Featured Articles

Civilizational Erasure? Look in the Mirror, America

/10 Comments/in /by

The orchestrated demise of the West and the Hidden Hebraic Hand behind it.

While American politicians wring their hands about Europe’s demographic future, they remain willfully blind to the organized Jewish interests driving replacement migration on both continents.

The Trump administration’s newly published National Security Strategy boldly proclaimed that Europe faces “the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” This warning comes from a country where Whites now constitute just 57.8% of the population and continue to decline as a percentage annually. The sheer audacity of American leaders lecturing Europe about demographic preservation while presiding over the most rapid racial transformation in modern history reveals deliberate obfuscation.

The demographic data speaks for itself. While European nations maintain White majorities averaging between 72-85%, the United States has already crossed the threshold into minority-majority status in countless cities and states. American cities increasingly resemble post-modern Towers of Babel where traditional White Americans are pushed into suburbs and exurbs—de facto White people reservations—far from city centers of power and influence. Notwithstanding these unsettling revelations, debating which nation’s demographic foundation appears marginally more intact represents a distraction from the shared existential threat confronting White civilization on both continents absent immediate corrective action.

Before we can solve this civilization crisis, we must ask the critical question: Who caused and continues to benefit from this demographic transformation? The answer lies not in abstract ideologies but in a concerted political effort by world Jewry to demographically dilute the lands inhabited and built by Whites. Since the dust settled from World War II, Jewish-run organizations have been at the forefront of orchestrating mass migration to Western nations with the help of their complex life-support machine that is the United States government.

Groups like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which went from helping Jewish refugees to actively facilitating Muslim and Christian immigration from the Middle East to Western countries, operate with the explicit goal of altering Western demographics. As Earl Raab of the Jewish Community Relations Council noted in 1993 demographic transformation makes America “safe” from what he called “Nazi-Aryan” movements. Barbara Lerner Spectre, the founding director of Paideia (The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden), said during a 2010 IBA News interview that the Jewish community would be the primary driver of Europe’s demographic transformation. She expanded:

Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that… Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

The pattern is consistent and undeniable. At the height of the European refugee crisis of the previous decade, Israeli organizations like IsraAID operated refugee centers on the Greek island of Lesbos, processing the very migration flows that have transformed European demographics. These events did not transpire in a vacuum but were the result of the United States’ military and hidden-hand operations in North Africa and West Asia that destabilized countries ranging from Libya and Iraq, which Jewish-run NGOs took advantage of. The strategic facilitation of mass migration served a dual geopolitical purpose: it systematically depleted the demographic reservoirs of Israel’s regional adversaries—specifically targeting the cohort most capable of militant opposition—while simultaneously engineering a fracturing of European ethnocultural cohesion, thereby preempting the rise of any potent ethnonationalist movements that could contest the international Jewish community’s power.

This Jewish-driven engineering of demographic change continues today through a network of Jewish and Israeli NGOs that frame their work as humanitarian while achieving precise political outcomes. The European Council of Jewish Communities coordinates continent-wide operations to clothe and shelter migrants throughout their journeys across the Old Continent. These initiatives mirror the candid admissions of Jewish leadership: advocating for diversity functions as a calculated protective measure for Jewish concerns, fundamentally reshaping the demographic fabric of host nations. This engenders an enduring divide-and-conquer dynamic that systematically obstructs White populations from achieving political cohesion.

A singular calamity unfolds as both European and American societies confront identical threats to their continued existence, tracing back to the same root cause. The White state-building peoples of both continents are being systematically replaced not by accident but by design. The Judeo-Liberal consensus that emerged victorious from World War II created a transnational class of Jewish oligarchs that view traditional White majorities as obstacles to their transnational criminal enterprise.

There can be no cessation of the Great Replacement while Western polities remain satellites of the Judeo-American empire, grant free rein to Jewish-supremacist NGOs, and persist in endorsing political parties that sustain the post-World War II consensus. The future of the West hinges on a binary decision of monumental significance: either we sever the hold of the Talmudic bird of prey, or we condemn our civilizations to be nothing more than a fleeting, forgotten whisper in the annals of time.

Lying About Churchill: Responding to Richard Evans on the historicity of the ‘Zionist lobby’

/8 Comments/in , /by
Winston Marshall: “The next generation of people fighting for the truth against the conspiracy theorists: what wisdom do you have to impart to them?”

Richard Evans: “First of all, take it seriously. Address them for what they are. Tackle them head-on. Do the work. Interrogate them. Ask where they got their sources from and what they did with them. I think that’s the most important thing.”

Winston Marshall asked some good questions in his interview with Richard Evans. I particularly liked the one above, and Evans’ reply to it. I agree that the next generation should fight conspiracy theorists by inspecting sources and the use of them. Evans said rightly that “if the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling about Hitler as the man who started World War 2 as the beginning of a deliberate attempt … to take over the world … you can’t just deny the evidence.” Evidence is what we can trust more than anything else. Marshall then acknowledged, and Evans agreed, that “the history of the war is the founding story of the modern era” and “perhaps that’s one of the reasons it’s being relitigated.”

The history of the war is being relitigated like never before. 2024’s interview between Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper is still provoking reactions from anti-fascist historians, and Carlson interviewing Nick Fuentes in October 2025 has inflamed them further. Richard Evans, author of the book Lying About Hitler, has been called upon to dispatch these conspiracy theorists..

I object to Evans’ response to another of Marshall’s good questions, that of whether, paraphrasing Cooper, “Churchill was funded by Zionists” which Marshall said “originates with David Irving” and “is a David Irving idea”. Evans said that Cooper, building on Irving, said that Churchill:

went bankrupt and Jewish financiers and media moguls put [him] as it were back on his feet, but this is all absolute nonsense. I mean Churchill was a member of one of the richest families in Britain, the Duke of Marlborough, owners of Blenheim Palace and so on, definitely a member of the British upper classes. He did support the idea of a state of Israel, but the idea there’s a kind of huge Jewish conspiracy backing Churchill later on against Hitler [is] a classic conspiracy theory joining the dots in a way that seems to suggest one thing but it’s all built on a tissue of disinformation.

Marshall mentioned that “it was the case that [Churchill] was constantly on the edge of being broke and would then write…”, referring to articles and books. Evans agreed that Churchill, like Lord Salisbury, supported himself by writing. Marshall persisted: “it was true that he struggled with money, right?” Evans: “sometimes, yes.” Marshall: “the idea is that there was some sort of lobbying interest group that Irving and Cooper might allege were entirely Zionists…” Evans: “That’s the problem. You smell a rat any time you hear anyone talking about a Jewish lobby. That is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No group in the modern world has been as divided as the Jewish community, and you can still see that today.”

Eugen Spier

The existence of a ‘Jewish lobby’ and ‘funding by Zionists’ are not mere theories. Evidence of Jews and/or Zionists funding and supporting Churchill’s political activities comes directly from Eugen Spier, co-founder of the Focus (also known as the Focus Group or the Anti-Nazi Council), and Robert Henriques, the biographer of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, who was another co-founder and the main fundraiser. Spier was a wealthy Jew who immigrated from Germany in 1922 and released the book Focus in 1963. He recounts that Churchill asked him not to publish the book until after his (Churchill’s) death.1 He then describes the founding of the group in 1935 and its activities between then and 1939. According to Spier,

groups embracing members of every religious and political body were being organised up and down the country to bring help to victims of Nazi brutality. From 1933 onwards I was being continuously approached to assist in fighting antisemitism. Among those who came to see me was a Mr. A. H. Richards who sought my co-operation both in combating Hitler’s propaganda and in helping his victims. Many prominent people had already promised to help.2

Spier says that he objected to treating the Nazis as a threat to Jews specifically as opposed to the whole world. Gentiles would be difficult to recruit if not convinced that the threat was to themselves too. Spier continues:

Richards was much excited by my views. They represented, he declared, just what he and his friends were thinking, but he had not felt it wise to make his first approach to me in such terms. He had been given to understand that I was deeply affected by the sufferings of my fellow-Jews and he had therefore raised antisemitism as the primary issue. … He then disclosed the names of some of the people with whom he was associated.

