National Socialists were extremely critical—though, again, with considerable justification.  Because of his central role in the major events of the twentieth century, Hitler’s comments on his own evolving view, as recorded in Mein Kampf are highly instructive.[8] In the beginning, like most people today, he had no pre-conceived notions about Jews:

It was not until I was 14 or 15 years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew,’ partly in connection with political controversies.  These references aroused a mild distaste in me, and an uncomfortable feeling always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes.  But at that time, I had no other feelings about the Jewish Question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. … I hadn’t the slightest idea that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.  Then I came to Vienna. … It was then that I came upon the Jewish Question.

In physically encountering Jews, and in absorbing the intense Jewish media of Vienna, many previously inscrutable issues became comprehensible to him.  “My ideas about anti-Semitism changed in the course of time, and this was my most difficult transformation.”  He continues:

What soon gave me cause for serious thought, with a slowly rising insight, were the activities of the Jews in certain fields of life.  Was there any shady undertaking, any form of nastiness—especially in cultural life—in which at least one Jew did not participate?[9]  On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess, one immediately discovers, like a maggot in a rotting corpse, often blinded by the dazzling light: a little Jew.

In my eyes, the charge against Jewry became a grave one the moment I discovered their activities in the press, art, literature, and the theater.  All protests to the contrary were now essentially futile.  … Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected—one worse than the Black Death.  And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed!  Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such artists, the more inexhaustible their fecundity.

Anyone today confronted with Hollywood films, rap music, or network television can likely sympathize with such views.

Hitler was adamant; he was not predisposed to anti-Semitism, but it was thrust upon him by the reality of the world around him.  “Even if my feelings might resist a thousand times, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.  The fact was that 90 percent of all the filthy literature, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy had to be charged to the account of a people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation.  This fact could not be denied.”

Prostitution, human-trafficking, media corruption, political corruption… eventually, “the scales fell from my eyes.”  He had an epiphany:

I now understood the language of the Jewish people.  I realized that they use language for the purpose of disguising or veiling their thought, so that their real aim cannot be discovered by what they say, but rather only by reading between the lines.  This insight was, for me, the greatest inner revolution that I had yet experienced.  From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan, I became an out-and-out anti-Semite.

In doing so, Hitler effectively joined a long-standing European movement, dating back at least to the late 1800s.  The Ligue Nationale Antisemitique de France (‘French Anti-Semitic League’) was formed in 1889 by Eduard Drumont, and the following year, Otto Böckel founded the Antisemitische Volkspartei (‘Anti-Semitic People’s Party’) in Germany, working with Theodor Fritsch.[10]  People and organizations of that day were openly and explicitly anti-Semitic; Hitler joined them around 1910, well before he could have known what was to come.  Looking back, we now see that Jews played major, perhaps decisive, roles in both World Wars.[11]  If there is a third world war, they will certainly have played a dominant role there as well.  The time for explicit anti-Semitism has come once again.[12]

I can’t leave Hitler without addressing one further issue.  Reader, ask yourself this question: If someone close to you—a sibling, cousin, child, friend—were declared to be a “Nazi,” would your reaction be generally positive or generally negative?  Almost certainly the latter.  Now, ask yourself, “Why is this?”  If you are a Jew, the negativity is understandable, given that “Nazi” is today virtually synonymous with “hated by Jews.”  But since you are most likely among the 98% of readers who are not Jewish, why the negative reaction?  Has a “Nazi” ever threatened you?  Do you even know what a “Nazi” is?  So why the negative reaction?  Could it be that you have been indoctrinated, or cowed, by the Jewish Lobby into making a negative association?  This is worthy of some self-reflection.

In light of the above, one might even graciously accept the mantle of “Nazism.”  (“Excuse me, sir, but the proper term is ‘National Socialist’.”)  If they call you an anti-Semite or a Nazi, at least it means you are having an effect; it is a measure of success.  Wear it proudly.

The Media: Cowardly, Incompetent, or Sold-Out?

How, then, do our brave media handle these issues?  Our media—those intrepid truth-seekers, noble and uncorrupted, “speaking truth to power”—yes, how about them?  Which members of our vast media system are willing to get to root causes, to call a spade a spade, and to “name the Jew”?

I suspect we know the story.  The mainstream media, both left and right, are hopelessly corrupted by Jewish ownership and Jewish management.  I won’t recount the details here, but all five of the major American media conglomerates—Disney, Warner, NBCUniversal, Fox Corp, and Paramount—are dominated by Jewish leaders, or in the case of Fox, by rabid Zionists (and likely crypto-Jews).

