• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Featured Articles

Review: Bombshell patriotic documentary makes waves

May 20, 2025/18 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by John MacDonald

Review in The Noticer: Bombshell patriotic documentary makes waves

Reposted here with permission

  • May 17, 2025
  • John MacDonald

Earlier this year a group of patriots peacefully marched in Adelaide singing Waltzing Matilda on Australia Day – only to be shut down and arrested by the police. On the same day, there was an anti-Australia, antiwhite rally being held with chants of “Death to Australia” deemed perfectly legal.

The march made national news but the media was very dishonest about what happened and framed the peaceful Australian nationalists as terrorists, while those who were openly enemies of this nation were protected and celebrated.

Now the nationalists involved have released a documentary that tells their side of the story and contains some bombshell new revelations.

Watch the full documentary here:

Historically, nationalist and alternative media has always been very hit and miss on a technical level. Whether that be live streams with bad audio, or roughly edited documentaries often crudely cobbled together from archival material. So, we really didn’t know what to expect with this one.

Immediately, the film opens up with confident cutting and use of counterpunctal music. This wasn’t going to be framed as a depressing pity-party, but rather a jovial celebration of what it means to stand up and fight for one’s nation. Young men are dragged to the ground by police to an up-beat acoustic guitar melody. A montage of physical action and plot points express a uniquely Australian sense of humour.

How are men able to be so unfazed after such violence and injustice from the police and legal system? The documentary is structured in such a way to explain this. Thomas Sewell, who humorously describes himself to the camera as “the self appointed leader of White Australia” sends his boys on a ten kilometre run, only to then be followed by a mixed martial arts tournament on the same day. So this is a hardened group of young men ready to take on anything. An action-packed sequence of kickboxing peaks the first act before the film’s heroic mission begins.

From here we follow the group as they assemble on Australia Day, intercut with South Australia Police at a press conference expressing their intent to use the full force of the law and shut down any celebration of Australia Day that the patriots had in mind. The boys then assemble around a war memorial, singing Waltzing Matilda, which is intercut with historical footage of Australian troops marching and singing the same song in WW2, followed by Sewell attempting to give a speech before the police intervene and drag him away into a white van.

This is quite significant because of what is revealed in the closing credits of the film. After Sewell was taken into custody, a microphone he had been wearing picked up two officers talking about shooting the nationalist activists. From The Noticer:

In the recording, one officer appears to check whether his colleague’s bodycam was operating by asking “are you rolling?” and replies “okay good” after the second officer says “no”.

“I’m happy to shoot them,” the first cop then says.

“Happy to?” the second asks.

“I’m happy to shoot them,” the first officer repeats as voices can be heard singing Waltzing Matilda in the background.

“I wanna hammer these cunts. These guys… just need to be shot.”

It’s a revelation that puts everything in context. The regime is anti-Australian and the destruction of Australia is not some mistake or mismanagement – it’s by design and on-target.

We all remember the violence of tyrannical police during the Covid lockdowns. Police forces now have labour shortages that they struggle to fill because to be a policeman is to be a traitor to your own people. The nation was founded and built on the White Australia Policy and therefore the current power structure is opposed to the nation’s heritage, foundation and what it truly means to be Australian. It’s also funny that this film has bigger newsworthy bombshells than an entire 45-minute hit-piece attempt from earlier this year by ABC’s Four Corners.

The film is very well put together. Even with some haphazardly shot footage, it has a very refined edit that pushes this material to its full potential. There are various stylistic flourishes that keep it engaging. Joel Davis makes a rousing speech that is edited with electronic music and clever use of jump cutting to make it a rhythmic sequence. This incorporates meme-video language into a more traditional documentary, which I think was very effective and forward-thinking.

The film is obviously a propaganda piece for this nationalist group and it does a good job at showing the scope of the organisation. They were able to stage seminars with various speakers, physical marathons and kickboxing tournaments, followed by dominating the new cycle with an effective protest that exposed the anti-White regime that runs this country.

Arguments about optics and self-censorship are destroyed by Joel Davis’s seminar talk. He explains how leftists don’t run to the centre ground but keep marching left, which drags the centre of acceptable discourse with them. Joel argues it’s time to march in the other direction and drag the country right. This means being unapologetically right-wing and no more compromises. And when packaged in such a well-made documentary, which doesn’t pull its own punches, it’s hard to argue with Joel’s strategy.

The main thing I want to express about the filmmaking is how tight this edit is. Normally when watching something like this, I would expect to write down notes for edit changes and suggestions, but I really have none to give. This is as tight as a bow. It goes from deeply felt, back to humorous relief, to insight, to revelation without ever getting bogged down. Intuitive musical choices progress its narrative and emotion. Stylistic editing techniques create variation between the different sequences. Multiple elements are interwoven and cross-cut to create juxtaposition and a third entity.

Looking at this film, I believe they would have been editing from shortly after Australia Day right up until its premiere. And some credit should be given to the camera work. They had very good coverage, I’m sure some of this would have been shot on phones but that gave it dynamism and freshness. You can’t edit what you haven’t shot. The lack of sit-down interviews gave this a tactile, ever-moving quality that transcends the stagnation of Four Corners’ bigger budgeted yet inferior film.

The structure is great, with an amazing series of emotional crescendos culminating in a message from a WW2 widow who expresses pride in the men and donates $9,000 to assist political prisoner Stephen Wells. In fact, the combination of this and revelations that police openly expressed a desire to shoot these men may have led to Friday’s dropping of false charges and release of Wells, who was held in solitary confinement for four months. Wells was slapped with phony politically motivated charges of “fail to cease loiter”, and “display Nazi symbol” for a patch on his sleeve. But rather than sign bail conditions that would prevent him communicating with his comrades, he stood by his principles and in the process exposed the justice system as corrupt. His suffering was not in vain.

My only real criticism with the documentary is the title of the film. I understand it’s kind of staunch to just call it “Summer Nationals”, which I assume is in reference to the name of the event they are attending, like how the Scouts might have a “Winter Jamboree”, but something more targeted and attention grabbing would have served the film better.

There are various nationalist activist groups in the West who have produced their own media. I think it’s fair to say this documentary is a bit of a milestone and inspiration going forward in terms of video production. At its heart, this is an incredibly Australian film and made for a domestic audience that shares its sense of humour and cultural understanding. But international audiences will still get plenty from the patriotic spirit and bravery depicted in the film.

This is something every Australian should see. Not just every nationalist or patriot – but every Australian including radical leftists and foreigners. They will at least gain a better understanding of Australian nationalism and how the police treat political enemies. The left has had a pretty free-run with their protests for years, but the recent crack-down on anti-war and anti-Zionist rallies regarding genocide in Gaza has made a film like this more relevant to everyone. Many leftists are waking up not just to Zionism but global Jewish plutocracy and the penny is dropping. The simplistic days of left/right are over. The patriots shown in this film are arguably more socialist than the Greens. They just want things done in the national interest.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 John MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png John MacDonald2025-05-20 13:27:502025-05-20 13:49:45Review: Bombshell patriotic documentary makes waves

From Red Diaper to Red State: The Political Odyssey of David Horowitz

May 19, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jews and the Left, Neoconservatism/by Jose Nino

David Horowitz’s death on April 29, 2025 closes the chapter on a figure who embodied the neoconservative phenomenon: a Jewish intellectual who, like many of his generation, abandoned the Left when he perceived its ideals as incompatible with Jewish interests and American security.

Horowitz was born on January 10, 1939, in Forest Hills, Queens, New York, to Phil and Blanche Horowitz, both Jewish high school teachers and committed members of the Communist Party USA. His father taught English, and his mother taught stenography. Horowitz’s family background deeply shaped his early political outlook — his mother’s family had emigrated from Imperial Russia in the mid-19th century, while his father’s family fled Russia in 1905 during pogroms. In 1940, the family moved to the Long Island City section of Queens.

Growing up in a staunchly communist household, Horowitz was the quintessential “red diaper baby.” He attended Columbia University, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1959, and later received a master’s degree in English literature from the University of California, Berkeley.

After completing his graduate studies, Horowitz moved to London in the mid-1960s to work for the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. There, he became involved in anti-war activism, helping to form the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign in 1966 alongside members of the Trotskyist International Marxist Group. During this period, he wrote The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War, establishing himself as a voice in the New Left movement.

Horowitz returned to the United States in January 1968 and became co-editor of Ramparts magazine, an influential publication of the New Left based in California. During the early 1970s, he developed a close friendship with Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party. Horowitz assisted the Panthers with their community initiatives, including raising funds for a school for “disadvantaged” children in Oakland.

The turning point in Horowitz’s political journey came in December 1974, when Betty Van Patter, a bookkeeper whom Horowitz had recommended to work for the Black Panthers, was found murdered in San Francisco Bay. Her body had been severely beaten, and Horowitz became convinced that members of the Black Panther Party were responsible for her death.

This tragedy profoundly traumatized Horowitz. According to Hugh Pearson, author of Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America, Horowitz “totally went berserk with regard to the left-liberal community” following Van Patter’s murder. The incident shattered his belief in the moral righteousness of the radical left and catalyzed his political transformation.

Increasingly disillusioned with left-wing politics through the late 1970s and early 1980s, Horowitz underwent a gradual but decisive shift to the right. In 1985, he publicly announced that he had voted for Ronald Reagan in the previous year’s presidential election. Along with his writing partner Peter Collier, Horowitz published an essay in The Washington Post titled “Lefties for Reagan,” formally declaring their break with the left. They wrote that voting for Reagan was “way of finally saying goodbye to all that… to the self-aggrandizing romance with corrupt Third Worldism; to the casual indulgence of Soviet totalitarianism; to the hypocritical and self-dramatizing anti- Americanism which is the New Left’s bequest to mainstream politics.”

Following his political conversion, Horowitz dedicated himself to challenging what he saw as the dangerous influence of the left in American culture and politics. In 1988, he founded the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) in Los Angeles, which aimed to “establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground.” The organization was later renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) in 2006.

Horowitz chronicled his ideological journey in his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey, which became one of his most significant works. This deeply personal account detailed his disillusionment with the left and his embrace of conservative principles. It was quoted by Kevin MacDonald in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique illustrating the point that leftist Jews remained committed, ethnocentric Jews despite their declared internationalism:

David Horowitz (1997, 42) describes the world of his parents who had joined a “shul” run by the CPUSA in which Jewish holidays were given a political interpretation. Psychologically these people might as well have been in eighteenth-century Poland:

What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private language, the same hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posturing revealing one face to the outer world and another to the tribe. More importantly, there was the same conviction of being marked for persecution and specially ordained, the sense of moral superiority toward the stronger and more numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear of expulsion for heretical thoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.

One of Horowitz’s primary focuses as a conservative activist was challenging what he perceived as liberal bias in American universities. He published The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America in 2006, criticizing professors he believed were engaging in indoctrination rather than education. He also created the “Academic Bill of Rights,” aimed at eliminating political bias in university hiring and grading practices.

Horowitz organized numerous campaigns on college campuses, including “Islamofascism Awareness Week” in 2007, which sought to alert students about what he viewed as the threat posed by radical Islam. These events often generated controversy and resistance from students and faculty.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Horowitz’s activism took on a new dimension. He became increasingly focused on what he called “the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values.” Horowitz pushed the envelope by advocating for racial and ethnic profiling of “potential terrorists-and that does mean Islamic and Palestinian terrorists.” He likely would have loved The Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther.

Horowitz, much like many of his peers in the largely Jewish neoconservative movement, was deeply affected by the 1967 Six-Day War and unsettled by the anti-Israeli rhetoric of Black nationalist groups in the 1960s and 1970s, steering him toward a strong pro-Israeli position. Though Horowitz publicly maintained that he was not a hardcore Zionist, his tendency to defend Israel at every opportunity suggests a deep alignment. In fact, he once argued, “If the Arabs disarm there will be peace, if the Jews disarm there will be a massacre,” contradicting his statement about being a lukewarm Zionist.

His stance on Israel became particularly pronounced after 9/11, as he increasingly claimed to view criticism of Israel as part of a broader anti-Western agenda. Horowitz became a fierce critic of Democrats who he claimed “empowered” Israel’s enemies, including “Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS and Hamas.” In 2016, he published a controversial essay in Breitbart News accusing conservative Jewish writer William Kristol and other “Never Trumpers” of trying “to weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her.” Kevin MacDonald in VDARE (2016):

One of the more spectacular examples of an MSM frenzy over supposed anti-Semitism: the reaction to the attack by David Horowitz against his fellow Jew Bill Kristol, leader of a campaign to destroy Donald Trump [Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, May 15, 2016] The headline, written by Horowitz, alluded to Kristol being Jewish.

As Jonathan S. Tobin [Email him] notes in Commentary,

[T]he real offense here is … his attempt to wrap him in the Star of David and to somehow brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel cause. …

[H]is invocation of “America First” and the use of a term like “renegade Jew” in the headline (though not in the text of the article) seems to echo the smears of the pro-Trump alt right racists who have attacked conservative critics of the candidate with an avalanche of anti-Semitic invective.

[Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace, May 16, 2016]

Horowitz’s offense was not simply criticizing Kristol’s campaign against Trump. Lots of people have done that without incurring the wrath of Commentary. And even saying that Kristol’s views are not good for Jews and Israel is commonplace:  Mondoweiss, J Street, and Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby argue that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby have a tragically mistaken view of Jewish and Israeli interests—also discussed in Charles Bloch’s and Steve Sailer’s VDARE posts.

The unforgivable offense: implying Kristol’s being a Jew had something to do with his opposition to Trump. After all, there would have been exactly zero upset if instead the headline was “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Republican.”

But putting ‘Jew’ in the headline was guaranteed to bring out immediate charges of anti-Semitism by the likes of Michelle Goldberg [Email her] in Slate :

To define someone as a ‘Renegade Jew’ in a column about scheming elites written for an audience full of white nationalists is to signal to the sewers. … A narrative is taking shape, an American Dolchstoßlegende that will blame a potential Trump loss on conniving Semites.

[Breitbart Calls Trump Foe “Renegade Jew.” This Is How Anti-Semitism Goes Mainstream, May 16, 2016]

Of course, we are supposed to engage in the fiction that the opinions of Bill Kristol et al. have nothing to do with being Jewish or what is good for Israel, but everything to do with their perception of what is good for America.

David Horowitz’s life trajectory from dedicated Marxist to conservative firebrand encapsulates much of the ideological turbulence of the latter half of the twentieth century and early twenty-first century. His dramatic political conversion, sparked by personal trauma and disillusionment, led him to become one of the most vocal critics of the movement he once championed.

However, Horowitz’s political career should not be viewed through an ideologically reductionist lens.  Mike Peinovich of The Right Stuff aptly observed that Horowitz was first and foremost a Jewish ethnic strategist with a history of changing his political positions to align with what he perceived as Jewish interests. And Jared Taylor pointed out Horowitz’s hypocrisy on identity politics:

Mr. Horowitz is simply wrong when he writes of “going back to the good old American ideal” of multi-racialism. I am certain that if all the prominent Americans I have quoted could rise from their graves, they would endorse the American Renaissance view of race and nation, and would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to pretend race can be made not to matter. It is American Renaissance that is faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it most succinctly when he wrote, “[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it not better so?” Yes, it is.

Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,” implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it “surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one.

Not long before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin told U.S. News and World Report that as Prime Minister of Israel he had worked to achieve many things, but what he cared about most was that Israel remain at least 90 percent Jewish. He recognized that the character of Israel would change in fundamental-and to him unacceptable-ways if the non-Jewish population increased beyond a small minority. Equally obviously, the character of the United States is changing as non-whites arrive in large numbers.

Throughout most of its history, white Americans took the Rabin view: that their country had a distinctly racial and ethnic core that was to be preserved at all costs. When Mr. Horowitz writes about the “good old American ideal,” that is what he should have in mind, not a historically inaccurate view that drapes a radical new course with trappings of false tradition.

Horowitz was a foundational figure in neoconservatism, but not as a defender of Western Civilization as some of his supporters like Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk have made him out to be. At the end of the day, Horowitz was an opportunist who shifted political stripes to serve Jewish and Israeli interests.
The way conservatives now praise him is unsettling, but it reveals a harsh truth: their movement owes its current form to him and his cadre of ex-Trotskyist Jews, who effectively turned American conservatism into a vehicle for Zionism. Horowitz’s lifework reveals that any nationalist movement lacking strong gatekeeping against Jewish influence is vulnerable to being co-opted and redirected to serve the interests of world Jewry much to the detriment of White interests.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Jose Nino https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Jose Nino2025-05-19 08:01:122025-05-19 08:01:12From Red Diaper to Red State: The Political Odyssey of David Horowitz

The Abomination of Enslavement … Is At The Heart of Proud Black Culture

May 18, 2025/3 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles, General/by Tobias Langdon

A meteor in the media. That’s what the proud Black woman Lydia Mugambe will be. The story of her conviction has flashed through the headlines and will shortly disappear forever. There will be no agonized analysis of her shocking crimes, no solemn intoning of stern conclusions. Not by leftists, that’s for sure. And why not? Because analyzing her crimes and drawing conclusions from them wouldn’t be good for leftism.

Lethal for Leftism

The truth isn’t good for leftism, you see. In fact, the truth is lethal for leftism, which is why Mugambe will be a meteor in the media. Her crimes remind me of this line in Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known.” The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, is thinking about a photograph that reveals how the Party’s power is based on a vast system of lies, censorship and illogic. Lydia Mugambe’s crimes reveal the same about leftism. That’s why she will be a meteor malefactor.

So who is she and what did she do? She’s a strong Black woman from Uganda and she committed one of the worst crimes in the world. She enslaved another human being. But it gets worse: her atrocious crime wasn’t the act of an errant individual, but obviously a settled part of her homeland’s culture. That’s right: in the proud Black nation of Uganda, slavery is shamelessly practised by strong Black women like Lydia Mugambe.

The unrepentant enslaver Lydia Mugambe in her judge’s wig (images from Daily Mail)

But it gets worse still. Lydia Mugambe isn’t just a Strong Black Woman — she’s a highly educated S.B.W., from the cream of Ugandan society. She’s a High Court Judge in Uganda and when she committed her appalling act of enslavement she was studying for a PhD in law at Oxford University. And three months after she was arrested for enslavement, she became a judge for the United Nations! But the worsening of her wickedness keeps coming. As a legal expert, Ms Mugambe was well aware that she couldn’t put a notice in the local paper: “SLAVE WANTED.” So she did the natural thing. It’s obviously natural for highly educated Strong Black Women from Uganda, that is. She sought the help of the Ugandan embassy and the Proud Black Man John Mugerwa, who was then the Deputy High Commissioner. And Mugerwa arranged for a young Black woman to be brought to Britain from Uganda in full knowledge that she was to be enslaved by Lydia Mugambe. Here are the depraved and deplorable details at the BBC website:

A United Nations judge has been jailed for six years and four months for forcing a woman to work as a domestic slave. Lydia Mugambe, 50, was studying for a doctorate in law at the University of Oxford when police discovered she had a young Ugandan woman at her home carrying out unpaid work as a maid and nanny.

Mugambe, who is also a High Court judge in Uganda, was jailed at Oxford Crown Court on Friday after she was found guilty of modern day slavery offences in March. In sentencing, Judge David Foxton told the defendant she “showed absolutely no remorse” for her actions and she had looked to “forcibly blame” the victim for what happened.

Mugambe fraudulently arranged a visa for the woman but it stipulated she would be paid to work as a private servant at the diplomatic residence of John Mugerwa, Uganda’s former deputy high commissioner based at the country’s embassy in London. Prosecutors said Mr Mugerwa sponsored the victim’s visa knowing she would actually work in servitude for Mugambe.  In return, Mugambe would provide him assistance in relation to a separate court case in Uganda in which he was a defendant, the court was told.

The trial heard Mugambe paid for the victim’s flight and picked her up from the airport — but the young woman then became a slave at the judge’s home in Kidlington, Oxfordshire. Mr Foxton described it as a “very sad case” as he outlined Mugambe’s legal accomplishments, including her work in the protection of human rights.

In a written statement, read to the court by prosecutor Caroline Haughey KC, the victim described living in “almost constant fear” due to Mugambe’s powerful standing in Uganda. The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she “can’t go back to Uganda” due to fear of what may happen to her and added that she may never see her mother again. […]

The Crown Prosecution Service authorised police to charge Mr Mugerwa with conspiracy but he had diplomatic immunity, which the Ugandan Government did not waive. Mugambe had denied forcing the young Ugandan woman to do household chores and said she “always” treated her with love, care and patience.

Ch Supt Ben Clark, of Thames Valley Police, said there was “no doubt” that Mugambe had known she was committing offences. […] A University of Oxford spokesperson said the institution was “appalled” by its student’s crimes. “The university is now commencing its own disciplinary process, which has the power to remove students convicted of serious criminal offences,” the spokesperson added. (“UN judge jailed for keeping housekeeper as slave,” BBC News, 2nd May 2025)

As you can see, the worsening of the wickedness continued in that news-report. The proud Black nation of Uganda refused to waive the diplomatic immunity of John Mugerwa, despite Mugerwa’s involvement in the abominable act of enslavement and his corrupt conspiracy with arch-enslaver Lydia Mugambe to evade justice in Uganda. So a highly disturbing question has to be asked. Do proud Black Ugandans not think slavery is a crime? And here’s the even more disturbing answer: No, they don’t. Obviously not. Slavery is obviously a settled part of Ugandan culture. And of Nigerian culture too. In my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I discussed another pair of highly educated Black African enslavers, the obstetrician Emmanuel Edet and his wife Antan, “who kept a man in servitude for almost a quarter of a century after illegally bringing him to Britain.”

The deepest wound on the Black psyche

That was in 2015 and Emmanuel Edet soon became a meteor malefactor. His atrocious crimes flashed through the headlines and then disappeared forever. The same will happen to the atrocious crimes of Lydia Mugambe and for the same reason: because the truth is lethal to leftism. And the truth is certainly revealed by those two stories about highly educated African Blacks committing the abominable act of enslavement in Britain. Let’s “interrogate” what many righteous anti-racists regard as the central evil of human history, that is, the enslavement of African Blacks by European Whites. You might call it the worst patch of “racist vomit” splattered across the world by White supremacy and the deepest wound inflicted on the Black psyche by Whites. Logic dictates, therefore, that slavery must be deeply abhorrent to Black Africans, and particularly to those Black Africans who are educated enough to understand the true horror and depravity of the Atlantic slave-trade.

But reality laughs at logic. Highly educated Black Africans pretend to find slavery abhorrent only when they’re trying to guilt-trip Whites. At the same time, they routinely enslave their fellow Black Africans from the lower classes. And those Black enslavers take full advantage of the lying leftism that grants Blacks special privilege and endows Blacks with special virtue because they’ve allegedly suffered so much at hands of wicked Whites. Central to leftism’s indictment of wicked Whites is slavery, which leftists present as an unforgivable crime on an appalling scale committed by cruel and vicious Whites against gentle and virtuous Blacks. If they could, leftists would claim that only Whites practised slavery and only non-Whites suffered as slaves.

The toxic truth about Black culture

They can’t claim that, but they still present Whites as uniquely culpable for slavery and pretend that slavery was the all-powerful engine of Western success. It wasn’t and the only unique thing Whites ever did in relation to slavery is to make it illegal and abolish it. When Whites kept slaves, so did everyone else. And nobody regarded it as wrong. Christianity permits slavery, Judaism and Islam positively celebrate it. Slavery was practised in Africa long before Whites arrived and is still being practised there now. The toxic truth is this: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture in Africa. And when proud Black Africans come to the West, they bring their slave-culture with them. That’s why stories about highly educated Black Africans keeping slaves appear again and again across the West. You’ve seen two such stories from Britain. Now try America, where the Nigerian couple Chudy and Sandra Nsobundu were convicted of forcing “a Nigerian woman to work nearly 20 hours a day taking care of their home and five children and home without pay for two years.” In France, a Black girl called Henriette Akofa Siliadin was trafficked from Togo when she was fourteen. A leftist website goes on: “She was vulnerable and dependent on others. However, the people accompanying her took away her passport and made her work as an unpaid servant, all day long, seven days a week for over four years.” By “the people,” the leftist website means “other Blacks.” By “unpaid servant,” the leftist website means “slave.”

As I said: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture. But it’s also at the heart of proud Filipino culture. The late Filipino-American journalist Alex Tizon won widespread acclaim in 2017 for his essay “My Family’s Slave,” a moving and disturbing account of a woman who was exactly that: a slave to his family for fifty-six years. Just like Lydia Mugambe and Emmanuel Edet in Britain, Tizon’s parents — “[m]y father had a law degree, my mother was on her way to becoming a doctor” — were highly educated non-Whites who simultaneously enslaved a vulnerable woman and took advantage of the special privileges granted to non-Whites in the West because they have allegedly suffered so much at the hands of Whites. And just like Lydia Mugambe in Britain, Tizon’s parents were obviously following a settled custom of their non-White homeland. Tizon says that the enslaved woman, Eudocia Tomas Pulido, was “18 years old when my grandfather gave her to my mother as a gift.”

Omnia Ex Alea, Omnia Ex Albo

So slavery is at the heart of proud Filipino culture. That’s why, just like the crimes of Lydia Mugambe in Britain, the crimes of Tizon’s parents were “published to the world” but their significance was never “made known.” There was no agonized analysis by leftists and no stern conclusions were drawn about Filipino culture. After all, Filipinos are non-White, which means that, in leftist eyes, their culture is axiomatically virtuous and unimpeachable. In fact, these stories about non-Whites enslaving other non-Whites explode the two contradictory principles that lie at the heart of leftism: omnia ex alea and omnia ex albo (si mala). Those Latin phrases mean “everything from the dice” and “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).”