To Spier’s “joy” they included Sir Winston Churchill, Lady Violet Bonham Carter, Henry Wickham Steed, Oliver Locker-Lampson, Sir Robert Mond, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen and Sir Archibald Sinclair.3 All were Zionists, except Spier and Richards of whose opinions I am not sure. All the funding appears to have come from Jews: Spier and Mond initially, then Cohen on behalf of others later. Churchill, the most famous person present, had already been condemning Germany in Parliament, on the BBC and in the press since soon after Hitler became Chancellor, and his inclusion in government became the particular object of the Focus’ campaigning, alongside the establishment of a Ministry of Supply and a Ministry of Information. The Focus itself was secret and would operate under other names (including the Defence of Peace and Freedom) and via front groups. Spier says that he told his wife about the Focus in confidence and that they thereafter referred to Churchill by the codename Oscar, meaning “the spear of God”.4 He told Churchill in 1938 that it was “one of the objects of the Focus to provide its members, and you most of all, with just those facilities which a party machine provides, publicity by public meetings, through the press and our publications.”5 This quasi-party had included Tories and Liberals from the start, and by then included prominent Labour politicians too, including Clement Attlee and Hugh Dalton who later served as ministers under Churchill. At about the same time, when the Focus took control of the League of Nations Union’s magazine Headway, Spier asserted that “Our campaign was avowedly all-party, while the policy of the new Headway would be to turn out the Conservative government.”6

Spier’s book

Recalling the origins of the group, Spier’s aims had grown: “In the meantime [1938] I had embarked on a project of my own, the evacuation of all Jews then under Nazi rule.”7 Violet Bonham-Carter prefigured the rhetoric of refugee-cum-anti-fascist activists today: according to Spier, she “had repeatedly reminded our politicians that it was the very glory of this country that British shores throughout the centuries had offered sanctuary to the oppressed and that Britain had thrown its doors wide open to fugitives and those who were persecuted.”8 Refugees like Stefan Lorant (Istvan Reich), Emery Reeves (Imre Revesz) and Jurgen and Ursula Kuczynski contributed to the Focus’ cause and the promotion of Churchill, as I have discussed in previous essays.9 Revesz’ assistance to Churchill, given specifically because of Churchill’s anti-German stance, was particularly lucrative and as helpful to Churchill as the large gifts of money he received from others.

In contrast to the members’ favourability toward Jews, co-founder Henry Wickham Steed “detested Germans in general”10 as did Robert Vansittart, the civil service head of the Foreign Office from 1930 to 1938 and a sometime attendee of Focus meetings. Steed, as editor of The Times before the Great War, had urged the government to fight Germany in 1914. Churchill also had a long history of belligerence toward Germany, as did his close friend Frederick Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell.

Robert Henriques was given access to the papers of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, his wife’s grandfather, in order to write his posthumous biography. He relates that in 1936, “Every week Bob and a few other leaders of Anglo-Jewry met at New Court”, the London headquarters of the Rothschild financial interests, “to plan a form of defence against anti-Semitic propaganda. In June, Bob, and several others had an interview with the Home Secretary and returned with the assurance that the Government would do everything in its power to arrest what it acknowledged to be “a growing evil”.” Waley Cohen was, among other things, a Vice-President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. There was a perceived need “to find a platform which would enlist the whole-hearted support of the greatest possible number of Gentile friends.” The Focus became that platform, and

it was decided at New Court to raise a secret fund, initially of £50,000, which would work with the sympathetic non-Jewish organisations as well as with the Jewish Telegraph Agency […] Bob agreed to raise, control and administer this fund. […] Bob insisted from the start that the Jewish defence movement must concentrate on attacking Nazi philosophy and its denial of human rights, rather than on the direct refutation of anti-Semitic propaganda. … [H]e insisted that propaganda should be directed against ‘pursuing peace without caring for freedom and justice’ — a summary of the British policy of appeasement.

Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques
Robert Henriques

The same “leaders of Anglo-Jewry” later began to fund Neville Laski as well as the Focus, enabling Laski to suspend his private business as a lawyer and pursue the communal ‘self-defence strategy’, of which the Focus was another component, in his capacity as the President of the Board of Deputies.11 In terms of communal hierarchy, the Board was evidently junior to the unnamed “leaders” who regularly met at New Court.

Jewish self-defence

According to Richard Hawkins, the Focus, also known as the Anti-Nazi Council, was a continuation of the British branch of the World Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council for Human Rights, started in the USA in 1934 by the wealthy lawyer and Jewish activist Samuel Untermyer and intended initially to co-ordinate a global boycott of Hitler’s Germany to effect regime change.

In April 1936, Winston Churchill joined the WNSANCHR. … In July, the Board of Deputies of British Jews created a secret fund to support anti-Nazi groups including the WNSANCHR. At a meeting on October 15, the WNSANCHR, at the suggestion of Churchill, decided to establish a Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace movement. The Focus helped revive Churchill’s political career. As Eugen Spier later observed, ‘Later on it was easy to forget the part [the Focus] played in creating a platform for Winston Churchill at a time he was in the political wilderness.’12

Untermyer launched his boycott in March 1933. Zbynek Vydra describes it as having the goal of “terminating Jewish persecution by overthrowing Hitler” and says it “was meant to be one of the means of bringing Germany down on its knees.”13 In Untermyer’s words, the aim of his “purely defensive economic boycott” was to “undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depend[ed].”14 Hawkins and Vydra, as well as Sharon Gewirtz and Daniel Tilles, have contributed illuminating work on the Untermyer boycott and the early activities of the Anti-Nazi Council and other components of ‘communal self-defence’ which came to constitute a “Jewish foreign policy” (Vydra).15 Evidently the policy could not be effective unless it supplanted the existing British foreign policy with which it directly contrasted, hence the need to either pressure the government into adopting it or, as Spier said, “turn out” the government and replace it with one led by Churchill.

Much of the government and state were amenable to pleas from leading members of the Board of Deputies or even their relatives. Gewirtz describes Robert Vansittart meeting Neville Laski, Robert Waley Cohen and others to advise them on how best to conduct Jewish domestic policy and obtain the most from their relations with civil servants and politicians.16 Laski’s brother Harold, a leading Labour activist and a sympathiser with communism and the Soviet Union, was also able to directly lobby the Home Secretary to have the British Union of Fascists banned from conducting uniformed demonstrations.17

In his book Twilight of Truth, which is vehemently critical of Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, Richard Cockett describes the relationship between Vansittart and Reginald Leeper and the Focus and Churchill, including having many of the same sources of intelligence. (Cockett contradicts Spier by saying that Churchill joined the Focus in 1936 at the prompting of Leeper whereas Spier says Churchill was present and active from the first meeting in 1935.)18 Lord Lloyd, another extremely anti-German Focus member, became the first head of the British Council, an overtly “anti-fascist” propaganda initiative of Leeper’s which worked to the same purpose as the Focus.19

Richard Cockett

Corroboration

Other historians, even if concerned to dispel anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, still acknowledge that a Jewish lobby supported Churchill for his anti-German stance. As Michael Cohen says, “When Churchill joined Focus, an anti-appeasement group formed by, among others, [Sir Henry] Strakosch and Lord Melchett [Sir Robert Mond], his political opponents spread stories that he was in the pockets of the Jews.”20 Martin Gilbert, the admiring biographer of Churchill, corroborates Cockett in regard to the collaboration of Churchill, Vansittart and Leeper that centred on the Focus, emphasising their inclusion of leftists like Walter Citrine and several leading Labour MPs.21 Gilbert also makes frequent references to the Focus (under its operating name ‘Defence of Peace and Freedom’ or ‘Freedom and Peace’).22 He quotes Spier on the “formation and working of Churchill’s Anti-Nazi League”.23 Gilbert highlights Churchill’s remark to his son Randolph in November 1936 that

the basis of the Anti-Nazi League, which he had recently helped to launch, ‘is of course Jewish resentment at their abominable persecution. But we are now taking broader ground rather on the lines of my Paris speech.’ A Peace with Freedom committee had been formed. It aimed ‘at focusing and concentrating the efforts of all the Peace societies like the New Commonwealth and the League of Nations Union in so far as they are prepared to support genuine military action to resist tyranny or aggression.’24

Roy Jenkins’ strongly admiring biography of Churchill includes discussion of the “the Focus Group” and its activities in some detail.25 The Focus is also described by Gerard de Groot as a “secret organisation” among frequent mentions in Liberal Crusader, his biography of the Focus co-founder and old friend of Winston Churchill, Sir Archibald Sinclair.26

Churchill And Sinclair
Archibald Sinclair and Winston Churchill

Financing Churchill personally

Having covered the evidence for direct Zionist and/or Jewish support for Churchill’s political activities, we should mention No More Champagne by David Lough, a book which, though approving of Churchill, is frank about his financial ineptitude. Evans’ remarks about the Churchills’ ancestral wealth failed to account for Winston’s tendency to overspend, gamble in casinos and speculate in shares. Lough shows Sir Henry Strakosch to be both an outstandingly generous funder of Churchill personally between 1938 and Strakosch’s death in 1943 and a supplier of intelligence to Churchill. His interest in financing Churchill appears to have been to keep Churchill in politics when he came close to retiring because Churchill was the best available champion of an anti-Hitler policy.27

Lough also refers to “the American arm of [the] Focus”, a network of Jewish activists centred on Jacob Landau, founder of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They intended to pay Churchill to visit the USA to “launch a parallel American Focus group” with speeches in major cities. The kernel was assembled; Churchill would reach out to recruit gentiles. Churchill had to cancel the trip but remained a correspondent of Landau, as he was of Felix Frankfurter and Bernard Baruch, both Zionists, Jewish activists and close advisers to Franklin Roosevelt. Eugen Spier describes Henry Wickham Steed taking a similar trip to the USA to co-ordinate with the Focus’ collaborators there in 1938.28

When Churchill became Prime Minister, British Security Co-ordination was established to support pro-war forces in the USA and vilify their opponents. In How the Jews Defeated Hitler, Benjamin Ginsberg describes Jews’ crucial roles in the American equivalent of the Focus. Quoting myself,

Ginsberg attributes the weakening and discrediting of American nationalists and anti-communists to “the relentless media and public information campaign” conducted by the Fight for Freedom Committee (FFF), the Century Group, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and others. Ginsberg refers to the first two as a union of “Jews and members of the Eastern establishment”; both included the financier James Warburg, the founder and owner of Viking Press, Harold Guinzburg, the intelligence agent Allen Dulles and several Hollywood film producers including two of the Warner brothers. Allen Dulles was a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an overtly elitist policy group also composed of Jews and Eastern establishment figures, which was created to lobby for global governance and the largest business interests under the name of ‘internationalism’. Ginsberg says that the FFF “worked closely with British intelligence services” under the name of British Security Co-ordination (BSC) which “found in the FFF a useful ally to help them discredit America First.” The BSC supplied “newspaper editors associated with the FFF” with material to justify denunciations of American patriots as traitors and Nazi agents. Ginsberg adds that “BSC also coordinated efforts with the FFF to disrupt America First rallies”, in which they were joined by Jewish gangsters and hired thugs under the leadership of Meyer Lansky. Lansky’s involvement came at the request of Nathan Perlman of the American Jewish Congress. Soviet intelligence also benefited. The Representative from New York, Samuel Dickstein, a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire, campaigned for, and then co-led, what became the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which “worked to harass and intimidate Bundists and other pro-German groups.” The NKVD paid him monthly.