Consider a few specifics.  CNN and MSNBC are the most obvious, most craven examples of Jewish compliancy.  Here we see, not investigative journalism or balanced and nuanced opinions, but blatant pro-Israel, pro-Jewish propaganda.  Everything Israeli or Jewish is implicitly good and innocent, and everything Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or even neutral are implicitly evil.  There are few Jewish program hosts—both networks seem to prefer Gentile gays, Blacks, and women—but the guest commentators and analysts are heavily, obscenely Jewish.  If a segment has two guests, at least one is a Jew; if three guests, one or two Jews; if a panel, two or three.  It is a calculated effort to maintain, at all times, a substantial Jewish presence.  Suffice to say that never, ever, would CNN or MSNBC ‘out’ a Jew, blame a Jew as a Jew, or touch on issues of Jewish sensitivity.

Fox News is virtually as bad.  Even as they vehemently disagree with the “liberal” media on virtually every issue, they are lock-step compliant on Jewish-Israeli issues.  The worst are the prime-time hosts:  Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters, and Laura Ingraham.  All three are pathetically, revoltingly pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli.  They could hardly be more fawning if they were paid Mossad agents.  This cannot be a coincidence; again, it must be coordinated from the top of Fox.  Only Tucker Carlson was willing to slightly, barely, touch on criticism of Jews (but never as Jews, unless you count his conflict with the ADL over their hypocrisy on immigration)—and he got fired.

The three main network news channels—ABC, NBC, and CBS—are all but useless.  All three parrot the same talking points, almost as if they had the same scriptwriters.  Their evening “national news” shows are parodies of real news, deliberately designed to grab the viewer’s attention and deflect it from deeper issues.  As above, never, ever, would they criticize Jews or Israel in any serious fashion.

But wait, you say; today, thank God, we have independent news sources on the Internet, ranging from groups like Politico or Buzzfeed or Vox or ProPublica or The Intercept—and there are brave individual journalists and writers.  They, surely, are not frightened by the Jewish Lobby; they, surely, will give us the honest truth.

Sadly, no.  Once again, nearly all such sources rigorously avoid touching the “third rail” of the Jewish Question.  Jews are never named, they are never outed, they are never involved—as Jews—with anything.  Indeed, the word ‘Jew’ almost never appears in such sources, as if it were an evil talisman of some sort.  And this, even in our supposedly brave, hard-hitting, independent journalism.

A sampling of recent reportage is revealing.  Now, of course, I cannot have reviewed every word written by the following individuals; but still, the following essays were obvious candidates for a serious discussion of the role of Jews qua Jews, and yet the subject appears—nowhere.  Consider the following recent examples of an apparently studied refusal to “name the Jew”:

All these men are thoughtful and well-informed on their subjects; so why, then, do they refuse to directly address the Jewish Question?  It is the central aspect of the matters at hand.  Without the Jewish angle, nothing really makes sense.  At best, we have half the story.  Where is the full story?  Are they ignorant of it?  Do they know, and yet willfully avoid it?  Either way, the results are not good.

The last of the above-mentioned articles is particularly instructive.  Patrick Lawrence—former International Herald Tribune reporter, “media critic, author, and lecturer,” and now writer for the “independent” ScheerPost—offers us a trenchant analysis of the decline of that liberal media icon, the New York Times.  But in a 5,000-word essay, the word ‘Jew’ appears precisely once, and then in an apologetic sense.  In the second paragraph, Lawrence writes of the sadistic mockery displayed by the IDF soldiers, “a carnival of racist depravity one would have thought beyond what is worst in humanity—and certainly beyond what any Jew would do to another human being.”  This displays an ignorance of Jewish history; such behavior is certainly not “beyond what any Jew would do,” and in fact, is entirely consistent with Jewish behavior over the centuries.

Lawrence ignores the essential fact that the NYTimes is a thoroughly Jewish institution, and has been since Adolph Ochs bought the paper back in 1896.  The current publisher is a Jew, Arthur Sulzberger, as is the editor-in-chief, Joseph Kahn.  I don’t have exact statistics, but the vast majority of their stories carry at least one Jew in the byline.  If the NYTimes is biased toward Israel (even though it has been lately, and belatedly, calling out Palestinian suffering in the current onslaught), it is clearly and obviously because the organization is owned and run by Jews—this is Fact #1, but Lawrence, like every other media critic, fails to point this out.