Black is Beautiful — except in Jewish Israel, where you will never see race-mixing propaganda like this

Omnia ex alea is the guiding principle of the Jewish scientist — and pseudo-scientist — Jared Diamond. He has done genuine science, but he was peddling pseudo-science in his best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), which claims that the blind forces of biogeography account for the apparent over-achievement of Whites and under-achievement of Blacks. According to orthodox leftists like Jared Diamond, all humans are the same under the skin and capable of exactly the same high achievements in cognitively demanding fields like science, mathematics and technology. It’s just that the biogeographical dice rolled the right way in Europe and the wrong way in Africa. Whites in Europe had large mammals that were easy to domesticate, Blacks in Africa didn’t. Whites in horizontally aligned Europe could trade easily to east and west. Blacks in vertically aligned Africa couldn’t trade easily to north and south. And so on. That’s why, according to Diamond, Europe flourished and Africa foundered.

“The cancer of human history”

But at the same time as Diamond and his fellow leftists peddle omnia ex alea, “everything from the dice of history,” they also peddle omnia ex albo (si mala) — “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).” As the acclaimed Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag once put it:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

I disagree with the anti-White Jew Susan Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the Innate Depravity of White Europeans. But those two principles are only self-refuting in the minds of those who believe in logic. Leftists like Sontag and Diamond don’t. Instead, they believe in doublethink, which Orwell defined as “hold[ing] simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”

Not All Bioweapons Come From A Lab — if Black migration was good for the West, leftists wouldn’t want it

The story of Lydia Mugambe and her Black slave reveals the doublethink of the left on slavery and race relations. Mugambe is a proud Black woman who not merely enslaved another Black but “showed absolutely no remorse” for her abominable act of enslavement. Indeed, she tried to “forcibly blame” her victim. She is an entitled enslaver and she explodes the lies of leftism. That’s why she’ll also be a meteor malefactor, someone whose crimes flash through the headlines and disappear for ever, receiving no analysis and prompting no conclusions about proud Black culture. Except at hate-sites like the Occidental Observer and Unz Review, where we don’t believe in doublethink but in reality.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Tobias Langdon https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Tobias Langdon2025-05-18 10:52:482025-05-19 03:03:06The Abomination of Enslavement … Is At The Heart of Proud Black Culture

E. Michael Jones on Identity

May 18, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles/by James W. Smith

There seems no reason to question E. Michael Jones’ sincerity. By current standards, he is brave, courteous, and he is willing to debate anyone. Few commentators have such a comprehensive understanding of the threats posed by Jewish supremacism, and fewer still discuss the issues in such an articulate and engaging way.

The problem arises with his understanding of identity as a means of resisting and eventually reforming Jewish-dominated power structures. To begin with, identity is a slippery concept. Identity can be imposed externally or constructed from within, and it can be based on immutable human traits, ideology, behavior, and any number of other factors. Identity can also be fleeting. Catholics can become atheists and vice versa. It should also be noted that people need not be schizophrenic to simultaneously hold multiple, and even conflicting identities.

It might be easier to simply discard the notion of identity when discussing solutions to Jewish supremacism. This would be a bad idea for the following reason. Jews have steadily increased their international dominance precisely because they identify as Jews. Jewish identity cannot be defined according to language spoken, religious practices observed, or even physical characteristics. Yet Jews create networks and collaborate based largely on identity. It follows that any movement that is to successfully counter Jewish power will need to develop its own identity or form some sort of coalition of existing identities. Given Jewish skillfulness at infiltration and divide-and-conquer strategies, one or two unified identities may achieve greater success in resisting Jewish power than a smattering of well-informed interest groups.

Jones argues that Catholicism is the only identity suited to this endeavor. His arguments in favor of Catholicism and against White identity are that 1) Whiteness is an artificially constructed identity; 2) individuals must decide upon whether they identify as White or Catholic because they can’t be both; 3) Catholicism affords critics of Jewish behavior a layer of protection against Jewish persecution.

Jones argues that Whiteness was imposed as an identity upon European indentured servants who provided labor in the Virginia colonies. The term ‘White’ was assigned to the European workers as a divide-and-conquer tactic, giving them a relatively higher status than the African slaves next to whom they toiled. Although this initial White identity may have been artificial, it has little bearing on current day Americans and, for example, Australians whose ancestors came from Europe.

Jones describes himself as bi-racial, meaning that he is German and Irish. This description may have resonated with denizens of American White ethnic neighborhoods prior to the ethnic cleansing of those neighborhoods in the 1960s. At present, however, most Americans who appear White have ancestors whose origins lie in disparate parts of Europe. It is therefore natural that, if they identify themselves according to race, they might say that they’re White rather than providing a (possibly inaccurate) list of the regions from which their ancestors came. This, incidentally, applies both to Whites who are proud of having European heritage and those who are ashamed of it. Perhaps if America were a White only country, no one would identify as White. If it were White only but still dominated by a tiny Jewish minority, its citizens might identify as gentiles. We have no way of knowing. What is important is that Whiteness is not a ‘category of the mind’ as Jones would have us believe. It is a category of reality simply because White people know who they are and can recognize each other—and because it is rooted in the evolutionary trajectory of the European peoples. To the extent that it is important, non-Whites can also recognize us as White, usually not as Irish or German or Italian, but as White. It is therefore irrelevant whether Whiteness is only 500 years old—as Jones asserts—or more than 20,000 years old.

There is little doubt that language and culture play an important role in identity, but languages, cultural practices, and cultural perspectives can be learned. Jones may describe himself as half German, but he acquired his knowledge of the German language and culture because he lived in Germany as an adult. He was not born German, but he was born White.

Jones claims that White identity is a trap set by Jewish interests and that Americans (and presumably other Whites) who identify as White are internalizing the commands of their oppressors. On this point, he is partially correct. Among some White nationalists, there is a tendency to view all non-Whites with disdain or hostility. Naturally, this might hamper universal efforts to combat Jewish supremacism. Whites are not the only adversely affected group. Arguably, meaningful change will not happen without the type of multi-cultural coalition that is incompatible with ardent White identitarianism.

But at some point, the issue of whether Whites are internalizing the commands of their oppressors becomes irrelevant. Prior to arriving on American shores, Blacks would have identified themselves as Fulani or Mandingo or any number of other ethnicities. None of these identities would have been useful to the American Black Power Movement of the 1960s, however. People can argue about the movement’s propriety, but there can be little doubt that it resulted in an increase in Black power. In the long run, Whites may have no choice but to identify as White, particularly in areas where they are outnumbered by hostile non-Whites and have no option to relocate. If, on the other hand, White identity can be normalized sooner rather than later, Jewish efforts at ethnic cleansing will become less successful and most Whites can look forward to a more secure future.

Before the Modern Period, most Western people’s identity was fixed at birth. These identities encompassed religion, sex, locale, language, vocation, social status, and so on. Urbanization and its concomitant social and geographic mobility have left a vacuum and people in industrialized countries, if they even contemplate identity, construct their own identities. In part due in part to Jewish denigration of Whiteness, many White Americans manufacture for themselves frivolous identities determined by their sexual practices, or the brand of motorcycle they favor, or the music they listen to. Jones argues that Catholic identity affords some protection against persecution by Jews. Certainly, in the past the Church often effectively prohibited predatory Jewish practices like usury. But with the rise of the nation-state and globalism, the Church has neither the power nor the will to dismantle Jewish power networks. If every White American were to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, there would still be a staggering amount of consciousness raising to do. A direct development of White identity based on recognition of collective White interests, and a shared understanding of how these interests are threatened, seems the most effective approach.

This is not to say that the Catholic Church and other churches have no role to play. Networks of White advocacy should build strength and legitimacy in all institutions. Jones’ assertion, however, that Catholicism is incompatible with White identity makes little sense. Scholars universally accept that people hold multiple and often conflicting identities. The issue of whether Catholic Church doctrine discourages White identity can be left to the Magisterium, but surely White identitarians won’t be excommunicated based on thought crime.

Many Whites now recognize and resent the ethnic cleansing, wealth extraction, denigration in academia and the popular culture, perversion of history, and other assaults their people have been subjected to. They also understand the source of these assaults. Jones may be correct that the Catholic Church provides protection. Moving forward, however, we shouldn’t need protection when we point out lying, cheating and stealing. It has yet to happen, but the time must come when the perpetrators are shamed for their behavior rather than truthtellers shamed for antisemitism.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 James W. Smith https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png James W. Smith2025-05-18 07:14:542025-05-18 10:11:34E. Michael Jones on Identity

Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

May 16, 2025/9 Comments/in Featured Articles, Historical Anti-Jewish Writing/by Kevin MacDonald

Submitted as comments by Harald

WARNING

I have warned you not to publish these ultima verba until long after my death.

In my little cemetery, I am now safe from the Marchandeau law, the LICA and the killers of the Israeli secret services.

But you, the French of today, your days are numbered. These French days are steadily dwindling, and soon this country of mine, which was once yours, will join the Third World club.

It’s a question of time… it’s a question of Jews or not.

Remember to defend yourselves by all means against those who work to destroy you with their exacerbated racism, their demonic dream of world domination, and above all, never forget that their power only exists through our baseness, our futility and our cowardice.

(Thanks to my faithful friends)

Rueil, April 1972
Marcel Jouhandeau

ULTIMA VERBA

What I published before the war would be absolutely impossible in today’s advanced “democracy”.

National emblems have given way to the Star of David, and we are under its yoke. Already, at the turn of the century, Maurras asserted: “The Jew opens the door to the metèque.” As I predicted in 1938, the “victory” of 1945, i.e., the victory of the Jews, has transformed the Frenchman into a sort of bewildered chatterbox, game for all basenesses, all humiliations, all cowardice, applauding only the Jew, rejoicing only in his own death. Even the instinct for territory, the instinct for self-preservation, has disappeared.

The “Jewish Peril” of 1938 is now, in 1972, well and truly with us, and we’re all going to die from it.

From Christianity to the gas chambers, from Anne Frank’s diary to Chagall, this race has distinguished itself by its incredible imposture and its gift for demolishing non-Jewish souls and complexing them to death. It has to be said that the stupidity of white non-Jews is unfathomable.

Ever since the Diaspora (2,600 years ago), these hysterical people have never integrated into their host countries. And it’s they, the worst racists, who now have the nerve to make us digest millions of immigrants, by-products of over-birth, who hate us and infest France!!!! Cry havoc…!

Right now, this Talmudic spawn is preparing public opinion for an anti-Bolshevik crusade, and do you know why, my little ones? Quite simply because all Eastern European countries are viscerally anti-Semitic. Russians and Poles in particular.

The Bolshevik revolution, 95% Jewish, is no longer Jewish today, any more than it is socialist. The Jewish crusade with Aryan breasts is not over. Israel has set fire to the entire Middle East, and peace will only return after its total destruction, like Carthage.

Now that the Third Reich has become the Soviet Union, the danger of war is the same as in 1938, and for the same reason – the same “crime”:

Not to allow ourselves to be enslaved by the Jews.

HOW I BECAME AN ANTI-SEMITE
Article published in October 1936

At nineteen, when I left my home province, I didn’t know what a Jew was. In the nearly thirty years I’ve been living in Paris, I’ve met many Israelites from all walks of life, and I must confess that I’ve only found sympathy and friendship among them, and only once hostility, which had no effect on me.

So it wasn’t out of self-interest, envy or personal grudge that I came to regard the Jewish people as my country’s worst enemy, the enemy within. It was my patriotism, as dormant as it was, that suddenly alerted me.

I was at a friend’s house, maybe two years ago, when I saw a Jew X walk in, uninvited by the way, hiding behind someone and pretending he’d only come to meet me.

So X approaches me, flatters me (they’re very good at it) and thanks to this maneuver gets in, little by little lets me go and there he is in the foreground with his feet on the table, ham on his knees and up to his hair. X has a lot to say. On his return from America, he triumphantly brings back the good news that France has been banished from the world.

Not content with merely reporting this opinion, he approved of it, and added to it the further comment that, no matter how much he read and reread the history of our country, it was in vain, to his great regret, that he looked for a sympathetic figure, or even the slightest selflessness, a single act of generosity, even the shadow of greatness; that no doubt there was Napoleon, whom he alone admired, but unfortunately Napoleon wasn’t French.

I would have forgotten all about this adventure, had I not met young P. by chance a few weeks ago, and pointed to X, my fat Jew who was approaching, recalling before him with disgust what judgment this gentleman had dared to pass on our story. To my astonishment, young P., without hesitation, replied that he was sorry to upset me, but that he agreed with X, his master, I imagine.

The ugliness of French history made him blush, too, French as he was, and he didn’t even except Napoleon. On the other hand, he had a great admiration for X, he confessed, because X lived on a houseboat.

“As far as I’m concerned,” I replied, “X could live on the Vendôme column, but he wouldn’t interest me. If there’s a piece of bacon hanging in my cellar or attic, I don’t take any notice of it, not going to look for it unless it stinks and the house is full of it, so that I can shove it out the window.