America’s two biggest broadcast networks, the Columbia Broadcasting Service (CBS) and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), “embodied the pro-British, anti-German alliance between America’s Jews and establishment Protestants.” CBS was owned by William Paley, a son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, and NBC was owned by the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), whose president was David Sarnoff, a Jewish immigrant from Minsk. Ginsberg adds that “their most important news broadcasters and journalists were such establishment figures as Edward R. Murrow and William Shirer.” Murrow was a protege of the arch-internationalist and director of the CFR, Stephen Duggan, and had already campaigned since 1933 for the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars which worked to import Jewish subversives and communists into the US from Germany. The New School for Social Research in New York was a base for many of the arrivals including the members of the Institute for Social Research, the so-called Frankfurt School.”29

Ben_Ginsberg.JPG
Benjamin Ginsberg

The ‘American Focus’ thus not only complemented the work of and collaborated with the British branch but, like the British branch according to Spier, also appears to have germinated in part from activism for Jewish refugees (or ‘displaced scholars’).

Lifelong support for Jews and Zionism

David Irving’s statement that Churchill was “bought” in 1936 might be misleading if one doesn’t know (as Irving presumably does) that Churchill’s support for Jews and Zionism was already decades old before he met Spier, Mond, Cohen or Strakosch.30 His intermittent reliance, since early adulthood at the latest, on wealthy Jews like Ernest Cassel (also a lavish benefactor of King Edward VII and his widow), is well-documented by Richard Davenport-Hines among others.31 Also at least thirty years old was Churchill’s support for Jewish immigration into Britain, in pursuit of which he even harmed his own political career.32

Churchill’s equally ardent support for Zionism also dated to the early years of his career. I have thus far discussed the Focus in particular, but another ‘Zionist lobby’ bore upon Churchill (and British politics in general) to largely the same effect, and partly in the same personnel. Zionists led by Chaim Weizmann, who lobbied for and facilitated Jewish immigration into Palestine, sought, like the Focus, to have the government adopt policies that promoted Jewish interests. Churchill had, since earlier in the 1930s, joined other politicians in working to support and collaborate with Weizmann’s group. As Martin Gilbert describes,

On 8 June 1937, Weizmann presented his reasoning [in regard to the prospect of partitioning Palestine between Jews and Arabs] at a private dinner given by Sir Archibald Sinclair at which Churchill was present, as well as James de Rothschild and several parliamentary supporters of Zionism: Leo Amery, Clement Attlee, Colonel Josiah Wedgwood and Captain Victor Cazalet. ‘You know, you are our masters,’ Churchill told Weizmann, and he added, pointing to those present, ‘If you ask us to fight, we shall fight like tigers.’33

Martin Gilbert

Apart from the commonality of membership between this group and the Focus (Churchill, Attlee, Sinclair and Rothschild), note that the leader of the Liberals, the leader of Labour and its next prime minister, and the next Tory leader and prime minister were all militantly servile toward the Zionist cause. Once Chamberlain was cleared away, Zionists would have near-total control of British politics, at least at the level of party leadership.

Churchill’s contribution

I have been concerned here with the historicity of the Focus. I have discussed it in detail and in context in my earlier essays.
Champions of Judea

Champions of Judea

Horus
·
April 25, 2024
Read full story

Churchill himself contributed nothing to this history, simply avoiding all mention of it in his tomes, consistent with his letter to Spier asking for secrecy unto death. Evidently he saw the Focus as a conspiracy from the start, one aiming to frighten the public, which Spier credits it with doing, and “turn out the Chamberlain government”, institute a “Jewish foreign policy”, ally with the Soviet Union and “bring down Germany on its knees” regardless of the cost. I have shown, with reference only to undisputed sources, that the Focus was a Jewish and Zionist lobby (in addition to Weizmann’s group) which assisted Churchill in becoming prime minister, seeing him as an instrument (‘the spear of God’) for Jewish interests, operated in secret and worked successfully to install Jewish interests as the main concern of the British government and state.

Doing the work

Anti-fascist historians may well believe that all this was to the good, but that is a different argument. Professor Evans dismissed the idea of Jewish or Zionist lobbying or backing for Churchill as a conspiracy theory, yet there are abundant, and mostly laudatory, accounts attesting to it. If you insist on denying all this, Professor Evans, tackle the evidence head-on, as you counselled. Tackle Martin Gilbert and Robert Henriques. Do the work.

Horus’s Substack

1 Focus – a Footnote to the History of the Thirties, Eugen Spier, 1963, p13

2 Spier, p19

3 Spier, p19-20

4 Spier, p22-23

5 Spier, p108

6 Spier, p141

7  Spier, p141

8 Spier, p143, 147

9 About Revesz and the Kuczynskis, see my essay Champions of Judea. About Lorant, see A Conflict of Philosophies. Martin Gilbert describes Focus co-founder and lead journalist Henry Wickham Steed writing in Lorant’s Picture Post Churchill promotional issue in 1939, which Gilbert credits with helping force Chamberlain to bring Churchill, portrayed as a saviour in exile, into government. Gilbert refers to the Focus as the Anti-Nazi League. See Churchill and the Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p156

10 Spier, p31

11 Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p361-4

12 “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe”: Samuel Untermyer and the Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1938, Richard Hawkins, American Jewish History, Volume 93, Number 1, March 2007, p46

13 British Jewry and the Attempted Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1939, Zbyněk Vydra, Theatrum historiae 21 (2017), p206

14 Hawkins, p31

15 Vydra, p212

16 Anglo-Jewish Responses to Nazi Germany 1933-39: The Anti-Nazi Boycott and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Sharon Gewirtz, Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 26, Number 2, April 1991, p267

17 “Some lesser known aspects” – The Anti-Fascist Campaign of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1936-40, Daniel Tilles, p138-140 and p151

18 Twilight of Truth: Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press, Richard Cockett, 1989, p24

19 Lord Lloyd and the decline of the British Empire, John Charmley, 1987, p208, 211. About the British Council’s budget, see Cultural Diplomacy and the British Council: 1934-1939, Philip Taylor, British Journal of International Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, October 1978, p244-265

20 Churchill and the Jews, Michael Cohen, 2003, afterword to the second edition

21 Churchill: a Life, Martin Gilbert, 1992, p554, p584, p596

22 Winston S. Churchill – The Prophet of Truth, Martin Gilbert, 1976, chapters 36-50

23 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, p xvii, chapter 12

24 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, p135-6

25 Churchill, Roy Jenkins, 2001, chapters 26-28

26 Liberal Crusader, Gerard De Groot, 1993, chapters 5 and 6. One of the chapter titles, Arms and the Covenant, was a name used by the Focus similarly to ‘Peace and Freedom’.

27 No More Champagne – Churchill and his Money, David Lough, 2015, chapters 18, 20 and 21

28 Spier, p124-5 and p129. He refers to Bernard Baruch as “the most influential Jew in America”.

29 From my essay A Conflict of Philosophies. British Security Coordination was established in the early days of Winston Churchill’s government and received the expressed approval of J Edgar Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. See British Security Coordination, William Stephenson (editor), 1999, xxv

30 Clip from David Irving speech

31 See my essay Resplendent Cosmopolitanism

32 See my essay Beaconsfield Revisited

33 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 11

THE FAKE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL GENOCIDE

/9 Comments/in /by

Time to Abolish the White Race

Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.
Lysander Spooner

Did you know that the children of the nomadic Siberian Nenet tribe are sent to boarding school for nine months of the year to learn the basics of civilization? Many of them don’t tolerate it and literally freeze to death trying to return to the tundra to rejoin their tribe. It’s hard to change worlds, to go from freedom to confinement from one day to the next. We sure know something about that, don’t we?

Does this mean they are coerced? Of course not. It’s not the evil civilized “superior” White people forcing them. Like all responsible parents, Nenet parents who want the best for their children, know very well that their kids need to learn how to live in the modern world.

After their education which lasts several years, most of these kids, in fact, do not want to return to the tundra. The most gifted become lawyers, doctors, or researchers, the others find a job of some kind and integrate themselves into the society that raised them. Nobody forces them. They themselves choose where they want to live and how. And that’s a good thing.