Of course, he can’t help but name Jews along the way, but never as Jews; their Jewishness “has nothing to do with it!” as our screaming liberals might say.  Lawrence cites Max Blumenthal, David Leonhardt, Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, Adam Sella, Joe Kahn, Roger Cohen, Emily Bazelon—almost certainly, all Jews.  (Lawrence’s own ethnicity is unknown.)

Near the end of the piece, Lawrence laments that “we are now face to face with the destructive power of corporate media,” which serves “the policy cliques who run the imperium.”   He quotes Blumenthal to the effect that “these [NYTimes’] lies, fabrications, distortions, half-truths, and exaggerations…need to be called out.”  “Is there a truer way to make the point?” asks Lawrence.  Yes there is—like pointing to the entirely Jewish character of the Times for over a century, and its long history of “lies, fabrications, and distortions” on behalf of Jewish interests.

There is almost no pushback against this sort of journalism, apart from a few outlets, like TOO, with very limited reach—often banned from social media and credit processing. What he have is virtually nothing compared to the constant barrage of poisonous, anti-White messages emanating from the Jewish media empire.

One Solution, and Some Concrete Steps

Speaking of solutions, here is mine (disclaimer: it is not original):  Based on history and extensive empirical evidence, even a small proportion of Jews in a given nation begin to cause serious problems.  There is a threshold, a share of the population, beyond which Jews must not be allowed; and that threshold is very low.  Based on my experience, the figure is about 0.1%.  Once Jews exceed this percentage in any nation, corruption and social disruption ensue.

The USA is a case in point.  Today, we have about 6.5 million Jews in a population of around 330 million, or about 2%.  This is 20 times my proposed threshold, and indeed, we have massive Jewish corruption.  To avoid significant damage, the US would have to restrict its Jewish population to no more than around 300,000, in total.

Hence my solution: Encourage the Jews to leave.  In principle, there are many incentives that could be applied; see below for a few thoughts.  And granted, it is not likely to happen quickly.  Still, there is value in openly and explicitly stating the goal, and to begin working toward it, no matter how long it may take.

“Great idea,” I hear people say, “but what exactly should we do, who will do it, and how?”  There are several things we can do, all of us, to initiate the process.  For now, it must be a grass-roots movement—which has many benefits because it means that every person, in their own way, can take concrete action.  Don’t wait for “leaders” or “parties”; those will come with time.  Act now, as an individual or part of a small, local, face-to-face group.  Here are a few options:

First, get informed.  Become a knowledgeable spokesman on the Jewish Question.  Know your history, and learn what you are up against.  There are a handful of essential texts that go a long way toward self-education.  I myself have edited and published some of these:  Mein Kampf, Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, and Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages.  Two more classic works would include Theodore Fritsch’s Riddle of the Jews’ Success and Henry Ford’s The International Jew.  A few months of effort invested in reading these books would be hugely profitable.

Second, adopt a clear and rational “anti-Semitic” stance.  Avoid emotion and hyperbole.  Be rational and factualIdentify Jews and Jewish crimes as such, and back your statements up with evidence that Jewish identity is important, e.g., by showing that it is a common pattern among Jews.  Speak openly to friends and neighbors about the situation; show them that the situation is far worse than they imagine, and that Jews are at the root of many of our social and political problems.

Third, openly promote the goal of an America free of Jewish influence.  As stated above, the avowed goal should be a nation free of Jewish influence—which, in practice, means many fewer actual Jews. There is no time limit here; stating the goal is what is important now.  And don’t be dissuaded by claims of “that’s unrealistic”; all visionary goals initially seem unrealistic.  Press ahead.

Fourth, emphasize the nonviolent nature of this goal, and the nonviolent means to get there.  The idea is not to cause harm to Jews but rather to make them see that it is in their own best interests to voluntarily leave.  There are many ways to achieve this—starting with a popular movement that simply and openly declares an intent to reduce Jewish influence over the long run.

Individuals can also take action, to the extent possible, to boycott and sanction Jewish enterprises so as to deprive them of profits.  Granted, this can be difficult in the present day, given the difficulty of finding businesses and products without Jewish ties. But small and local businesses often meet this requirement, if only by default.  Encourage local businesses to both stay free of Jewish ties and to impose their own boycott.