Thus, at the same time as he exalts within himself, to the point of adoration, the esteem of his own blood, as he proves, as soon as one touches his race (he’ll make it clear), the Jew openly teaches the little Frenchman contempt for France, and the latter, docile, not only follows the lesson, he goes beyond it; he not only despises his homeland, he surrenders it to the contempt of the Jew.

Didn’t I hear another young Frenchman, not long ago, say to me sincerely, without wishing to taunt me: “You wouldn’t be proud, Monsieur, to be a Jew?”

Again, I think he would have liked to say, but I don’t know what modesty prevented him from daring: “You wouldn’t be prouder, would you, of being Jewish than French?”

No comment.

However, up until then my emotions had remained mediocre, when I happened to glance at La jeunesse d’un Clerc by the Jew Benda in the NRF (July-August 1936). Now, all things considered, I was obliged to note that Mr. Benda is not as far from X as we thought, and I deduced that Jewish patriotism is not only questionable, but suspect.

The passages I’m about to quote and comment on will prove it. Mr. Benda begins by talking about his ancestors: “And now,” he writes, “I suddenly find myself thinking about them, about my parents‘ parents and my parents’ parents. I see a succession of intelligent, hard-working, ironic Jews, friends of science, while almost everything around them languishes in superstition.”

We’re talking about our French grandfathers, whom Mr. Benda takes the liberty of scorning and humiliating in such an unabashed manner. Let’s lower our heads.

And Mr. Benda turns once again to exalt them at the expense of our own, to his forefathers “agents of human liberation on whom all parties of progress rely”. In truth,” he concludes, ”I’m ashamed to have come so late to feel so proud to be descended from such an elite.”

That’s all there is to it. They are the elite!

Later, a more important confession: “My parents’ patriotism will be of interest to the historian. It was, I believe, that of most French Jews of the time (after 1870), and perhaps even of those of today. My parents had a deep attachment to France (my father had stopped seeing a friend, X’s grandfather no doubt, who always spoke badly of it), but this attachment was above all intellectual: it hardly included any instinctive, carnal, irrational element.”

This is a very judicious analysis of patriotic sentiment, and highly instructive for us, because it explains precisely the fragility, inconsistency and non-existence of the Jew’s love for his adopted homeland.

By Mr. Benda’s own admission, the Jew’s patriotism will always lack what is essential to all love, which is that instinctive, carnal, irrational element (what is an attachment that interests only the intelligence and not the guts? ), which is why I will henceforth be justified in maintaining that it is a serious insult to France and the French to consider a Jew, whoever he may be, as a French citizen, and that it is one of the most profound inconsistencies of the French Revolution to have given Jews the right to live among us.

Mr. Benda continues: “Never did they (my parents), sing me the glory of Du Guesclin or Jean Bart or even Napoleon.”

From Saint-Louis and Joan of Arc, there was no danger, I mean, there would have been too much danger.

“Chauvinism,” he concludes (translate: true patriotism, the patriotism of the French who are not Jews), “seemed to them good for concierges. (Les concierges, c’est nous). What my father really loved in France was French civilization (civilization in general, but not France in particular), the great liberal tradition (he’s getting to that), the Revolution.”

I believe you! What Mr. Benda’s father loved in France was his own self-interest. If it weren’t for the Revolution, the Jews wouldn’t be oppressing France.

Because the Jews oppress us. Monsieur Benda is willing to explain, with his customary candor, how they came to do so. It’s like reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The marvel is that, while the Jews reject the Protocols as apocryphal, Mr. Benda signs his book: “Since the modern state opened every door to us,” he admits, “we had to take advantage of this opportunity, which was finally offered to us, to prove that we were not the inferior race our detractors claimed, but on the contrary, a race of the first order in its working power and gifts. (It’s easy to see why). We had to strive for the top positions. What the entire Jewish bourgeoisie of the time held up as a model for its sons were the three Reinach brothers, who had just won every prize in the general competition. It was only natural that the Jews of the time were so keen to show who they were.”

They show it so well that they occupy all the top places today, indeed. High finance, industry, commerce, agriculture (wheat trafficking), French thought, the Sorbonne, all the Academies belong to them, and Monsieur Blum with all his Israelite sequel is in power. Monsieur Léon Blum is the true successor to Louis XVI. This is what the Revolution did for Israel. It made him King of France. And when Israel is King…

But the Jews don’t just oppress us, they hate us. I still quote Monsieur Benda (NRF, September 1936, p. 448): “Very attached to France, my parents were well aware that, even on my mother’s side, they had not been established in this country for more than three or four generations, and they would never have accepted the comicality of claiming to be part of the French tradition. It is properly (in what they have of universal, of superior to the accidents of time and place), that I learned to respect human virtues.”

So far, so plausible. We’re just a little surprised by so much ingenuity, so many accumulated blunders through which we can discern the very fabric of everything that Mr. Benda’s fellow creatures are so careful to remedy.

But where Mr. Benda unmasks himself a little more, a little too much, and suddenly becomes intolerable, is after confiding to us “his worship for values set in the eternal”, when he expresses to us “his hatred of those who salute them only in the historical.”

Hear that? Just that, his hatred, the hatred of this little Semitic clown, and you know who it’s going to? To you, to me, to us who have traditions and the strength to love and respect them. Although he claims to be a French citizen, not content to repudiate them on his own account, because they disturb not only his own beguiling idealism, but the aims of his race, Mr. Benda forbids us to love our traditions and respect them on pain of being hated by him. Because it has pleased Mr. Benda, as he claims, to get rid of his own, we are no longer free to keep ours, without exposing ourselves to his wrath, to the wrath of this foreign gnome, this intruder whose authority is due only to our patience.

I said foreigner, and indeed for my part I’ve always instinctively felt a thousand times closer to our German ex-enemies, for example, than to all that so-called French Jewish scum, and although I have no personal sympathy for Monsieur Hitler, Monsieur Blum inspires in me a far more profound repugnance.

At least I know where I stand on the Führer’s feelings towards us, and the Führer is at home and master of his house, whereas Blum, Benda and X are not from my house and they are at my house, and what’s stronger, Monsieur Blum is master of my house or about to become so again, when I’ve never known, and no European will ever know, what an Asian thinks (there’s grey and grey matter), and it’s here, and only here, on the logical level, which is only the other side of the physiological level, that the question of race arises and takes on its full importance.

Experience has constantly confirmed my feeling that the principle of identity, for example, does not have the same rigor for the sons of Shem as it does for us, that there is not for the Jew and for us the same distance between YES and NO. When my man says yes, it’s the opposite of no, but all the while the Jew is ironizing, and his smile alone fills the gap.

Is there only a nationalist polemicist by trade and half-Jewish to demand Herriot’s head in a public lecture, while clutching to her heart, like a talisman, the photograph of the Pasionaria, and is there only a Christian Jew who could boast (a Christian back home would never have even suspected it was possible), who could boast, I say, of fooling God every morning at communion. I can still hear him whistling in my ear: “And in the end (after all this pretending), God is fooled.”

No, we have nothing of these conjurers, and if they have succeeded in deceiving us up to this point, we are free to let ourselves be completely annihilated to allow them to further prove their excellence or to react.

As far as I’m concerned (and God knows I’ve been sensitive to their charms, from which I’ve had to defend myself with violence), as much as I’d be willing to escort them with palms and gifts, if they didn’t decide to return to Palestine, I vow here and now to report them to the vindictiveness of my people, as long as there’s a single one left in France who isn’t subject to a special status.

NOTE:

X has claimed since the publication of the above article that he had alluded before me, in condemning it, only to nineteenth-century France. Assuming that my memory has deceived me, which I deny, and that one can feel the deepest disgust for the governments that have led us for a hundred years, these governments are not the country.

The Jew, more than any other, should at least have the discretion to keep quiet on this matter, given that Jewish high finance and Jewish agitators share with Masonry the responsibility for our debacles.

Incidentally, an ethnographer writes to persuade me that we are all of mixed race. He must be worried about his own blood. I’m not worried about mine. All I have to do is look back at my grandparents, and in front of them, I am immediately aware of the something that I don’t know, something horrible for us, which accompanies every Israelite face, gesture and word. The difference is immediately perceptible, obvious, striking: what a paucity, if you don’t have this criterion!

One day, a long time ago, I put a famous Jewish poet face to face with my mother — a humble woman who didn’t know he was a Jew or what a Jew was. Well, the reaction was swift, by which I mean the instinctive repulsion he inspired in her and, as a new convert, when, in an attempt to gain admission, he took out his rosary, Franchise had turned her back on him. “You can tell she was born under the sign of Aries,” he confided. “She defends her door. And what a look she has!”

This is the truth. So I won’t complain that I’ve made as many enemies as there are Jews in France and as many friends as there are Jews in France. I’m only sorry to see how deep the evil is, “gangrene generalized” and “scabies with pleasure doesn’t itch”, as the saying goes.

Because he flatters the worst in us, the Jew triumphs over us. Fortunately, a few others with me retain the pure memory of a provincial corner that allows them to defy the virus. Lonely enough never to love what I love to my heart’s content, of all the fans and admirers I’ve lost, I care as much as the filth left behind by the athlete who’s just got out of the bath.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-05-16 09:05:092025-05-17 08:09:21Marcel Jouhandeau’s ULTIMA VERBA complete

Make America Uganda! Liberals Meltdown over a few White Refugees

May 16, 2025/13 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ann Coulter

Make America Uganda!

Liberals are furious that President Trump is admitting refugees who are actually being persecuted because of their race, as opposed to our usual policy, which is to admit poverty-stricken illiterates from totally dissonant cultures who will need government assistance for the next six generations — PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT WHITE.

Since 1970, the United States has brought in 1 million Haitians and more than one-quarter of the population of Mexico. Somalis are flown in from 8,000 miles away — then they vacation in Somalia, you know, where they were allegedly being persecuted.

Trump could have accomplished the same thing — saving White South Africans from probable genocide — by offering refugee status only to immigrants who are unlikely ever to need government assistance. As luck would have it, that’s already the law (8 USC 1182 (a)(4)(A)).

Or only to those who’ve been fully vaccinated against mumps, measles, polio, etc., and, in light of the typical refugee, also against cholera, malaria, leprosy, yellow fever, typhoid fever, Ebola and other medieval diseases. That, too, is already the law (8 USC 1182 (a)(1)(A)(ii)).

Or to no one who is a witch doctor, Santeria priest or voodoo practitioner. (Again, already the law: 8 USC 1182 (a)(5)(B).)

These and many other provisions of federal immigration law have been entirely ignored for the past 50 years in order to bring in the poorest of the poor, who have no concept of Western civilization, preferably with wildly expensive medical problems and no means of support apart from criminal activity, who will require taxpayer support for the rest of their lives. But their selling point is, they’re not white.

The other night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof were in high dudgeon over Trump admitting English-speaking, non-welfare-receiving, Dutch-descended South Africans who are currently being threatened with dispossession and death by officials in their own government. (The Economic Freedom Fighters — Motto: “Kill the Boer!” — with 10% to 15% of the vote, are insistent that land and businesses be confiscated from White owners and redistributed to Black South Africans. The New York Times reports that “a large segment” of the governing African National Congress agrees.)

First, let’s review Kristof’s expertise on refugees. He spent a decade promoting a total fraud, Somaly Mam, who claimed she’d been beaten and prostituted as a child in Cambodia, sold to a brothel and tortured with electrodes. She wasn’t White, so Mam became an instant celebrity, feted by Time magazine, Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg, Meg Ryan and Oprah.

Then it turned out her whole story was an elaborate Nigerian Prince scam, completely apocryphal from beginning to end, as was finally exposed by Newsweek magazine.

So we should definitely listen to Kristof when it comes to humanitarian cases.

Anderson and Kristof’s main argument is that there are millions of non-Whites out there! Why can’t we get them instead of being saddled with 59 tall, healthy, educated, English-speaking South Africans?

It’s hard to argue with that.

On the other hand, their beloved Afghans, who “saved the lives of American troops,” according to both Cooper and Kristof (Cooper heard it from Jussie Smollett, and Kristof heard it from Somaly Mam), prefer to live under sharia law.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the Taliban, their version of sharia prohibits women from leaving their homes without a male relative, forces them to wear head-to-toe burqas, and still employs stonings, public hangings and amputations as criminal punishments.

To each his own, but wouldn’t the 99% of Afghans who told Pew they want to live that way be happier in one of the 35 countries that practice sharia law?

Cooper was especially incensed that we’re not bringing Sudanese and Congolese people to our shores, testily adding, “On this program, we reported on the violence, the plight of people there in a series of programs in 2006.” (Don’t worry if you missed it, nothing’s changed.)

Those countries have been beset by bloody civil wars, involving mass rape and millions dead. WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THAT IN OUR COUNTRY??? Not only that, but Congo has been “fighting for decades.” What’s not to like?

Cooper seems to think Congolese people merely need to be moved to a majority White country, like the U.S., in order to bring stability and safety to their lives. It’s like busing on an international scale.