Russians have great respect for the hundreds of ethnic groups that have lived on their territory since time immemorial. Contrary to woke liberals such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau who are constantly trying to inflame minorities against their own race, they want things to go well and everyone to be happy.

And so did the missionaries who taught the Amerindians in residential schools. By vocation, they were also sincerely concerned about their students who just like the Nenets were to be civilized for their own good. The same goes for Canadian aboriginal parents, who were as concerned about their children’s welfare as the Nenets and the missionaries. None of these children were forced at gunpoint to do so like all main stream media claimed. [1] To pretend otherwise is a form of racism.

Since their families lived in the wilderness, sometimes far from the boarding schools, some of those students could not be sent back to their families on weekends as they would today. There were no roads or buses. In order to adapt them as well as possible, it made more sense to keep these children in boarding schools for several months. That being said 2/3 of the kids who attended residential schools were day students that went home every day to those parents who lived on the reserve at a walking distance from the schools. Moreover, half of all Amerindian children never went to school.[2]

Yet, in spite of this long period far from their parents, a majority of students such as the prominent Aboriginal playwright Tomson Highway and the late band chief Cece Hodgson-McCauley greatly enjoyed their time at their schools. “Nine of the happiest years of my life were spent at that school… some people have been bad-mouthing residential schools for money,” the chief told The Huffington Post and CBC.[3]

Fortunately, the thesis of systematic, large-scale abuse and mistreatment has finally fallen by the wayside.[4] The mass grave of 215 bodies allegedly discovered near a residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia, with laser imaging and telemetry techniques, is just one more lie to be added to the false reality that the controlled globalist media such as the New York Times is constantly imposing on us by repetition.[5] “Only soil anomalies — not ‘remains, bodies, or graves’ — had been detected by the inexperienced radar operator” writes journalist Brian Giesbrecht. “Only excavation can conclusively prove that graves exist. However, the Tk’emlups Indian band that made the claim refused to excavate and to release the radar operator’s report.”[6]

In fact, “after two years of horror stories about alleged mass graves of aboriginal children in Canada’s residential schools,” writes journalist Dana Kennedy, “a series of recent digs at suspected sites have revealed no human remains.”[7] Jacques Rouillard, professor emeritus in the history department at the Université de Montréal, told the New York Post: “I don’t like to use the word hoax because it’s too strong, but there are too many falsehoods circulating on this issue without any proof.”[8]

Graves where children who died of natural causes were indeed found around residential schools, but there was no Native American genocide. At the time of the alleged mass graves, the infant mortality rate was close to 40%. Some boarding schools were overcrowded and hygiene was sometimes poor. As Amerindians were less resistant to disease than Europeans, many succumbed to malnutrition, tuberculosis, typhus, influenza (Spanish Flew) and several other infectious diseases. There were no antibiotics to treat them. As some of the parents lived far away in the woods, there was no easy way to warn them, and the bodies had to be properly buried to avoid epidemics. Things eventually improved once the nutrition and living conditions of the Aboriginals changed for the better thanks to the care of the missionaries, the government, and the indigenous staff who worked in these residential schools.

There may have been isolated cases of mistreatment, as is the case in all institutions of this kind, but there is no trace of forcible transfer of a population, persecution against an identifiable group, enforced disappearance of persons, apartheid, and general inhumane acts of cruelty, torture, hangings, medical experimentation, or systematic rape and sexual slavery.[9] In the end, there was no reason to burn churches all across Canada, as some Aboriginals and the social justice left have done in revenge.

This is not only a story about indigenous people telling lies to obtain reparations and social benefits, but a story about people of all denominations losing their minds because of a false consensus effect.[10] A prominent group of lawyers, who called for an International Criminal Court investigation of anyone involved in Residential Schools, the Vatican, incompetent government officials, the social justice left, politized RCMP, subsidized government media, “missionary” scholars who use their research to serve a cause, and the public always ready to believe the first wolf disguised as sheep readily jumped on the bandwagon of lies in a frenzy tantamount to hysteria as if they had been prepared or groomed beforehand by decades of anti-Christian and anti-White propaganda.

Anti-Catholic and Anti-White Propaganda

It is very much Hollywood that prepared the ground for what happened in Canada. In films on television and in the movies, Christians, especially Catholics, are most often portrayed as bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant, even as rapists or murderers. As for the Catholic clergy, they are most often portrayed as a bunch of sadists and pedophiles.[11]

Whites by association are also systematically targeted. As a matter of fact, anti-White propaganda has been a fixture of Hollywood movies as far back as the early 50’s. As noted by Frank L. Brittons in his 1952 booklet Behind communism, “Hollywood has now committed itself to producing at least four race pictures annually. Most of these pictures are destined beforehand to lose money, and are made purely for propaganda purposes. Some are so inflammatory they cannot be shown in certain sections of the United States. […] While minorities are systematically taught to think and act in terms of race, Whites are instilled with a sense of guilt for the ‘wrongs’ committed against minorities; they are taught that race consciousness is wrong and a manifestation of bigotry, and that all races being equal, they should discard the concept of race.”[12]

This massive ongoing propaganda machine has only one goal in mind: to sully Christians, demonize the White race and turn against it not only the minority groups, but also the majority White population and its leaders, who by dint of being told in schools and on theater, TV, and computer screens, almost 24/7, that their race is rotten, hate it more than the minorities themselves.[13]

As Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review says, “Even many of those who readily acknowledge the tremendous influence of American film and television seem not to fully comprehend the formidable scope of the power behind Hollywood, or the outlook and agenda of those who wield that power…”[14]

The Myth of the Noble Savage

You’ve probably seen the film, Dances with Wolves, with the handsome Kevin Costner, but did you know it’s pure fiction? Before their evangelization and education in boarding schools by missionaries, Native Americans were not noble, good, kind, or innocent as portrayed in the movie. The idea of the peaceful and noble savage is pure bunk.[15] They were savages of unprecedented cruelty[16]; primitives who practiced cannibalism, polygamy, and slavery; warriors who spent their time fighting over territory.[17] They knew nothing of writing, agriculture, the wheel, the sail, or the pulley – inventions that were centuries old. The term “First Nations’ is a misnomer as they had no idea of what a nation is. There was no unity between these tribes. Only conflict and abject cruelty. Hollywood glorifies them only to smear Christians and Whites.

According to prolific New Zealand author journalist Kerry Bolton, there are two fundamental objectives to this propaganda: 1. Disparage European colonial empires with a concomitant idealization of ex-colonial people, and 2. Glorify the national liberation struggles of indigenous people. This emotion-laden propaganda is given the scholarly name of post-modernism. As Kerry Bolton says, these ideological studies are “a broad front for the theoretical deconstruction of Western Civilization, and is part and parcel of a neo-Marxian movement in academia which includes gender studies […] These studies are intended to serve political agendas rather than the ‘truth’ per se.” [18] According to Bolton,

The tendency is for the European peoples, or rather governments in their name, to forever apologize for the alleged wrongdoings of the colonial era. This universal guilt complex is transposed to the present so that reparations can be demanded in perpetuity on the basis of collective hereditary guilt. Hence European peoples will be forever judged guilty for the alleged crimes of their colonial oppressor forebearers.[19]

In other words, claims of mass deaths, unmarked graves, and “disappearances” in Residential Schools are exaggerated or fabricated for political gain, financial compensation, or to advance the anti-colonial agendas that are used to guilt-trip Whites. Indigenous lawyer Kimberley Murray is often targeted in this discourse as a key figure “pushing” these claims due to her Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report (TRC) and Interlocutor roles.[20]

Grave Error

The former Globalist Pope Francis, after a visit to Canada in July 2022, apologized for what happened at Roman Catholic and other Christian Church mission schools. He did not use the word “genocide” but he did say it was a “Holocaust,”[21] although there is absolutely no proof of such a thing as shown conclusively by editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan in their landmark book Grave Error forwarded by Conrad Black. [22] Was the Pope duped by the fake narratives promoted by subsidized media and the TRC report on the alleged Residential School genocide is an open question? This report is everything but a truthful document. It is filled with totally false assertions and gross exaggerations such as:

  • –Thousands of missing children went away to residential schools and were never heard of again.
  • –These missing children are buried in unmarked graves underneath or around mission churches and schools.
  • –Many of these missing children were murdered by school personnel after being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, even outright torture.
  • –The carnage is appropriately defined as genocide.
  • –Many human remains have already been located by ground-penetrating radar, and many more will be found as government-funded research progresses.
  • –Most Indian children attended residential schools.
  • –Those who attended residential schools did not go voluntarily but were compelled to attend by federal policy and enforcement.
  • –Attendance at residential school has traumatized Indigenous people, creating social pathologies that descend across generations.
  • –Residential schools destroyed Indigenous languages and culture.[23]

“It is striking that every single one of the 94 recommendations […] of the TRC is a demand for the federal government, or occasionally, some other organization such as the Catholic Church, to provide some benefits to First Nations,” note C.P. Chapman and Tom Flanagan, the editors of the above-mentioned book, Grave Error.[24]

No solutions are suggested for the many social pathologies such as violence against women, heavy consumption of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol and lack of family support for education, which affect First Nations. Instead of looking for biological causes to these problems such as the average low IQ of the population, the only factor responsible cannot possibly be anything other than the harm done by the Residential schools, what the TRC calls “cultural genocide.”