Further nonviolent means will become available when the appropriate political environment comes into being—again likely beginning at local levels.  For example, Jewish malfeasance could be compensated by a “Jew tax” of some sort, as was done in the Roman Empire.  And we might consider banning circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation.  Granted, such things would be challenged on constitutional grounds; but who knows what the political climate may be in the future?  Ending dual citizenship with Israel is another obvious action, and would force many Jews to choose their true loyalty.  Non-citizen Jews could be given limited residency permits and then compelled to leave.  Non-citizens implicated in any crimes could be deported to their home countries.

Fifth, in all discussions, press for transparency.  Among our celebrities, governmental figures, and media stars, we need to know who is a Jew (or part-Jew), and we need to expose those non-Jews willing to serve Jewish interests for money or ideology (e.g., Christian Zionism).  On a larger scale, we will eventually need to identify everyone by ethnic origins; we will need both local and national databases to distinguish the White from the non-White population.  (Jews, needless to say, are not White.)  Only in this way can we measure progress on our road to a nation free of Jewish influence.

Political figures should be of particular focus.  Given the primacy of anti-Semitism, the only relevant political question is: How will you tackle the Jewish Question?  For candidates at all levels, we need to be “one-issue” guys, and that issue is attacking Jewish power.  At every candidate forum or local town hall, ask them, straight up, what they will do on this matter; e.g., by asking a question like “What is the role of Jewish influence in our foreign policy establishment?”  And when they cave in or evade the answer, call them out for being moral cowards or Jewish lackeys.

Sixth, start at the small-scale and the local.  Make efforts to create a reasonable assessment of your local Jewish populations (by city, county, or state).  Many such jurisdictions already have very few Jews (i.e. under 0.1%); declare them as such, declare victory, and then build alliances with neighboring or larger jurisdictions.

Seventh, exploit all negative Jewish news stories to the maximum.    For example, Jewish organizations and individuals have been in the forefront of pro-immigration movements—Jews such as Alejandro Mayorkas, who was recently impeached because of his role in the open-borders policy of the Biden Administration but never identified as a Jew in Congressional debates.  The same goes for pro-war movements, such as the leading role of Jews like Bill Kristol in the leadup to the Iraq war and Victoria Nuland in the coup that was directly influential in promoting Russian antagonism in the runup to the war in Ukraine. These people are but rarely, if ever, identified as Jews. Jews are often disproportionately involved in unethical and criminal actions, at all levels of society, from white-collar criminals, child molesters, sex traffickers, to master criminals operating at a global level; such people are not the main prongs of Jewish power but their Jewish identity should not be hidden as it is now. The current Israeli crimes in Gaza are textbook cases of Jewish malevolence and should do much to remove the mantel of ethical superiority and victimhood that Jews have been so adept at promoting.  When talking with friends, be sure to emphasize that these are Jews: not “Israelis,” not “Zionists.”  Call a spade a spade.

Eighth, donate money to bona fide anti-Jewish groups and activities.  As an active writer and publisher, I know how hard it is to get by, and how valuable even small donations can be.  There are good, dedicated people out there, working hard every day to solve the Jewish Problem.  They can always use an extra dollar.

Ninth, avoid all Jewish-run or -funded groups.  Jews are masters of ‘controlled opposition’: of funding or becoming members, or even leaders, of supposedly anti-Jewish groups simply in order to control them and ultimately destroy them.  There are a number of such Jews: Paul Gottfried, Davis Hawke, Laura Loomer, Chaya Raichik, Andrew Auenheimer (aka Weev), Milo Yiannopoulos.  Andrew Breitbart (died 2012) was Jewish, and his Breitbart news remains a thoroughly Jewish enterprise.

In a similar vein, be highly suspicious of individuals or groups who can’t quite bring themselves to criticize Jews by name.  They may well have ulterior motives.

Tenth, get active.  Become a writer, speaker, organizer, teacher, leader.  Everyone has different talents; put them to good use, in service of perhaps the most urgent task facing humanity today.  Each person knows their locality the best: what motivates people, what irritates them, what are their ‘hot buttons.’  Demonstrate to people in your region the primacy of anti-Semitism: its urgency, its necessity, and its effectiveness.

And perhaps a final suggestion:  Refuse to sustain Jewish supremacy.  The USA is a gigantic machine for the creation of Jewish wealth and power.  Everything that serves to benefit America actually benefits the Jews.  For every dollar you earn working for an “American” company, someone, often a Jew, earns ten.  Everything you do as a “patriot” to aid America aids the Jews because of the Jewish role in our current regime.  It takes a tremendous amount of work to sustain and grow the Jew-machine.  Therefore, the obvious course of action is to stop working for it.  Withhold your labor; withhold your wealth; withhold your allegiance.   Invest overseas (but not Western Europe, which, in many cases, has even stronger pro-Jewish laws and governments than we do).  Work for yourself, for a family business, or for a foreign firm.  Bring the Jew-machine to a grinding halt.