Unfortunately, the idea of the Great White Father died out with European colonialism. If the mightiest empires in the world could spend decades imposing Western values, the rule of law, modern medicine, engineering and farming techniques on these countries only to have them — immediately, the moment the imperial power leaves — erupt into bloody, violent, corrupt, cannibalistic dystopias, then bringing them here to collect welfare probably isn’t going to help either.

By 1968, British historian Paul Johnson reported, the dozens of decolonized African nations had already experienced 64 military coups. Less than a decade later, 20 of the 41 independent African countries were ruled by military juntas and the rest were dominated by coups, wars, uprisings, massacres, starvation and sadistic rulers. None were democracies.

(Speaking of Congo, when Belgium withdrew in 1960, it had a booming industrial base, the highest literacy rate and most hospital beds in Africa. Five days after Independence Day, the Congolese military erupted in an ecstasy of violence, looting, killing and raping Whites.)

Importing the third world doesn’t turn third-worlders into us, it turns us into the third world.

One of our beloved African refugees was Beatrice Munyenyezi, a victim of the Rwandan genocide that former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power desperately tried to get us involved in. Then it turned out that Munyenyezi was a perpetrator, not a victim of the genocide.

(Once again: I’m totally impressed with our immigration officials.)

And remember that nice pharmacist lady we brought in from Pakistan after she married an American? Within two years, Tashfeen Malik and her “American-born” husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, had committed mass murder in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 and injuring 22. According to the GAO, in the decade after 9/11, a majority of those convicted of terrorism offenses in the U.S. immigrated here legally.

American police say they are being asked to respect Mexican rape culture when 13-year-old Hispanic girls are impregnated by 40-year-old men. One detective said he’ll show up at the house of the girl, expecting the family to be in a blind rage, only to be told “it’s a blessing and we’re so happy. I’ll explain it’s illegal, they cut me right off. I get a lot of those too.”

Cooper and Kristof’s other killer argument against the South African refugees is that they have … White privilege! Please apologize now.

“These Afrikaners,” Kristof said, “are among the most privileged people on the entire continent,” adding that they have “assets 20 times greater than those of black South Africans on average.”

So what? Does having assets mean the government isn’t trying to kill you? Jews had more assets in Germany. Kulaks had more assets in Russia. Or is Kristof suggesting it’s OK to persecute people with assets?

That would be bad news because you know where else Whites have more assets than blacks? Here.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2025-05-16 07:13:052025-05-16 11:32:32Make America Uganda! Liberals Meltdown over a few White Refugees

Jews and the New Deal: Banking and Money

May 15, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jews in Economy/Finance/by Frederick Talmadge

By FREDERICK TALMADGE

Finance and banking during the New Deal had a significant Jewish role. It was, of course, part of a larger historical context that involved both domestic and international finance capitalism in America, which included (but not limited to) such activities as commercial banking, merchant and investment banking, and the stock market, all fields with important Jewish activity. Like the rest of the New Deal, the Jewish versus gentile share of the activity is complex and not easily reduced to accusations of “Jew Deal.” Though the focus here is on the Jews, the gentiles were still the elite at this point and played many roles that can’t be explored in detail here. One can overstate the Jewish role, however it’s just as easy to understate it as well.

This article will deal with some of the major money and banking events of both the First (1933–34) and Second New Deals (1935–36). Some of the topics, like Henry Morgenthau and Charles Coughlin, appear in both periods, and are not categorizable under either as the nomenclature only applies to administrative policy. Significant economic and financial statutes in the First New Deal are the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall), the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. The Second New Deal saw the Banking Act of 1935. 

Banking Background

It’s instructive to start with a short history of investment (also called merchant) banking, which became modernized in the nineteenth century and was internationally led by the Rothschilds.[1] The United States was still “a nation of planters and farmers” until the 1830s, and before the Civil War there were relatively few railroads and relatively little need for foreign capital.[2] In the U. S., the first investment bank was the private banking house of Jay Cooke & Company in Philadelphia, established in 1861.[3] Cooke was the chief financier during the Civil War for the Union side, although German-Jews in the U.S. were beneficiaries of a “bonanza” because of their connections to Jewish investors in Germany in funding the Union’s expenditures.[4]

The post-bellum funding for recovery and the massive industrial expansion meant that foreign financial capital was needed, and Cooke assembled a syndicate with two Jewish houses, the Seligman’s in New York and the Rothschilds in Europe, to finance a refunding issue for the remaining Civil War debt (he was challenged by a syndicate involving the rising “House of Morgan,” which was awarded the business). Seligman would also vie with the Morgans on Wall Street in tapping European markets for railroad investors[5], including Jewish banking houses such as Cohen, Seligman, Bischoffsheim, Goldschmidt, Bleichroeder, Wertheim, Erlanger, and Oppenheim. (Seligman’s 1880 death ended one era of Jewish banking leadership in America, followed by the era of Jacob Schiff).[6]

The establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, modeled after central banks in Europe, was a watershed for managerial power in the United States. Sam Francis says that it “carried forward the incipient fusion of state and economy in the transitional era between bourgeois and managerial capitalism.”[7] The central role played in international finance by Jews secured an invitation to play a role in the Fed’s creation. International banking had been less directly rooted in the United States, and a central bank was difficult to established for a number of reasons including the country’s history of decentralization,[8] constitutional limitations, and because of the bias toward the interests of farmers, who desired to pay back mortgages with cheaper, inflated money.[9] The Federal Reserve system, was the nation’s fourth attempt at central banking, when it was finally inaugurated by elite insiders during Woodrow Wilson’s first term.

It’s well-known in dissident circles that the system was the offspring of the “Aldrich Plan” submitted to Congress in 1911, from a draft proposal at the Jekyll Island Club meeting in 1910. The men who met at Jekyll Island were midwifes of the new central bank and represented the interests of Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., but the immigrant Jew at the meeting, Paul Moritz Warburg, had the exclusive expertise of the international financier and was able to advise a country traditionally hostile to such institutions.[10]

Warburg was convinced to go public with his previously sketched reforms for the U.S. financial system by associate and friend Edwin R. A. Seligman, son of Joseph Seligman, during a gathering at Seligman’s house. This gathering was right before the Panic of 1907, which was the final stimulus needed to bring Warburg’s ideas to national attention by triggering the National Monetary Commission.[11]

After passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Warburg was on the founding board of governors of the Federal Reserve (the government part of the system) from 1914 to 1918 and served for two years within that period as a vice-chairman. After 1918, he was on the Advisory Council for much of the 1920s and continued to play a principal role in running it.[12]

Mainstream discussions of the Federal Reserve’s origins allow that American banking interests were represented and that these interests were tied to the private Fed through capital investments in the Bank or through interlocking directorates.[13] But were these interests answerable to larger firms in Europe, so that the banking system which Carroll Quigley described as a “feudal system” (but in his discussion one limited to the United States)[14] was in fact a subsidiary of international finance centered in London around the Rothschilds, who possessed fons honorum privileges to bestow power on others from higher up the global neo-peerage system?[15]

Eustace Mullins thought so and didn’t beat around the bush when approaching history with this hypothesis. As the cover of his book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (1954) put it, “Exposing the plot behind the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 … placing the nation’s banking reserves in the hands of the Jewish international bankers.”[16] His related 1952 work The Secrets of the Federal Reserve quotes a source that claims that the writing of the Federal Reserve Act was directed by London banker Alfred Rothschild, a direct descendant of patriarch Mayer Amschel Rothschild through his son Nathan. Mullins further explained that the Rothschilds controlled international finance through their manipulation of gold prices through their London office.[17]

Mullins also claims that the Rothschilds controlled the Morgan interests throughout their career, a relationship first cemented by Baltimore dry-goods merchant (and Morgan patriarch Junius S. Morgan’s sponsor) George Peabody. According to this theory, Peabody, who founded a merchant bank in London in 1836, and whose celebrated and well-documented Fourth of July parties inviting fellow financiers in the City of London were actually espionage operations for Nathan Rothschild to spy on fellow bankers.[18] Furthermore, he claimed that J.P. Morgan in the United States (his father J.S. spent much of his career in England) was an agent for the House of Rothschild, and that a percentage of his profits were claimed by his benefactor and, as a result, his fortune at his death was considerably below that of the other Gilded Age millionaires.[19]

Eustace Mullins also claimed to have found the organizing certificates of the Federal Reserve banks, and he provides charts of its international ownership structure.[20] And, as for Paul Warburg, Robert L. Owen, the Senate sponsor of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (a.k.a. the Glass-Owen Act, the progressive modification of the Aldrich plan), is quoted in Mullin’s book as having made a statement years later that Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., where Paul Warburg had been a founder and partner, was a Rothschild representative in the United States, a viewpoint shared by G. Edward Griffin in his book on the Federal Reserve.[21]

These claims are absent (and implicitly repudiated) in Ron Chernow’s The House of Morgan and Niall Ferguson’s The House of Rothschild, who note that the Rothschilds were only occasional partners with Morgan. Chernow quotes Rothschild agent Belmont as lamenting the “utter want of appreciation of the importance of American business,”[22] while Ferguson writes that the “Rothschild interest in American finance was limited” and that the “Civil War had led … to a permanent decline in the Rothschilds’ transatlantic influence.”[23] Nonetheless, Morgan and other American financiers did cooperate with the Rothschilds in this period, including the refunding issue mentioned above and the rescue of the gold standard during the Cleveland administration of the 1890s.[24]

Of course, there is no doubt that Jewish finance was international. Michael Collins Piper says that, “While the Rothschild family held sway through their banks in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, there were also such big names in Jewish finance as Bleichröder in Berlin, Warburg in Hamburg, Oppenheim in Cologne and Speyer in Frankfurt who were also emerging as powerful lords of money who worked in conjunction with one another and with the Rothschilds, competing often to be sure, but all tied together by their Jewish heritage and traditions.”[25] That is, Jewish-owned banking houses had familial and professional links within and across nations, the product of which can be thought of as an organic whole. Furthermore, to invoke the name “Rothschild” in this sense often means the same thing, making it a metonym for what Henry Ford called “International Jewish Finance.”[26] 

Banking in the First New Deal

Paul Warburg would not play any role in the FDR administration, as he died in 1932. His German-born son James, however, was brought into the Roosevelt circle in early 1933 (while he was president of the International Manhattan Co. bank[27]), chosen by brain truster Raymond Moley to be an economic advisor without title or salary after Warburg had turned down undersecretary of the treasury[28] (partly on the strength of the numerous social and business ties between the Roosevelts and Warburgs in America). Author Chernow in The Warburgs called James the “sole Wall Street renegade.”[29]

By the time Roosevelt was elected, the price of goods had fallen catastrophically (64 percent in farm products), and he decided on a multipronged strategy to rescue industry and farmers, the latter trapped in mortgages contracted at higher, pre-crash nominal prices. One option to raise prices was monetary inflation, which could be achieved with greenback printing or by raising the price of gold. An amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act gave Roosevelt the power to do either but Roosevelt chose the gold strategy.

Raising commodity prices by buying gold at successively higher prices was based on the theories of Cornell professor George F. Warren. Warren’s theory was that the price of commodities was always bound with the prices of gold, so to increase one was to increase the other. FDR therefore had Eugene Meyer’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) buy gold at steadily increasing prices. After this brought disappointing results, the gold price was stabilized in 1934 via the Gold Reserve Act.[30]

By that time the paper currency was no longer backed by gold. Warren’s reflation theories did not compel the end of the gold standard—both removing the gold backing from Federal Reserve Notes and circulating minted coins—but Roosevelt abandoned it anyway because it met further administrative goals of credit expansion in the economy.[31] So, by way of successive statutes, by 1933’s end, it became illegal for citizens and private entities (including the Fed) to ‘hoard’ (i.e., possess), export, or contract in gold, ending the standard the nation had been on officially since 1900 and unofficially since 1873. This appeared to be a win against international, deflationary finance; i.e., against “Rothschild finance.”