The Criminalization of Denial

Leah Gazan, the NDP Member of the Canadian Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, has been a leading figure in the recognition of the Canadian Indian Residential School system as an act of genocide. She has both Jewish and Indigenous ancestry; her advocacy for social justice is informed by the fact that her father was a holocaust survivor and her mother is a member of the Wood Mountain Lakota Nation. Mrs. Gazan has introduced legislation into the House of Commons to criminalize denial of the residential school genocide. Here is a quote from one of her interventions made in the House of Commons on October 31, 2025, during the reintroduction (first reading) of her private member’s bill aimed at amending the Criminal Code to address residential school denialism as a form of promoting hatred against Indigenous peoples:

Today, I will be reintroducing my bill to recognize Residential School denialism as a form of inciting hate. You know, it’s been over a decade since the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Report, and since that time we have seen since the discovery of unmarked graves an increase in denialism about what occurred in the Residential Schools. This is horrific particularly because all members of parliament unanimously supported my motion in 2022 to recognize what has happened in residential schools as an act of genocide, the first genocide that was recognized within Canadian borders at a time, where we are looking once again at building a nation on the backs of indigenous peoples around our lands, territories, and resources in the name of national interests in violation of constitutionally enshrined indigenous rights. If this government is serious about reconciling with indigenous people, it must ensure the protection of survivors. It was the story of survivors and our family that put us on a path towards reconciliation. So, I’m calling on the government to do the right thing. To take on this bill, to support this bill and truly honor the gift that residential school survivors provided to Canada.

The accusation of denialism is a powerful rhetorical weapon because of its association with the Holocaust. As C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan state in their sequel book to Grave Error, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, “Labelling a certain position on residential schools brings in the powerful emotions associated with anti-Semitism and the Holocaust without having to make a logical and factual case.”[25] In fact, this reflexive mantra is used to stamp out criticism of any argument that contradicts the gimmicks that are used to scare us such as the fake climate urgency and the planned Covid pandemic or to make us feel guilty such as slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, etc.

Critical Theory

As a result of these lies, Canada has officially recognized that genocide did take place. This admission of guilt based on thin air is in effect another giant step on the way to demonizing and abolishing the White race and the nations and civilization it created. “Everything today,” writes James Pew, one of the authors of Grave Error, “is viewed through the cynical lens of radical critical theory. […] It asserts that the relatively peaceful and pluralistic first-world societies of the West are actually oppressive regimes upholding the white patriarchal power structure left over from colonialism, and serving the interests of public enemy number one: White men.”[26]

The Poison of Postmodernism

It is postmodernists like the Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida and the homosexual child rapist Michel Foucault[27] who invented the idea, roundly denounced as an intellectual imposture by the physicists Alain Sokal and Jean Bricmont[28] that reality does not exist. Their philosophy is quite simple: it is enough to believe something for it to be true. Everything is subject to interpretation, everything is relative.[29], [30]

In their world, you can be whoever you want, a male, a female, half-and-half, whatever suits your fancy. Everyone has the same abilities. Equality in everything is the rule. So, women and men are interchangeable in all areas, including pregnancy. There is no such thing as race and all cultures are equal. For these deniers of reality, behaviours and abilities have no genetic basis.[31] It is so simply because you decide that it is so; so, there is no need to prove anything with objective arguments, objectivity does not exist anyway.[32]

And if it doesn’t fit with reality, they manage to make it fit by lowering the selection criteria, by favouring through positive discrimination (affirmative action) the less qualified over the more qualified. In this tyranny of “your opinion is as good as mine,” men who are women by choice become female weightlifting champions, a plant nutrient such as CO2 becomes a poison, soil anomalies become mass graves, the discovery of a potentially unmarked burial site becomes the discovery of an unmarked burial site containing 215 children secretly killed by priests who forced six-year-olds to dig the graves.

All you have to do is want it, et voilà, with a wave of a magic wand your wildest desires become a reality that no one can contest on pain of reprisals, as this kind of policy can only work at gunpoint. This is behaviour by culture vs. behaviour by nature, our real vocation enshrined in our DNA. That’s why all leftist utopias finish in bloodshed, they’re in conflict with human nature.

In short, as Pope Benedict XVI says: “Relativism appears to be the only admissible attitude in our present age, a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and that gives as its ultimate measure only its own ego and its desires.”[33] In this reign of subtle, perverse terror veiled by good intentions and noble sentiments, the very concepts of facts and knowledge are denounced as hate speech and racism. Truth no longer has any meaning. Minority opinion takes precedence over that of the majority. Freedom of expression is stifled. Democracy is nothing more than an empty word. Threats of dismissal, vandalism, intimidation, banking exclusion, and personal attacks are the rules of engagement in this war of subjectivity against common sense, logic, and objectivity.

The scourge of relativism, in other words, boils down to an excessive, dogmatic, or performative ideology that prioritizes identity politics, victimhood hierarchies, cancel culture, and enforced conformity over merit, free speech, and individual responsibility; it divides society into oppressors and oppressed based on group identities and leads to intolerance or reverse discrimination particularly towards Christians and White people, who are seen as the most important obstacles to progress that must be erased from the surface of the Earth.

Global Utopia

Don’t be fooled, though, progress has nothing to do with it. The decolonizing social justice left and the government puppets that are involved in this destruction of Christianity and the White race are the useful idiots of international capitalism that is leading the world down a path to planetary servitude.

The ultimate goal of the banker-merchants who call the shots in the background is to create a worldwide collectivist society of consumers easy to manipulate and control;[34] a society where the notion of belonging to a country will be obsolete; a society where no one will have any identity, other than that of consumer. This future is described as a “global utopia” for the ruling elite, a nightmare for the millions of rootless, acculturated post-national nomads.[35]

In this post-modern drama that’s unfolding in front of our very eyes, the “worker bees” will be able to move unhindered to wherever they are needed. Trade and all other transactions will be greatly facilitated by the elimination of all barriers, not only physical, but also psychological and social.

The fake residential school genocide is just one step in that direction.

[1] Editors C. P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, preface by Conrad Black, Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools), True North and Dorchester Books, 2023.

[2] Lifesitenews staff, “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools,” June 28, 2021.

[3] McRAE: Is the real truth not bad enough? Western Standard, December 15, 2022.

[4] C P Champion and Tom Flanagan, work cited.

[5] Gabrielle Fonrouge, Mass grave with 215 Indigenous kids found on former school grounds in Canada, New York Post, May 28, 2021.

[6] Brian Giesbrecht, ‘Lawyers Should Apologize for False Accusations,’ Editors C. P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, sequel to Grave Error,  Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North and Dorchester Books, 2025, p. 142.

[7] Dana Kennedy, “No Human Remains Found 2 Years After Claims of ‘Mass Graves’ in Canada,” New York Post, August 31, 2023.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jared Taylor, Kamloops: Greatest Hate Hoax Ever?  YouTube, January 29, 2022.

[10] AI GROK definition on X: The false consensus effect is a cognitive bias in psychology where people tend to overestimate the extent to which others share their own opinions, beliefs, behaviors, or preferences. In brief: We assume our views are more common than they actually are. This phenomenon was first systematically studied by Lee Ross and colleagues in 1977, and it’s supported by extensive research showing it’s a pervasive egocentric bias in social perception.

[11] Hervé Ryssen, Satan in Hollywood, The Barnes Review, also on the Internet Archive, 2016.

[12] Frank L. Britton, Behind Communism, River Crest Publishing, 2021 (first published in 1952), pp 116-118.

[13] Arthur Kempt, The War Against Whites. The Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West, Ostara Publications, 2020, p. 82.

[14] Mark Weber, Hollywood’s Agenda, and the Power Behind It, Institute for Historical Review, Feb. 6, 2013.

[15] Lawrence H. Keeley, War before Civilization, Oxford University Press, Nov. 1 1997.

[16] Adam Stueck, “A Place Under Heaven: Amerindian Torture and Cultural Violence in Colonial New France, 1609-1729″ (2012). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 174. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/174

[17] Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance. Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, Stackpole Books, 1996.

[18] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Parihaka Cult, Black House Publishing, 2012.

[19] Ibid, p. 19.

[20] Michelle Stirling, “Open letter,” Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025, pp 218 to 230.

[21] “Pope says genocide of Aboriginal children in Canadian mission schools,” epicnews, July 30, 2022.

[22] C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Grave Error.[22] How the Media Misled us (and the Truth about Residential schools), Forward by Conrad Black, True North, 2023; there is a sequel to this book, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025; see also a controversial documentary on the “worst lie in Canadian history,” Making a Killing: Reconciliation, Genocide, and Plunder in Canada, released December 2, 2025.

[23] C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Grave Error, p. 330.

[24] Ibid., p. 329.

[25] Editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025, chapter 7, p. 18.

[26] James Pew, “Canada’s descent into collective guilt,” Grave Error by Editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, p. 160.