A Better World

Imagine, if you will, an America free of Jewish influence.  Imagine a federal government that (a) has very few Jews, and (b) is filled with largely competent, capable, well-meaning people, working in the best interests of this nation.  Imagine a government not given over to Jewish dictates and not flooded with corrupting Jewish money.  Imagine a United States not hell-bent on a Jewish-inspired program of world domination; a US military not raining death and destruction on people around the globe; no 800 military bases in other nations, many against their will; and a military budget closer to $500 billion than $1.5 trillion.

Imagine an America with closed and secure borders, and all illegal immigrants forcibly deported (Jews have always led the charge for open borders); imagine public schools and universities not steadily ramming leftist-liberal ideology down students’ throats (Jews have been in the lead promoting woke ideology); imagine LGBTQ and “trans” issues fading back into relative obscurity (where they were before Jews got involved); imagine corporations prioritizing quality-of-life issues, or environmental sustainability, rather than maximization of profits (Jewish materialism and greed rule today); imagine a stable, rational, and inflation-free economy instead of one acting like a global casino (as Jews prefer); imagine paying no income taxes to the feds (Jews inaugurated mandatory income taxes for everyone in World War II).[14]  Perhaps best of all, imagine a democracy not being synonymous with “rule by the Jews.”

All this is possible, and more.  In fact, more than possible; it is almost certain, should we decide we want to eliminate Jewish influence.

Skeptical, dear reader?  Then put me to the test.  Jews have been disproportionately influential in America for at least 100 years, with their power increasing dramatically after World War II and especially as a result of the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s.[15]  Therefore, let us conduct a fair experiment.  Let us strive for the next 100 years to be a nation free of Jewish influence.  At the end of that new century, let us make a fair assessment of the pros and cons versus the previous 100 years, and make an honest determination which life was better.  Should it be determined that America’s Jewish century was better, so be it; let us welcome the Jews back with open arms.

But should we find that, in fact, our century of America free of Jewish influence was better, perhaps vastly better, let us celebrate our courage and our vision, and be a true inspiration for the world, showing what can be attained with resolve and determination.  It happened before; it can happen again.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] See the Peace Index for January 2024 (survey 8th to 15th), in which the use of force in Gaza was described as “appropriate” (51%) or, incredibly, “too little” (43%), yielding 94% of Israeli Jews who are comfortable with the overwhelming use of force against a civilian population.

[2] For a fairly thorough documentation of the facts, see my book The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023; Clemens & Blair).

[3] Mixed-race Jews—as with Blacks and Hispanics—are a special case and require separate discussion.  In short, I am inclined to count anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent as a Jew.

[4] Roman History 69.13.

[5] On the Jews and their Lies (2020; Clemens & Blair), p. 180.

[6] In A. Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (1968), p. 300.

[7] Ecce Homo, Superstition in All Ages, and Good Sense, respectively.  For details, see T. Dalton, Eternal Strangers (2020; Castle Hill).

[8] The following passages are taken from my 2022 translation of Mein Kampf, volume one, pp. 85-97.

[9] Jews have long been prominent in ethically dubious industries, including usury, slavery, war-profiteering, human trafficking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and pornography.

[10] Fritsch, incidentally, authored the compelling book The Riddle of the Jews’ Success (1923/2023)—a highly revealing practical study in Jewish tactics.

[11] As explained in my 2019 book, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill).

[12] Ron Unz, incidentally, recently came to the same conclusion: “These days most Westerners claim to regard genocide in a decidedly negative light. So does this not syllogistically require them to embrace and endorse ‘antisemitism’? Surely a visitor from Mars would be very puzzled by this strange dilemma and the philosophical and psychological contortions it seems to require.”

[13] Although a case could be made for the serious Holocaust revisionists; men like Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, and Juergen Graf are almost completely unknown, even to Holocaust skeptics, so severe has been the censorship of their work.  For the curious, take a look at www.armreg.co.uk, and the new revisionist Holocaust Encyclopedia.

[14] See my Steep Climb, chapter entitled “Tax the rich!”

[15] In fact, I have argued for a precise date upon which this nation sold its soul to the Jews: 20 December 1911.  See my Steep Climb, pp. 255-257.