As far as the history of gold and Jews in America, since the nineteenth century, many leaders of the inflation lobby felt gold to be something adventitious, and it had periodically been associated with Jewry. In the 1890s, the Populists had denounced Grover Cleveland as a tool of Jewish money for striking a deal with the Rothschilds through their American agent August Belmont to save the gold standard. In 1873, the country had been taken off of the bimetallic standard that it had been on since its founding and in doing so had forced deflationary conditions that hurt farmers the most who wanted inflation through silver coinage to pay off mortgage debt. The zenith of this struggle came in the election of 1896, when William Jennings Bryan embraced the Populist formulas in capturing the Democratic Party ticket for U.S. President, losing to William McKinley.[32]

The struggle during the New Deal found inflation proponents among lobbies like the Committee for the Nation. Ihe silverites were chiefly ensconced in the Senate, with many leading Progressives favoring doing something for silver, in the phrase of the day, including Burton Wheeler from Montana and Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma.[33]

If it was a blow to the financial sector, the confiscation and manipulation of gold to raise prices and expand credit had a surprising initial response from Wall St. Given FDR’s experiments with the metal, it was perhaps providential and symbolic for New Deal progressives that “die-hard” gold defender Paul Warburg had died the same year that Roosevelt was elected. Still, his son was among those receptive to abandonment and inflation, conditional on a certain future return to the metal. As a result, James (‘Jimmy’) Warburg was even chosen as one of Roosevelt’s experts on money matters during the Hundred Days.[34] And in those uncertain days, even J.P. Morgan embraced both Roosevelt’s election and his legerdemain with gold in 1933; though there is little doubt that part of this surrender owed to both the ongoing Pecora hearings, which investigated the role of big finance in causing the stock market crash of 1929, and the desperation brought on by the Depression. As for administration bankroller Bernard Baruch, he had as a matter of principle been against inflation, but Schlesinger says that he was the type that hedged his bets, and early in 1933 he craftily used his associate Herbert Bayard Swope to confer with monetary apostates.[35]

In time, however, some of the bankers (like the business community), having rediscovered their pride, would revolt. Warburg was the first, turning on Roosevelt in the summer of 1933, becoming a leading New Deal opponent thereafter. As suggested, the break was over Roosevelt’s decision to abandon gold, nearly agreeing with conservative budget director Lew Douglas’s comment that its abandonment meant the “end of Western Civilization.” Thus, he came back into the Wall Street fold. Chernow also says that Jimmy Warburg was the “true son of a Jewish banking dynasty, for he always favored global coordination and harmony over any naked assertion of national interests.”[36]

The mild and implicit gentile-Jewish wrangling in 1933 over the political and bureaucratic differences in the Department of Agriculture between conservative George Peek and liberal Jerome Frank (seen in Part 1 of this essay[37]) would have an inverted analog in the FDR administration’s approach to monetary policy. In this instance, the Warburgs became the reactionaries that adhered to an international financial order based around gold, while the inflation lobby of the rural West and South (with its residue of Victorian populism) and among some businessmen had a progressive moral order that was set against gold, favoring bimetallism or unbacked greenback printing (expressed in the Thomas Amendment to the AAA).[38] That is, and this is a cardinal takeaway from this study: Jews could be found on both sides of this debate (Morgenthau, discussed below, was not opposed to coming off of gold), so that Jewish activity during the period was characterized less by “conspiracy” than by a general increase in influence.

Warburg was not the only revolting financial baron who had supported FDR. The nation had felt unified by the response to the collective economic struggle during the Hundred Days, but in 1933 some prominent bankers were thought to be behind the Business Plot, the reputed proposed fascist putsch on the FDR government by elements of big business and finance.[39] In short: In late 1934, General Smedley Butler testified at the Congressional McCormack-Dickstein committee that two men, a bond-salesman named Gerald Macguire and a J.P. Morgan executive named Grayson M.P. Murphy had approached him and asked him to deliver a speech to the upcoming American Legion convention in Chicago. The prepared speech was one that announced the evils of taking the nation off of gold.

More seriously, Butler was told in coded language that he might be tasked with marching on Washington with thousands of soldiers to be installed as the nation’s new leader and that Roosevelt would step aside. The establishment of the American Liberty League in 1934, which formed a year after Butler claimed MacGuire asked him to lead the coup, was an anti-New Deal organization that employed some of the same men in the plot and included many of Morgan’s men, such as Morgan’s chief attorney John W. Davis, who had written the pro-gold speech.[40]

What’s interesting for our purposes is that powerful Jews put their support behind the Business Plot, the Liberty League, and other significant pro-business and anti-New Deal organizations, some of whom funded an array of other, anti-communist and antisemitic organizations. John Spivak, a communist journalist for the Marxist-oriented New Masses magazine in the 1930s, explored the byzantine links between financiers and (his definition of) American fascism, giving special attention to the plot against Roosevelt. In the article, one learns, for instance, of the business ties between the interests of the Morgans, Hearsts, Gianninnis, Rockefellers, Duponts, and Kuhn-Loebs. Spivak identifies Morgan as the “ultimate fountain-head of the whole fascist conspiracy of Wall Street” but does not shy away from the conspicuous role of Jews within Spivak’s galaxy of fascist organizations.[41]

So, for example, Judge Joseph Proskauer, on the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee, was a director of the American Liberty League while the A.L.L.’s president Jouett Shouse, a gentile, married the daughter of Abraham Lincoln Filene of Filene’s Department Store, whose vice-president was Louis Kirstein, who was also on the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee.[42]

According to the communist Spivak, in furthering their class interests as capitalists, the Liberty League and the American Jewish Committee, motivated by the common perception that Jews were communists, were both invested in backstairs dealings with anti-Jewish organizations to fight real or suspected communism, emboldened by the dominance of the left in this period. This was a period when a lot of the press was abuzz with the sentiment that “a Communist is a Jew and a Jew is a Communist”[43] (my next essay will explore this). The former funded the Sentinels of the Republic[44] and the latter, through Lessing Rosenwald, funded Harry A. Jung’s American Vigilance Intelligence Federation. Among other things, Jung had distributed copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[45]

Spivak also claimed that Felix Warburg orchestrated the McCormack-Dickstein Committee investigations from behind the scenes. The Committee’s mandate was to look into both National Socialist and Communist activities, but Spivak claimed that Warburg and the American Jewish Committee had an interest in restricting it to Communism only. That explains the Committee’s merely half-hearted, pro forma investigation into the plot. As a result, Spivak concluded that Jewish class interests could trump their racial interests[46], but I would add that powerful Jews probably felt that they were in a position to manage the situation, not unlike Jewish support for the alleged neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in the ongoing Ukrainian war today. An important point as well is that during this period many Jews were communists (agitating from below) and some Jews were capitalists (influencing from above).[47] 

Henry Morgenthau

The summer of 1933 saw the meeting of leading Western bankers and politicians called the London Economic Conference. It was here that the decision was definitively made by Roosevelt (through his delegation) to practice economic nationalism—that America’s interests would be put above those of the international bankers, whose gold standard had a deflationary tendency and resulted in unstable price levels.

Jews were the advisors for the American delegation—James Warburg was a financial advisor, William Bullitt was an executive officer, and Herbert Feis was chief technical advisor.[48] In fact, it was to these three men that Roosevelt entrusted the entire American preparation for the conference.[49] In trying to avoid offending European sensibilities, Roosevelt (who did not travel to London) initially assented to general agreements with Britain and France for currency stabilization and an eventual return to the gold standard, but in an impudent turnabout borne out of necessity, he ultimately nixed any commitments and finally cabled that the United States would not make pledges to either goal and would to try to inflate their way out of depression. This is when Warburg decided to break relations with Roosevelt, reflecting the sentiments of much of Wall Street as well.[50]

Jimmy Warburg did not want Bernard Baruch to attend the conference because he was, for one, a mere Wall Street speculator, but also because he didn’t want Jewish opponents to see it as an “international Jewish delegation.”[51] Whether or not that was sufficient to dispel the perception of the outsize Jewish presence at the conference, it probably didn’t help Jewry against charges of elite global power that Henry Morgenthau Jr. as treasury secretary would be the nation’s chief advisor of all economic and financial matters, nationally and internationally.[52] Morgenthau would serve in this capacity until July 1945, a few months after Roosevelt’s death, when Truman accepted his resignation over not being allowed to go to the Potsdam Conference, telling Henry Stimson, “I’m not taking any of those jew boys, not Morgenthau, not Baruch” to Potsdam.[53]

Morgenthau’s elevation to Secretary of the Treasury was not based on objective merit. He was the son of the famous lawyer and ambassador to the Ottoman empire Henry Morgenthau Sr. in the Democratic progressive Wilson administration. Many Jews had embraced progressivism and the Democratic Party to further their interests. As Benjamin Ginsberg put it, the process of elite formation between the industrialists and the old-money Americans in the Gilded Age excluded Jews by the end of the nineteenth century, and Jews improved their political fortunes by supporting progressivist candidates, becoming early supporters of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.[54] Morgenthau Sr., like Baruch, had been an influential supporter of Woodrow Wilson’s presidential run in 1912.[55]

The young Morgenthau had wandered irregularly in youth. His poor grades forced him out of Exeter and later Cornell University, which his own son, Henry Morgenthau III, thought due to undiagnosed dyslexia.[56] He decided on becoming a farmer (unusual for a Jew), perhaps in part because he wanted to be free of his father[57] or because he found people “difficult and forbidding.”[58] He focused on dairy farming and apple growing, and biographer Herbert Levy assures the reader that farming for Morgenthau was more than “just bookkeeping entries” (i.e., merely a business), and says his interest was genuine, quoting Morgenthau’s son who said that he “loved nothing better than to ride horseback through the rows of apple trees at all seasons.”[59]

In 1913, Morgenthau, Jr. and Sr., jointly chose to purchase 1,000 acres in Dutchess County, New York, becoming Franklin Roosevelt’s neighbor. This was not long after Roosevelt had won a seat in the New York State Senate in 1910.[60]  Considering their later association, this fate would be judged miraculous if assumed governed by chance, but the more likely explanation is that it was a calculated strategy by the Morgenthaus to associate with probable future influencers in the Democratic Party.[61]

Nonetheless, while Roosevelt entered politics beginning in 1910, Morgenthau cut his teeth on agriculture, which continued through the 1920s. When Roosevelt became governor in 1928, he hired his erstwhile neighbor to direct the Agricultural Advisory Commission, and Morgenthau was now a political insider, gaining the chief financial office in the federal government only five years later.[62]

Levy mentions that Morgenthau “had an innate skill to run a bureaucracy,“ and that he performed it with aplomb under FDR.[63] This is a marriage of two facts, the Progressive idea of the state and the knack Jews have for administration. A Progressive creed for statecraft was summed up by Roosevelt himself during a 1930 campaign speech: “that progressive government by its very terms must be a living and growing thing, that the battle for it is never-ending and that if we let up for one single moment or one single year, not merely do we stand still but we fall back in the march of civilization.”[64]

The Jews possess managerial talents along with very able strategies for getting to the top (Baruch ran the economy for the final months of the First World War, for example). Thus, Morgenthau as commissioner of the Department of Conservation established a scientific bureau to study land management, created an advisory council of non-partisan experts, restructured the organization, and streamlined its finances.[65]

And as a technocrat he was committed to implementing the policies of the government official whom he served.[66] Morgenthau was devoted enough to Roosevelt and the nascent potential power within the rising ranks of Democrat Progressivism enough to take an unpaid position when chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Commission in Roosevelt’s first term as governor in 1930.[67] This was the beginning of Morgenthau’s union with Roosevelt for the rest of the latter’s life. Morgenthau could be relied on to deliver obedience and would provide funds for campaigns, but Levy writes that the real reason FDR liked Morgenthau was that he possessed the capacity to decode the thoughts and motivations of the sphinxlike Roosevelt.[68]

Morgenthau was more qualified to be Secretary of Agriculture, but Levy says anti-Semitism among farmers prevented this.[69] A Time Magazine article from 1934 noted that Morgenthau Jr. was no financial expert, that he consolidated his power like a dictator at Treasury, that he operated out of loyalty to FDR, and was thought to desire the subordination of the Federal Reserve to the Treasury through personal rule.[70]

Nonetheless, despite his closeness to the true-blue Morgenthau, many sources indicate that Roosevelt was not easily influenced by his advisers; James Warburg says that there was no possible power behind the throne with Roosevelt, who always called the shots in the end.[71] Morgenthau was even the chief target of an occasional and subtle sadism that Roosevelt characteristically displayed in ribbing his subordinates.[72]

Morgenthau got the Treasury job when FDR improvised a legal solution to getting the government to buy gold, one that met with consternation by Undersecretary of Treasury Dean Acheson.[73] Acheson, who was acting Treasury Secretary with a dying William H. Woodin, was forced to resign by Roosevelt. In looking for a replacement, he chose Morgenthau, based on thin qualifications as a financial expert. When Morgenthau got the news, Levy reports that he “broke out in a cold sweat,” knowing little about the “effects of currency flow or banking.”[74]

Prior to his appointment in January of 1934, Roosevelt had been using him as an “unofficial ‘minister without portfolio’—a ‘troubleshooter’” in occasional money matters. Whether connected or not, during the Hundred Days Roosevelt had been informed of George Warren’s theories on Morgenthau’s recommendations and was compelled to use his inflation theories when the midwestern radical Farmers’ Holiday Association threatened a farmers’ strike on Washington. The Association was headed by Milo Reno, who was one of those who would charge in 1935 that the New Deal was a “Jew Deal.”[75]

Since our discussion carries us to only 1936, we will not deal with the issues arising from the war, most notably the Morgenthau Plan, for the destruction of post-World War II Germany for which he is assuredly best remembered. In 1935 and 1936, he would help coordinate international exchange policy, at one point charging Hitler with violating Smoot-Hawley through a currency devaluation, getting new import duties on Germany over the objections of the State Department, impressing the French socialist government of Léon Blum, and allowing Franco-American exchange talks to go ahead.[76] Whether based on economic need or not, these international transactions among Jews could not have escaped the attention of the Hitler government.