[27] Matthew Campbell, “French Philosopher Michel Foucault ‘Abused Boys in Tunisia,’” The Sunday Times, March 28, 2021.

[28] Alain D. Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Impostures intellectuelles, Odile Jacob, 1997.

[29] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Ockam’s Razor Publishing, 2018.

[30] Noretta Koertge, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science, Oxford University Press, 1998.

[31] Robert Plomin, John Defries, Gerald Mcclearn, and Michael Rutter, Des gènes au comportement : Introduction à la génétique comportementale, Université de Boeck, 1999.

[32] David Ruse, Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Doggy Data, Regnery Publishing, 2017

[33] Greg Kandra, « Benoît XVI : “Le relativisme est un poison” », Aleteia, January 31, 2017.

[34] Kerry Bolton, PhD, Revolution from Above, Arktos, 2011; see also by the same author, The Banking Swindle. Money Creation and the State, Black House Publishing, 2017. French jurist Valérie Bugault, PhD has also written extensively on this subject, Demain l’aube… le renouveau, Sigest, 2023; lastly but not least: Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Humanity, Black House Publishing Ltd, 4th Edition, 2019.

[35] Gearóid Ó Colmáin, “Rothschild’s ‘Slaughter Ships.’ Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 4 of 11),” Dissident Voice, 2016. Cited by Scott Howard, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, p. 223.

The Isaac Accords: A New Diplomatic Front Opens in Latin America

/6 Comments/in /by

Argentine President Javier Milei stood before Jerusalem’s Museum of Tolerance in June 2025 as the first non-Jewish head of state to receive the Genesis Prize. Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Genesis Prize Foundation Chairman Stan Polovets presented the award, with Milei declaring to the assembled crowd his embrace of Jewish history as his own.

“I am not Jewish, but that does not stop me from feeling the history of the Jewish people as my own,” Milei said. “You will always find in me an ally of Israel, a country that stands on the right side of history. In this difficult moment, I embrace you fraternally and say with sincerity, Am Israel Chai!”

Milei donated the entire million dollar prize to establish the American Friends of Isaac Accords, a New York based non-profit designed to institutionalize a pro-Israel bloc throughout Latin America. The organization opened its doors in August and is on a mission to make Latin America safe for Israeli interests.

The initiative takes its name from Isaac, the biblical patriarch and son of Abraham, positioning the framework as a successor to the 2020 Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations such as Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. Where the Abraham Accords focused on the Middle East, the Isaac Accords are now targeting Latin America.

Argentina’s Ambassador to Israel, Rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish, articulated the vision in June following the Genesis Prize ceremony. “If the Gulf can have the Abraham Accords, why can’t Latin America have the Isaac Accords?” Wahnish asked.

The framework pursues concrete diplomatic milestones rather than symbolic gestures. The initiative encourages Latin American nations to relocate embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, designate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, reverse anti-Israel voting patterns at the United Nations, and establish security cooperation channels to combat Iranian influence in the region. Economic integration centers on Israeli technology transfers in agritech, water management and cyber defense, sectors where Latin American nations face acute capacity gaps.

The November 27 meeting between Milei and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar in Buenos Aires marked the formal diplomatic launch of the initiative. Sa’ar described Milei’s connection to Judaism and Israel as sincere, describing the president’s rise as a double miracle for Argentina and the Jewish people. Milei declared Argentina would serve as a key partner alongside the United States in promoting the framework, stating the free world must rise together against threats to liberty.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Milei’s vision as signals of a new era of shared values between Israel and Latin America. “Together, and in tandem with U.S. leadership under President Trump, we will elevate our relations to new heights,” Netanyahu said. “I invite all our friends across the continent, those who believe in freedom, security and prosperity, to join the Isaac Accords.”

The organizational architecture operates through the American Friends of Isaac Accords rather than traditional diplomatic channels. The non-profit structure allows the initiative to bypass government bureaucracy, directly funding pro-Israel organizations, arranging delegation trips, and facilitating partnerships between Israeli technology firms and Latin American markets. This is the hidden strength of the sprawling NGO–think tank networks that steer much of foreign policy from behind the scenes. This consortium of NGOs advances Zionist objectives regardless of who occupies office, answering only to itself and shrugging off any of the consequences.

For Israeli officials, the rollout of the Isaac Accords is a sigh of relief, given Latin America’s growing hostility toward Israel since October 7.  Multiple governments across the region, most notably Colombia in recent years, have downgraded ties with Israel or recalled ambassadors as public outrage over Israel’s genocide in Gaza has grown, while Israel has faced deeper isolation across parts of the Global South.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon was effusive about this recent initiative. “Given the hostility toward the Jewish state from some nations in the region, support of Israel by Latin American countries which are now on the sidelines is very important,” Danon said.

Genesis Prize Foundation Chairman Stan Polovets articulated the initiative’s ambitions at the June ceremony in Jerusalem. “We must end Israel’s isolation on the world stage,” Polovets said. “Together with President Milei, we will start in Latin America and help make his dream of Isaac Accords a reality. Milei’s support is not only symbolic. His Isaac Accords vision is a geopolitical strategy that can bring tangible results in Latin America.”

Polovets described the creation of AFOIA as inspired by Milei’s steadfast support of Israel during one of the most challenging periods in its history. “AFOIA is a vehicle to promote Milei’s bold vision and encourage other Latin American leaders to stand with Israel, confront antisemitism, and reject the ideologies of terror that threaten our shared values and freedoms,” Polovets said.

The initiative operates on a phased approach. Argentina, Costa Rica, Panama and Uruguay form the initial partnership group, with focus on immediate trade deals and security agreements. Phase Two targets Brazil, Chile, Colombia and El Salvador for expansion in 2026 and beyond, aiming to pull these nations back toward Israel despite recent diplomatic tensions.

Milei addressed the Argentine Congress at the 90th anniversary of DAIA, the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations, in November, framing Argentina’s stance as moral courage amid international abandonment. “While the vast majority of the free world decided to turn its back on the Jewish state, we extended a hand to it,” Milei said. “While the vast majority turned a deaf ear to the growth of antisemitism in their lands, we denounced it with even greater fervor, because evil cannot be met with indifference.”

During his June address to the Knesset, Milei pledged to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem in 2026 and outlined his administration’s position. “I said at the start of my term of office that I consider Israel and the United States as our two main strategic partners,” Milei told Israeli lawmakers. “We did not hesitate to declare Hamas as a terrorist organization. My brothers and sisters, Argentina stands by you in these difficult times.”

Milei framed Argentina’s alliance with Israel as a question of good vs. evil. “It is important to understand that we are in the midst of a battle between good and evil, and we started to lose this battle when we started to lose the distinction between the two,” Milei said. “The international community must reconnect urgently with its moral compass.”

Argentine Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno is scheduled to travel to Israel in February 2026 to finalize operational frameworks with Sa’ar and Netanyahu. Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar described 2026 as the year of Latin America for Israeli diplomatic efforts to rebuild ties across the region.

All things considered, Israel views Latin America as a strategically important region. With its bodyguard in the United States getting into confrontations with countries like Venezuela, Israel is taking advantage of these tensions to mend and expand relations with nations across Latin America.

As one of the key nodes of world Jewry, Israel sees not just the Middle East, but the rest of the world, as its sphere of influence. American Jewry is in strong agreement with this vision and is doing everything possible to make Latin America safe for Jewish supremacy. The United States’ $20 billion bailout to Argentina—the region’s launchpad for philosemitism—and its enthusiastic support for Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado—the Likud party’s favorite shabbos goyess—demonstrates the lengths the United States will go to promote governments and political actors amenable to Jewish interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The Isaac Accords will be the next front in this concerted effort to subdue and Zionize Latin America. Thus unfolds the meticulously orchestrated campaign to bring an entire continent to heel. Will the peoples of Latin America rise to crush the head of this Hebraic serpent before its suffocating coils forever strangle their sovereignty, or are they destined to be its final, gasping prize?

The continent now stands at a precipice, its destiny hanging on a single, stark choice: to wield the sword against the serpent’s head or to be slowly asphyxiated by its ever-tightening grip.

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

/42 Comments/in , /by

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

Is it “anti-Semitic” to say there is war on Christmas?

/77 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on December 26, 2019.

Dan Rosenberg, writing in the Canadian Jewish News, claims that it’s “anti-Semitic” to say that there’s a war on Christmas. He also says that “terms such as ‘New York lawyers (and bankers),’ and ‘Hollywood culture’ refer to Jews. When people speak of the ‘secularists’ and ‘internationalists’ who are behind conspiracies like the War on Christmas, they are also referring to Jews.” And I suppose any mentions of globalists, George Soros’s influence, or the Israel Lobby are similarly off limits. In fact, for the likes of Rosenberg (and pretty much every Jew with a high position in the media), any mention that Jews are an elite or have any influence at all (or at least not any influence that is not utterly benign and good for everyone) is horrifying and utterly irrational.

Activists like Rosenberg are not limited by having to deal with actual data and facts. It’s simple. They can claim anything they want because any assertion that Jews have anything to do with changing Christian culture of America is automatically labeled as evil.

So what evidence does Rosenberg come up with?

The idea of the War on Christmas started with one of the founding fathers of American anti-Semitism: automaker Henry Ford. Back in the 1920s, he published a newsweekly called the International Jew. It frequently featured blatantly bigoted accusations such as, “Last Christmas, most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated someone’s birth.… People sometimes ask why three million Jews can control the affairs of 100 million Americans. In the same way that 10 Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.”

In modern times, Fox News has been airing segments such as Bill O’Reilly’s 2016 “Naughty or Nice” list, which praised businesses that use “Merry Christmas” and condemned others that say “Happy Holidays.”

That’s it. No heavy lifting required. Of course, it ignores Eli Plaut’s academic book A Kosher Christmas which proudly claims, in the words of a reviewer:

Jews have been the vanguard of an effort to “transform Christmastime into a holiday season belonging to all Americans,” without religious exclusivity.  The most important Jewish mechanisms of secularization are comedy and parody, for laughter undermines religious awe.  Take, for example, Hanukkah Harry from “Saturday Night Live”, who heroically steps in for a bedridden Santa by delivering presents from a cart pulled by donkeys named Moishe, Hershel, and Shlomo.  Remarkably, Hanukkah Harry has emerged as a real Santa-alternative for many American Jews.  Plaut sees such things not as attempts at assimilation but as an intentional subversion of Christmas traditions.  “Through these parodies,” he writes, “Jews could envision not having to be captivated by the allure of ubiquitous Christmas symbols.”  And it isn’t just Jews: for Americans in general, Jewish parody helps ensure that Christmas “not be taken too seriously” and that the celebrations of other traditions “be accorded equal respect and opportunity.”

As I note in my comment, “there seem to be two messages here. One is the message of subversion utilizing ridicule among other methods. The other is that Jews are seen as high-mindedly making Christmas  ‘into a holiday season belonging to all Americans.’ The end result is that Christmas is not ‘taken too seriously’ and the Christian religious aspect central to the traditional holiday is de-emphasized.”

So is it “blatantly bigoted” to make claims such as that Jews have been instrumental in getting Christianity removed from the public square? Of course not. In Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique I noted: “One aspect of the Jewish interest in cultural pluralism in the United States has been that Jews have a perceived interest that the United States not be a homogeneous Christian culture. As Ivers (1995, 2) notes,

Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role in the postwar development of American church-state law and policy.” In this case the main Jewish effort began only after World War II, although Jews opposed linkages between the state and the Protestant religion much earlier. … The Jewish effort in this case was well funded and was the focus of well-organized, highly dedicated Jewish civil service organizations, including the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL. It involved keen legal expertise both in the actual litigation but also in influencing legal opinion via articles in law journals and other forums of intellectual debate, including the popular media. It also involved a highly charismatic and effective leadership, particularly Leo Pfeffer of the AJCongress.

But, since Rosenberg focuses on Henry Ford, let’s take a look at what Ford’s The International Jew (TIJ)had to say (see my review). This was around 1920, well before the post-World War II era when Jewish influence crescendoed. The International Jew had a lot to say about Jewish efforts to eradicate the idea that America ought to be a Christian culture. Rosenberg writes that any mention of “Hollywood culture” is an unacceptable reference to Jews. Ford’s writers were well aware of this:

TIJ notes that to advocate censorship is construed as anti-Semitism: “Reader, beware! if you so much as resent the filth of the mass of the movies, you will fall under the judgment of anti-Semitism” (2/12/1921).

But, after noting that “90% of the production is in the hands of a few large companies, 85% of which “are in the hands of Jews” (2/12/1921), there was enough resentment about the movies that in fact attempts to control Hollywood were created shortly thereafter:

TIJ is careful to note that its concerns with the moral messages in movies are not idiosyncratic but part of a larger kulturkampf between the movie industry and large segments of the American public: “In almost every state there are movie censorship bills pending, with the old ‘wet’ and gambling elements against them, and the awakened part of the decent population in favor of them; always, the Jewish producing firms constituting the silent pressure behind the opposition” (2/12/1921). Indeed, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency (Gabler 1988). TIJ’s reservations about the moral content of movies was indeed widely shared among the American public.

The effectiveness of these organizations in influencing the content of Hollywood culture lasted until the 1960s’ counter-cultural revolution, a social transformation, that as argued in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique, was the product of a new Jewish-dominated elite that remains dominant today. Moreover, “the assertions of TIJ are congruent with recent studies indicating that Jews remain in control of the movie industry and that the movies often portray Christians and Christianity negatively and Jews and Judaism positively (e.g., Medved, 1992/1993; MacDonald, 2002a).” For recent examples, see Edmund Connelly’s updated War on Christmas series.

As also noted in the quote above from The Culture of Critique, TIJ was also well aware of Jewish influence in removing Christianity from the public square:

Besides the cultural influences described above, TIJ devotes a great deal of attention to the Jewish political campaigns against public expressions of Christianity and for official recognition of the Jewish religion (e.g., recognizing Jewish holidays). “The St. Louis Charity Fair in 1908 planned to remain open on Friday evening; a great outcry; did the managers of that fair mean to insult the Jews; didn’t they know that the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday night?” (6/04/1921). TIJ presents a history of Jewish activism against public expressions of Christianity based on Kehillah records [see TIJ‘s account of the Kehillah], beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights and culminating in 1919–1920: “In this year the Kehillah was so successful in its New York campaign that it was possible for a Jewish advertiser in New York to say that he wanted Jewish help, but it was not possible for a non-Jewish advertiser to state his non-Jewish preference. This is a sidelight both on Jewish reasonableness and Jewish power” (3/12/1920). “The Jews’ interference with the religion of the others, and the Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the United States is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today” (3/21/1920).

Indeed, the focus of Jewish activism was that the United States was not a Christian civilization but an “unshapen mass of potentiality”:

Based on pronouncements of Jewish organizations and intellectuals, TIJ makes the important point that Jews promote “one of the dangerous doctrines being preached today” that “the United States is not any definite thing as yet, but that it is yet to be made, and it is still the prey of whatever power can seize it and mold it to its liking. It is a favorite Jewish view that the United States is a great unshapen mass of potentiality, of no particular character which is yet to be given its definite form. . . . We are not making Americans; we are permitting foreigners to be educated in the theory that America is a free-for-all, the prize of whatever fantastic foreign political theory may seize it” (3/05/1921). This comment on Jewish attitudes fits well with a great deal of evidence that Jews have consistently opposed the notion that the U.S. has any ethnic overtones or that it is a European or Christian civilization (see MacDonald, 1998/2002, Ch. 7). …

What strikes the reader of TIJ is its portrayal of Jewish intensity and aggressiveness in asserting its interests. Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic efforts to change that culture (see also MacDonald 1998b, 2002b). From the perspective of TIJ, the United States had imported around 3,500,000 mainly Yiddish speaking, intensely Jewish immigrants over the previous 40 years. In that very short period, Jews had had enormous effect on American society.

Fundamentally, TIJ was correct in all of its important assertions. I conclude:

Mainstream scholarship supports the following contentions of TIJ regarding Jewish influence on the U.S. as of the early 1920s:

  1. Jews had achieved a great deal of economic success, even to the point of dominating certain important U.S. industries.

  2. Jewish organizations had launched highly successful campaigns to remove references to Christianity from U.S. public culture and to legitimize Judaism as a religion on a par with Protestantism and Catholicism.

  3. Jewish organizations had been able to impose their ethnic interests on certain key areas of domestic policy. As TIJ noted, Jews were the main force behind maintaining the policy of unrestricted immigration; by 1920, unrestricted immigration policy had continued nearly 20 years after U.S. public opinion had turned against it (see MacDonald 1998b, Ch. 7). Jews had also shown the ability to have a great deal of influence in the executive branch of the U.S. government, as indicated by their influence in the Wilson administration.

  4. Jews had also been able to impose their ethnic interests in the area of foreign policy despite widespread feelings among the political establishment that the policies advocated by the Jewish community were often not in the best interests of the United States. The main examples highlighted by TIJ were the abrogation of the Russian trade agreement in 1911 and post-W.W.I policy toward Eastern Europe where Jewish attitudes were entirely dictated by their perceptions of the interests of foreign Jews rather than the economic or political interests of the U.S. Jews achieved their goals on these issues despite the views of the Taft Administration on the Russian Trade Agreement and the views of a wide range of military and diplomatic figures that the U.S. should support post-W.W.I Poland as a bulwark against Bolshevism and that Jewish complaints against Poland were exaggerated (see Bendersky 2000).

  5. Jews had been a major force behind the success of Bolshevism and its incredibly bloody reign of terror in the Soviet Union and in the abortive Communist revolutions in Hungary by Kun and Germany by Eisner.

  6. Jews were the main component and by far the most energetic component of the radical left in the United States, a movement that advocated a massive political, economic, and cultural transformation of the U.S.

  7. Jews had attained a substantial influence over the U.S. media via a virtual monopoly on the movie production business, domination of the theater and music businesses, their influence in journalism, ownership of some newspapers, and their ability to apply economic pressure on newspapers because of their importance as advertisers. In turn, the ability of Jews to pressure non-Jewish newspapers depended on Jewish ownership of department stores in major cities. Jews used this media influence to advance their domestic and foreign policy agendas, portray Jews and Judaism positively while portraying Christianity negatively, and promote a sexual morality at odds with the traditional culture of the United States.