Silver  and Father Charles Couglin

Since his opinions tended to follow Roosevelt’s, Morgenthau had helped Roosevelt set the prices each day for gold when Professor Warren’s theories were being experimented with. They both, however, opposed mandatory bimetallism as advocated in the Bryan tradition through the coining of silver, which was in the interest of the rural South and West and was represented by pro-silver senators, such as Key Pittman and Burton Wheeler.[77] Schlesinger writes that, “Gold was the rich man’s metal, the creditor’s metal, the banker’s metal; silver, the poor man’s metal, the debtor’s metal, the worker’s metal—and that had been true ever since the House of Rothschild in Populist folklore had begun a century before to drive silver out of the currencies of the world.”[78]

The Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 had authorized the Treasury to buy and mint silver, but neither the President nor the Secretary of Treasury had acted. The silver bloc in Congress in early 1934 was as vocal as ever and Roosevelt was forced to compromise, resulting in the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, which required the government to buy and mint silver, though according to Schlesinger it wasn’t the monetary panacea the lobby anticipated.[79]

From a contemporary standpoint, during this period the silver issue as well as anti-Semitism are both associated with Father Charles Coughlin, who had made a name for himself in the 1920s from his Detroit ministry. Roosevelt was being threatened during his first term by the twin demagogic political and cultural surge of Coughlin and Senator Huey Long of Louisiana for the allegiance of the nation.

Coughlin (pronounced “COG-lin”[80]), had a brief row with Roosevelt and Morgenthau in 1934 during the silver debates at a time when “The Radio Priest” was waging warfare against capitalism, particularly its financial sector.[81] To retaliate against Coughlin, “Morgenthau had launched an investigation of silver speculators. … The most interesting feature was the revelation that, while Father Coughlin had been demanding the ‘mobilization of all Christianity against the god of gold,’ his secretary had been prudently investing the funds of the Father’s Radio League of the Little Flower in silver futures.”[82] Betraying the association of gold with Jews, Coughlin responded by saying, “Mr. Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, has completed his clumsy effort to protect the gold advocates, the Federal Reserve bankers and the international bankers of ill-repute” and that silver was a “gentile” metal (Morgenthau himself, as an FDR loyalist and pragmatist, was not against ending gold).[83]

For years Coughlin had preferred to couch his monetary critique in somewhat vague abstractions, frequently denouncing “international bankers” and the “money changers.”[84] It was only after Roosevelt was elected that he began floating the names of specific changers. Alan Brinkley noted that, despite the anti-Semitic impression many people in the early 1930s got from hearing his speeches—when Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Eugene Meyer, and Bernard Baruch were named—gentile banking firms and individuals were cited 50 percent more often by Coughlin from 1933 on, including Andrew Mellon, Odgen Mills, Thomas Lamont, but especially J.P. Morgan. For Coughlin, Morgan was the symbol par excellence of the evil banker.[85] His “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” were Morgan, Mellon, Mills, and Meyer.[86]

Prior to 1938, he only occasionally denounced the Jews as Jews. In an August 1936 convention in Cleveland campaigning for Union Party presidential candidate William Lemke, he said “You appreciate the fact to my dear friends, that, among other things, in the National Union for Social Justice, we are Christian insofar as we believe in Christ’s principle of love your neighbor as yourself, and with that principle, I challenge every Jew in this nation to tell me that he does not believe in it!”[87] By 1938 he entered a more explicitly anti-Jewish phase, serializing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his newspaper.[88]

Coughlin’s radio program was reaching millions at its peak, but in the later 1930s Coughlin was attacked by the administration, which imposed new regulations on radio broadcasters, which he was able to temporarily work around until America’s entry into the Second World War, which pressured him into permanent silence under the threat of America’s sedition laws.[89]


Monetary Policy and Banking in the Second New Deal

In the second book of his FDR trilogy, The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger writes about the end of laissez-faire in the financial sector:

In the twenties, the national monetary policy had been run to a great degree in New York by Benjamin Strong and the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Decisions basic to the nation’s economic future were made not by government officials accountable to the people but by bankers in Manhattan board rooms. In 1933, as a result of Roosevelt’s gold policy—and even more, perhaps, of such reforms as the new banking legislation and the control of margins under the Securities Act—this situation came to an end. The nation asserted its control over its monetary policy. In this process, the financial capital of the United States began to shift from Wall Street to Washington.[90]

The Federal Reserve Board is the government side of the Federal Reserve system, originally created to provide for public oversight as a necessary counterweight to  the influence of bankers.[91] The control by the Federal Reserve banks during the 1920s was so total as to “reduce the public Board in Washington to impotence.”[92] Monetary policy was run by officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in cahoots with those in the Bank of England, with the former oftentimes carrying out policy for the latter’s interest.[93] However, once nations were forced off of gold during the financial crisis (Britain in 1931 and the U.S. in 1933), Fed policy increasingly took orders from the White House during 1933–34, and in 1935 the balance of the decision-making was tipped in favor of the government.[94]

The Banking Act of 1935 was the brainchild of Marriner Eccles, a Mormon banker who joined the administration soon after impressing Rexford Tugwell and Roosevelt with the content and the vehemence of his gospel of deficit spending (i.e., Keynesianism) and his desire to reform the banking system to subordinate the Federal Reserve banks to the Federal Reserve Board. He had felt that the Federal Reserve system was run by private concerns with a view to their interest and felt an overhaul was in order for the national interest. To this end, his bill made a number of changes to the Fed including public management of open-market operations (through a Federal Open Market Committee) and a reorganization of Board membership to favor selecting fewer bankers.[95] In 1934, Henry Morgenthau’s assistant Jacob Viner, an influential Jewish economist from the University of Chicago, had chaired a committee to recommend changes that would make the Fed more accountable to the public, but Eccles’s repudiated them as insufficient.[96]

Jimmy Warburg opened the attacks against Eccles’s bill when Virginia Senator Carter Glass opened hearings on it (Glass, who was Eccles’s biggest critic in Congress, had helped author the original Federal Reserve Act in 1913). A momentary split had developed between Eccles and Morgenthau during the debates, with Morgenthau to the left of Eccles, desiring stock ownership of the Federal Reserve banks by the government, based on a casual suggestion by FDR, to which, however, Roosevelt remained non-committal. Morgenthau backed off and after some political wrangling by Glass that proved to be more theater than horse-trading, the bill was passed, essentially originally what Eccles had wanted, which put banking in control of the government.[97]

 

Frankfurter, Brandeis, and the Security Acts

I want to close this first inquiry into Jewish influence in the New Deal—whether the “Jew Deal” charge had merit—with the two men who were most associated with it, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter. Bernard Baruch and Gerard Swope influenced the First New Deal of the NRA and the AAA. Brandeis and Frankfurter’s influence was predominantly in the Second New Deal, about which much more will be will be said in a future essay.[98]  Still, Brandeis and Frankfurter had an impact during the First New Deal in securities and exchange legislation, in their opinions on the chief recovery statutes, in early legislation written by Frankfurter and his students, or traceable to Frankfurter and Brandeis’s own ideas as progressives.

Known as the “people’s lawyer,” Brandeis, since the Homestead Steel Works strike of 1892, devoted himself to an intensely moralistic social justice posture, fighting for the worker, unions, the consumer, and the citizen against corporate giants and political corruption.[99] He won fame while battling J.P. Morgan in a multi-year struggle over a New Haven Railroad monopoly beginning in 1907, bringing hatred from the Boston WASPs.[100]

Among Progressives, Brandeis had been for protection of the individual against modern corporations through “regulated competition, unhampered enterprise, and economic freedom,”[101] and for decades he had not changed his conviction that “bigness,” whether of business or government, was a danger to the individual’s liberty. His conception of freedom was based on economic liberty within an ideal Jeffersonian republic of smaller businesses, and he opposed the prevailing trend towards large corporate organization, the financial powers of Wall St., and the trusts and holding companies. As the author of the New Freedom strategy of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign, utilizing the power of his characteristic sense of moral superiority, he would insist on the certainty of invoking antitrust legislation to better ensure that ideal republic.[102]

Frankfurter, like Brandeis, was a lawyer who heeded the liberal progressive call to action, after hearing a high-minded speech Brandeis himself gave in 1905 before the Harvard Ethical Society while Frankfurter was a young, idealistic student at its law school.[103] A friend of Frankfurter said that he “collects people”, inveterately networking across his career to help construct the liberal state.[104] In doing so, he would mimic Brandeis in numerous and varied ways, from directly following him as counsel to Florence Kelley’s National Consumer League in the battle over worker rights in Oregon, to being a leader in American Zionism, and all the way to the Supreme Court as a Justice (it’s no wonder then that when Brandeis became a justice in 1916, Frankfurter cemented a “half-brother, half-son” relationship.[105])

Contemporary journalist John Franklin Carter said about the pair that Frankfurter, “more than any other one person is the legal mastermind of the New Deal, although he is in large part only the transmitter of the apostolic succession of Louis D. Brandeis.”[106] Still, though Frankfurter had maintained similar convictions in copying his master’s habits and beliefs as fellow front-line liberals, there was never a complete committal to “Old Isaiah’s” ideological blueprint, which created contributive flexibility.[107] By the time the FDR revolution emerged, Frankfurter had decided to assist the left New Deal planners of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Administration, and its “bigness” designs, owing to his not being the ideologue that Brandeis was; he was more pragmatic,[108] much like FDR himself, continuously following the twisting road of history as it revealed itself bit by bit and to strike at opportune moments. And from his professorship at Harvard Law School (and during the early New Deal from Oxford University), he could influence events through his advice and by being a “one-man recruiting agency” for New Deal talent.[109]

As a result, he was involved with the creation of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933; Frankfurter helped draft some of its labor provisions, and after its passage he was Hugh Johnson’s first choice for NRA general counsel.[110] He would also play a lead role in attempting to save the NRA two years later. In 1935, Brandeis voted in the judicial majority against NIRA in the Supreme Court Panama Refining and Schechter cases which struck the law down, after which Brandeis scolded Frankfurter’s proteges Benjamin Cohen and James Corcoran, telling them that the President was living in a “fool’s paradise.”[111] For his own part, Frankfurter predicted it would fail because it wasn’t drafted to satisfy Chief Justice Charles Hughes’s agency requirements for delegation of powers. As a result, Frankfurter insisted on writing better legislation to conform to what the Hughes Court wanted, which would pay dividends for the later New Deal.[112]

Several securities acts were important New Deal monetary policies. While Frankfurter was doing his best to nourish the New Deal from overseas in England (while teaching from the fall of 1933 to the summer semester of 1934), the Pecora Commission in Washington was grilling influential bankers and stockbrokers to get to the bottom of the causes of the crash of 1929.[113] Two statutes that resulted from this inquiry, the Securities Act of 1933 (for new security issues) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (for secondary market securities), had heavy Jewish input. (The other statute that resulted was Glass-Steagall.)

The Securities Act of 1933, one of the Hundred Days statutes, was in many ways the New Deal sequel to a bill, drafted in 1914 by Texas Congressman Sam Rayburn with Brandeis’s assistance, that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission more control of the issuing of railroad securities.[114] Almost 20 years later and with a revived progressivism, Rayburn led the way in Congress for a proper securities bill. Needing assistance, he appealed to advisor Ray Moley to find someone suited to help draft a proper bill. Moley would turn to Frankfurter. To assist, Frankfurter sent his students, most notably James Landis and the “Gold Dust Twins,” Thomas Corcoran and Benjamin V. Cohen, who were Frankfurter’s most important disciples in the New Deal.[115]

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established the Security and Exchange Commission, was also a very Jewish affair. The first draft of what would be the act was written by Samuel Untermyer before being discarded. Untermyer, Jewish lawyer Max Lowenthal and the Pecora Commission’s chief counsel Ferdinand Pecora, anticipating a request for a stock exchange bill by the government, called on Frankfurter’s star pupil Cohen (also a protégé of Lowenthal’s[116]) to pen a replacement draft. Cohen reunited with Thomas Corcoran (from the earlier Securities Act) with help from Landis, and several months of constant work and testimony (by Corcoran) and battling for the bill in Congress by many congressmen, including Senate Banking Committee chair Duncan Fletcher and Sam Rayburn of Texas in the House, produced the bill.[117]

At this point, Snyder writes that charges of a “Jew Deal” and Communism “cropped up with increasing frequency” by businessmen, writers, and Congress. Frankfurter’s circle came under direct fire by Congressman Frank Britton who charged that the House of Truth in Washington (a quasi-Jewish thinktank) was a breeding ground for subversive and alien ideas.[118] A school superintendent in Gary, Indiana named William A. Wirt also made headlines for alleging that the New Deal was part of a design to communize the United States.[119]

As mentioned, the attacks of 1934 were part of a reenergized business community, no longer pliant as in the heady and desperate Hundred Days. The attacks would resume until Roosevelt regained momentum in 1935. Once Frankfurter was back from Cambridge, Roosevelt requested to see him immediately, as the New Deal was in trouble and would face legal headwinds, that would ultimately need to remediated by the Second New Deal.[120] And the Jews would contain to play a role. The Second New Deal is explored in my next essay.


[1] ”The nineteenth century saw the rise of several prominent banking partnerships such as those created by the Rothschilds, the Barings and the Browns. At this point, investment banking had started to evolve into its modern form, with banks underwriting and selling government bonds.” In “The History of Investment Banking,” International Finance Institute.

See also: Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme (American Free Press, 2009), 111.

[2] John Moody, The Masters of Capital (Yale University Press, 1919), 9.

[3] Jay Cooke, Wikipedia, last modified September 16, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Cooke

[4] Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990), 13.

[5] Ibid., 36, 30.

[6] Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 64. Joseph Seligman was powerful enough to elicit an invitation by President Grant to become Secretary of the Treasury in 1869, a role that Henry Morgenthau would fill under Roosevelt. See Ginsberg, 59.

[7] Samuel T. Francis, Leviathan and Its Enemies (Washington Summit Publishers, 2016), 375.

[8] Paul Warburg once wrote, in despair of ever launching a central bank, that an “abhorrence of both extremes”—that is, of Washington and of Wall Street—“had led to an almost fanatic conviction” in favor of extreme decentralization. Roger Lowenstein, “The Jewish Story Behind the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank,” Forward (November 29, 2015). https://forward.com/culture/325447/the-man-behind-the-fed/

[9] Verne B. Johnston, “Origins,” Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (December 30, 1983), 1. Niall Ferguson notes suspicion of big banks in particular. Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets 1798–1848 (Penguin Publishing Group, 1998), 369.

[10] The others were senator Nelson Aldrich, economist A. Piatt Andrews, and bankers Henry P. Davidson, Benjamin Strong, and Frank Vanderlip.

[11] Harold Kellock, “Warburg, the Revolutionist,” The Century Magazine (May, 1915, 81). https://archive.org/details/centurymagazine90newyrich/centurymagazine90newyrich/page/79/mode/1up?q=Warburg.

[12] Paul Warburg, Wikipedia, last modified October 5, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

[13] For an example, see Arthur Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (Harpers & Brothers, 1954), 44.

[14] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope (The MacMillan Company, 1966), 530.

[15] This is not to say that scholars don’t discuss transnational links. Ron Chernow, for example, mentions merchant banking interlocking partnerships on an international scale. See Chernow, The House of Morgan, 33.

[16] Eustace Mullins, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (Common Sense, 1954).

[17] Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (Bankers Research Institute, 1952), 23, 48.

[18] Ibid., 49.

[19] Ibid., 57 (footnote). Mullins would presumably agree that this is what caused Andrew Carnegie to assert, upon receiving news of the elder Morgan’s death, “And to think he was not a rich man.” In Chernow, The House of Morgan, 159.

[20] Mullins, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, 34. He doesn’t give any citation for the claims, but the numbers and detail of the claims would be inspired if a hoax.

[21] Ibid., 17. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island (American Media, 2010), 5. Griffin claims that Warburg bought his partnership in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. from Rothschild money. In Ibid., 18.

[22] Chernow, The House of Morgan, 40.

[23] Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker 1849–1999 (Penguin Publishing Group, 1999), 117–18.

[24] Chernow, The House of Morgan, Ch. 5.

[25] Piper, The New Babylon, 114.

[26] Ibid., 117. For example, Jacob Schiff’s father had worked for the Rothschilds as a broker and the Schiffs and the Warburgs married into the Loeb family of America. “Jacob Schiff,” Wikipedia, last modified August 9, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

“Paul Warburg,” Wikipedia, last modified October 5, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Warburg

[27] James Warburg, The Long Road Home (Doubleday, 1964), 111.

[28] Ron Chernow, The Warburgs (Random House, 1993), 385. Also in Warburg, The Long Road Home, 112.

[29] Chernow, The Warburgs, 385.

[30] Eugene Meyer was the fifth chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1930 to 1933. Meyer’s financial interests had ties with Baruch’s, and Meyer, like Baruch, was important in the First World War, heading the War Finance Corporation, which became the basis for his Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1933. With its capitalization by bankers, the RFC attempted to revive the economy using loans to troubled banks during the banking crisis that began in 1931 with the failure of the large Jewish-owned The Bank of United States in New York, setting off a chain of bank failures until Franklin Roosvelt shut down the banks the week he took office. See: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957), 236–238. See also: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959), 239, and “Eugene Meyer (financier),” Wikipedia, last modified October 23, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Meyer_(financier).

The Jews were so well connected, that Henry Morgenthau Sr. was asked to represent the stockholders (he refused). His son, of course, would become important in FDR’s administration and was responsible for the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany after the Second World War. Roosevelt sent governor Herbert Lehman to effect a merger of other failing Jewish-owned banks with the Bank of United States (it failed). Lehman is listed by Schlesinger as having been one of the top donors to Roosevelt for President, behind Morgenthau Sr. See: Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957), 280.

[31] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959), 199.

[32] Chernow, The Warburgs, Ch. 5.

[33] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 248–249.

[34] Chernow, The Warburgs, 386.

[35] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 196.

[36] Chernow, 387.

[37] Frederick Talmadge, “The Jews and the First New Deal, 1933–1934,” The Occidental Quarterly 25 (Spring 2025): 63–105.

[38] The two analogous centers were also connected by policy through the emergency. One of Henry Wallace’s strategies at the Department of Agriculture to raise the catastrophically low commodity prices was through inflation, and one method of achieving inflation was through gold price manipulation.

[39] “Business Plot,” Wikipedia, last modified October 22, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[40] Jules Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House (Skyhorse Publishing, 2015), 31.

[41] John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, II,” New Masses (February 5, 1935), 13.

[42] Ibid., 14.

[43] Ibid., 12.

[44] Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House, 31. Archer claimed that “Its members [included some rich businessmen who] labeled the New Deal ‘Jewish Communism,’” and also that they demanded an American Hitler.

[45] John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, I,” New Masses (January 29, 1935), 13. For information on Jung’s activities, see: Ray P. Chase (who represented Minnesota in Congress, 1933–1935), “Ray Chase Seeks to Collaborate with Harry A. Jung, Notorious Extremist Antisemite,” A Campus Divided (1940); source: Minnesota Historical Society, RP Chase, Box 44, Correspondence and Miscellaneous papers, Folder (December, 1940). https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/letter/ray-chase-seeks-to-collaborate-with-harry-a-jung-notorious-extremist-antisemite/

[46] Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy, II,” 14.

[47] For information on Jews and Communism, see: Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners, Jews as a Hostile Elite in the Soviet Union,” The Occidental Quarterly 5, no. 3 (Fall, 2005): 65–100. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf

[48] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 209.

[49] Ibid., 204.

[50] Roosevelt began to feel that a group set up by Warburg to study the monetary issue was beholden to New York interests. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 237.

[51] Chernow, The Warburgs, 391.

[52] “United States Secretary of the Treasury,” Wikipedia, last modified October 12, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury#Powers_and_functions

[53] Lucinda Franks, Timeless: Love, Morgenthau, and Me (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014), 52.

[54] Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace, 61–62.

[55] “Henry Morgenthau Sr.,” Wikipedia, last modified October 14, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Sr.#Political_career

[56] Herbert Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.: The Remarkable Life of FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury (Skyhorse publishing, 2010), 62.

[57] Ibid., 88.

[58] Ibid., 241.

[59] Ibid., 117.

[60] Ibid., 90.

[61] See Jeff Gates, Guilt by Association (State Street Publications, 2008), 52.

[62] Roosevelt would rely on many Jews as governor, including speechwriter Sam Rosenman and Jessie I. Straus, who was the first leader of the state Temporary Emergency Relief Administration program. See: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Governor_of_New_York_(1929-1932)

[63] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 187. This was fortunate for him because his farm “sustained huge losses” most of the time. Ibid., 117.

[64] “Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

[65] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 228–230. As another example, consider that Felix Frankfurter gave suggestions for the reorganization of the War Department during World War I. See: Brad Snyder, Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (W.W. Norton and Company, 2022), 96.

[66] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 117; 241.

[67] Ibid., 228.

[68] Ibid., 200-01.

[69] See: Talmadge, “The Jews and the First New Deal, 1933–1934.”

[70] “The Cabinet: Atlas & His Burden,” Time Magazine (September 17, 1934). https://time.com/archive/6895177/the-cabinet-atlas-his-burden/

To be fair, Warburg pointed out that the previous Secretary, William Woodin, had no financial experience as Treasury Secretary either. It’s worth pointing out that James Warburg was offered the Undersecretary of the Treasury by FDR in 1933, but declined. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 196.

[71] Warburg, The Long Road Home, 113.

[72] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 537.

[73] FDR’s solution was to create a subordinate agency under the RFC to buy the gold instead of the Treasury (which Acheson said could not buy outside of the statutory price of $20.67 per ounce). The RFC would buy the gold under the condition that the gold would be collateral for the loans the Treasury would make to the RFC which the latter would need to purchase the gold. Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 259–60; Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 238.

[74] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 265.

[75] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval (Houghton Mifflin, 1960), 27.

[76] Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 285.

[77] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 248.

[78] Ibid., 248.

[79] Ibid., 257.

[80] Clyde Haberman, “The Father Coughlin Story,” PBS, Exploring Hate (March 9, 2022). https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/03/09/today-in-history-the-father-coughlin-story/

[81] See Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 18–20.

[82] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 251.

[83] Abba Hillel Silver, “Father Coughlin,” Jewish Daily Bulletin (May 6, 1934).

[84] Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest (Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 271.

[85] Ibid., 271–272.

[86] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 18.

[87] “Coughlin ‘Challenges’ Jews to Adopt ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Precept,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (August 18, 1936), 4 You can watch him say it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ljscYrxr8.

[88] Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest (Alfred A. Knopf, 1983); see Appendix I for a short essay about Coughlin and the Jews.

[89] “Charles Coughlin,” Wikipedia, last modified October 27, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Backlash

[90] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 247.

[91] David C. Wheelock, “Overview: The History of the Federal Reserve,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (September 13, 2021). https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-history

[92] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 292.

[93] This was not just because the center of international finance was the City of London, but also because it needed America to raise its domestic discount rates to stop Britain’s continual hemorrhaging of its limited gold supplies after it returned to gold in 1926. During the First World War, the belligerents were forced off of gold to fund the conflict; the priority for international financiers after the war was for nations to return to—to “stabilize”on—the gold standard. See Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, 342.

[94] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 301. See also: Levy, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., 278; Wheelock, “Overview: The History of the Federal Reserve.”

[95] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 293–294.

[96] “Banking Act of 1935,” Wikipedia, last modified June 19, 2024, accessed October 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_Act_of_1935#Origin

[97] Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 298–301.

[98] Brandeis and Frankfurter’s contributions are more significant than Swope and Baruch because the agencies they had the most impact on, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Social Security Act, were not struck down by the courts.

[99] Leonard Baker, Brandeis and Frankfurter: A Dual Biography (Harper & Row, 1984), 35. As an example of his reputation, Brandeis’s contrarian professional crusades led him to be “thoroughly hated by most of the leaders of the bar.” Ibid., 17.

[100] Ibid., 46–47.

[101] Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 20.

[102] Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order, 28–31. Though always opposed to “bigness”, under the real constraints of Wilson’s first term, Brandeis quickly capitulated in order to promote new agencies of government that could be regulated.

[103] Ibid., 40.

[104] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 38.

[105] Ibid., 72.

[106] Carter, The New Dealers (Simon & Schuster, 1934), 317.

[107] “Old Isaiah” was FDR’s nickname for Brandeis.

[108] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 219; 251.

[109] Ibid., 224.

[110] Ibid., 223. Chicago progressive Donald Richberg (a gentile) got the job.

[111] Paul D. Moreno, Moreno, The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 255. His admonition to Cohen and Corcoran over the fate of NIRA had nothing to do with Brandeis being against Roosevelt or to progressivism, which remained undiminished over the decades. As stated, in that case, he merely disagreed with the philosophical approach.

[112] Daniel Ernst, Tocqueville’s Nightmare (Oxford University Press, 2014), 60-61.

[113] Pecora Commission, Wikipedia

[114] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 440. See also Baker, Brandeis and Frankfurter, 283.

[115] Leonard Dinnerstein, “Jews and the New Deal,” American Jewish History 72, no. 4 (June 1983): 461–476, 468. Corcoran was an Irish Catholic.

[116] Max Lowenthal, Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Lowenthal#Private_law_practice

[117] Carter, The New Dealers, 156; see also: Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 456–58.

[118] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 237. Frankfurter had been in contact with Cohen and Corcoran over the phone the entire time and displayed the characteristic coolness and excitement for battle.

[119] Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, 457–460.

[120] Snyder, Democratic Justice, 238.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Frederick Talmadge https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Frederick Talmadge2025-05-15 07:24:532025-05-16 09:11:50Jews and the New Deal: Banking and Money
Page 55 of 504«‹5354555657›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Raven's Call: A Reactionary Perspective
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only