In turn, these consequences stemmed from critical features of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy

But for an activist like Rosenberg, all that is necessary is to scream “bigoted,” “anti-Semitic,” and the vast majority of people, unaware of the history of Jewish activism, acquiesce. This is unsurprising because the history of Jewish activism and influence can’t even be discussed in polite circles much less be disseminated in the mainstream media or the educational system.

Or they are well aware of  the Jewish role in transforming the culture of the United States, but they also aware of the Jewish power to ruin their lives.

In short the present situation is an excellent marker of Jewish power in contemporary America. And yes, Christianity remains in their crosshairs.

Star Baby and Straw Blasphemy: The Complex Simplicity of the First Christian Story

/5 Comments/in /by

Varsk’vlavi. That’s a strange word from a strange language. At least, it’s a strange word if your mother-tongue is English and not Georgian, the mother-tongue of Joseph Stalin. As a boy, Stalin himself would have found the word right at the beginning of the New Testament in the Gospel of Matthew:

2:9 და აჰა, ვარსკვლავი, რომელიც მათ აღმოსავლეთში იხილეს, წინ უძღოდა მათ, ვიდრე მივიდოდა და დადგებოდა იმ ადგილზე, სადაც ყრმა იყო. 2:10 ვარსკვლავი რომ დაინახეს, მათ მეტისმეტი სიხარულით გაიხარეს.

2:9 da aha, varsk’vlavi, romelits mat aghmosavletsši ikhiles, ts’in udzghoda mat, vidre mividoda da dadgeboda im adgilze, sadats qrma iqo. 2:10 varsk’vlavi rom dainakhes, mat met’ismet’i sikharulit gaikhares.

2:9 And, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Yes, varsk’vlavi, ვარსკვლავი, means “star.” It’s a strange word for Anglophones because it’s so long and complex. Where English has one syllable and four letters, Georgian has three syllables and ten letters. But you could say that the word is appropriately complex in Georgian and appropriately simple in English. Stars are complex things after all, giant globes of glowing gas that evolve and explode and still challenge the best brains of the human race to explain and predict their behavior. But on the other hand, stars are simple things too, primal things, bright points of light to the naked eye. Stars are complex in physics and simple in stories, bearing messages that even the youngest children can grasp.

Fleeting but fertile

The Star of Bethlehem bore a simple but stupendous message: Here is the Son of God. Jesus was a star-baby, born humbly on Earth but heralded in the Heavens. His star brought Kings from the East, the Three Wise Men, the Magi whose fleeting appearance in a single Gospel has inspired millennia of Christian art, literature and legend. The star’s appearance is fleeting but fertile too. Only Matthew mentions it and only briefly, but Matthew’s is the first Gospel and the star is central to the first story he tells. Stalin must have read that story as a child, but Stalin would grow up to reject the star-baby of Jesus and follow the straw man of Marx.

The Star of Bethlehem (c. 1887) by Sir Edward Burne-Jones (image from Wikipedia)

Another able and intelligent atheist, the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke (1917–2008), rejected the star-baby too. He replaced it with what you might call a straw star. When I first read Clarke’s short-story “The Star” (1955) as a teenager, I thought it was a clever and cutting swipe at Christianity, a swingeing blow delivered on behalf of science against superstition. When I re-read it today, I see it for what it really is: not a successful swipe against Christian irrationality, but a stroking of atheist vanity. And a soothing of atheist fears. The fears were first those of Arthur C. Clarke himself. He obviously didn’t want Christianity to be true, which is why he created a straw star to swallow the joy-star of Matthew’s Gospel.

Stellar spoiler

What I describe next will be a spoiler for anyone who hasn’t read his story, but that will be appropriate enough in its way. After all, Clarke intended “The Star” to be a spoiler for Christianity. It’s about a Jesuit priest three thousand light-years from home. The priest is the first-person narrator of “The Star,” an astrophysicist of the far future who’s part of an interstellar mission to the Phoenix Nebula. The Nebula is the remnants of a supernova, the cataclysmic explosion of a once stable star. It turns out that the star had planets and that one of the planets had an alien civilization on it, advanced enough to predict the supernova but not advanced enough to flee its fury.

The Crab Nebula, remnant of a supernova (image from Wikipedia)

But before the aliens and their home-planet were vaporized by the supernova, they left a memorial of their existence in hope of just such a later mission as the astrophysicist priest is describing. As the priest himself puts it: “A civilization that knew it was about to die had made its last bid for immortality.” The aliens created a vault of records on their star-system’s equivalent of Pluto, a far-out planet that they knew would be the only one to survive the coming cataclysm. Like the other scientists and crew on his star-ship, the priest is deeply moved by what the vault reveals:

If only they had had a little more time! They could travel freely enough between the planets of their own sun, but they had not yet learned to cross the interstellar gulfs, and the nearest solar system was a hundred light-years away. Yet even had they possessed the secret of the Transfinite Drive, no more than a few millions could have been saved. Perhaps it was better thus.

Even if they had not been so disturbingly human as their sculpture shows, we could not have helped admiring them and grieving for their fate. They left thousands of visual records and the machines for projecting them, together with elaborate pictorial instructions from which it will not be difficult to learn their written language. We have examined many of these records, and brought to life for the first time in six thousand years the warmth and beauty of a civilization that in many ways must have been superior to our own. Perhaps they only showed us the best, and one can hardly blame them. But their words were very lovely, and their cities were built with a grace that matches anything of man’s. We have watched them at work and play, and listened to their musical speech sounding across the centuries. One scene is still before my eyes — a group of children on a beach of strange blue sand, playing in the waves as children play on Earth. Curious whiplike trees line the shore, and some very large animal is wading in the shadows yet attracting no attention at all.

And sinking into the sea, still warm and friendly and life-giving, is the sun that will soon turn traitor and obliterate all this innocent happiness. (“The Star,” 1955)

It’s important that the aliens were “disturbingly human” and that they enjoyed “innocent happiness,” because Clarke is setting up the punch-line of the story. The astrophysicist priest studies the rocks of the planet where the vault was delved and is able to calculate the date of the supernova “very exactly.” That’s how he learns when its light must have blazed in the skies of distant Earth and that’s why, as he narrates the story,  he’s grappling with a fierce and probably fatal crisis of faith. He now knows the answer to an age-old enigma and the identity of a hallowed entity. Here are the closing lines of his narrative:

There can be no reasonable doubt: the ancient mystery is solved at last. Yet, oh God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem? (“The Star”)

“How clever!” I thought when I read that as a teenager. “How cringe!” I think when I read it now. The supernova of the story is a straw star, a fiction created to fill the mind with a message of disdain for Christianity. And created to mark the mind too: after you read “The Star,” its fiction will cloud the fact of The Star that blazed over Bethlehem. It’s fact for traditionalist Christians, at least, and traditionalist Christians will rightly say that Clarke’s story is blasphemous. I’d say it’s blasphemy on behalf of boy-buggery. Like a disproportionate number of people in science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke was a pedophile and I think the “children … playing in the waves” aren’t there in his blasphemous story just to set up the punch-line. Clarke settled on the tropical island of Sri Lanka in 1956, the year after he published “The Star.” Leftist Wikipedia says that he moved there “to pursue his interest in scuba diving.” I think that the move was also — and more importantly — to pursue his interest in undressed children playing in warm water.

Far, far at sea

Male children, to be specific. But what does Christianity say about pederasty, the “boy-love” that was beloved of the pagan Greeks and philhellene Romans? Christianity says pederasty is wicked and sinful, which is not a message that the pederast Arthur C. Clarke wanted to hear. That’s why, I’d suggest, he created the straw star of his blasphemous story. It’s also why the story won a Hugo Award in 1956. That was one of highest honors in science fiction, because the story was liked by other atheists, other Christophobes and other pedophiles. I liked that star-story myself when I was a teenager, but I don’t like it any more. It’s clever but cheap, designed to fill and fool the mind, not to truly feed it. The star-story in Matthew is different. It does feed the mind. And the imagination. It fed a civilization too, the civilization of Christendom whose star-story was told in Georgian long before it was told in English.

And even longer before it was subverted in English by the pederast atheist Arthur C. Clarke. Nowadays I prefer a Christian star-poem to Clarke’s atheist star-story. It’s a poem that mixes the primality of stars with the primality of an earthly entity that Georgian calls zghwa, ზღვა. That’s an aptly swishing and grumbling monosyllable for what English calls “the sea.” And here is the star-poem, a hymn by a Scottish writer called Jane Cross Simpson (1811-86), who never achieved a fraction of Arthur C. Clarke’s fame and influence but said far more than he did in far fewer words:

Star of peace to wanderers weary,
Bright the beams that smile on me;
Cheer the pilot’s vision dreary,
Far, far at sea.
Star of hope! gleam on the billow;
Bless the soul that sighs for Thee;
Bless the sailor’s lonely pillow,
Far, far at sea.
Star of faith! when winds are mocking
All his toil, he flies to Thee;
Save him on the billows rocking,
Far, far at sea.
Star Divine, O safely guide him;
Bring the wanderer home to Thee;
Sore temptations long have tried him,
Far, far at sea.
“Star of Peace” at Youtube.Youtube.