Featured Articles

Tucker Interviews VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow

/14 Comments/in , , /by

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

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


And:

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

Here’s one terrifying example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIMESTAMP HEADLINE
00:04:58
Targeted by Letitia James
00:19:49
Stalked by the SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lydia Brimelow [00:06:59] Never.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker [00:26:54] Wait, wearing guns?

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

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

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

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

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:19] Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

Tucker [00:27:52] Yes.

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

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

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

Tucker [00:30:16] It’s been received.

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

Tucker [00:31:26] He did.

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

Tucker [00:31:41] It’s a political-

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

Tucker [00:32:58] Well, because.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Primacy of Anti-Semitism

/27 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Bit of Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Solution, and Some Concrete Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Better World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Roman History 69.13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Benz: Uncensored: The National Security State & the Inversion of Democracy

/15 Comments/in /by

The video is here.

Tucker’s interview with Mike Benz is incredibly important. Exposing the deep state which is fundamentally attempting to prop up our current, substantially Jewish elites at the expense of populism and Trump. This completely vindicates the skeptics of the 2020 election by showing that any social media messages doubting mail-in ballots or drop boxes were deleted or prevented from wide distribution. The watershed moment for the security state-censorship regime was the 2016 election. The censorship-color revolution regime was already in place but mainly directed against foreign countries, such as the Maidan coup of 2014, sponsored by the CIA and staffed by neocons like Victoria Nuland with their atavistic hatred of Russia. But it sped up dramatically after Trump was elected, particularly because of his non-interventionist foreign policy statements — anathema to the neocons who control U.S. foreign policy.  The 2020 election and the Covid panic beginning in 2019 resulted in massive censorship and channeling of information on the internet, but now directed at domestic “disinformation” defined now as anything that could disrupt elite consensus, especially on Covid as well as mail-in ballots and drop boxes for ballots, and run by the Department of Homeland Security. The result: “You could literally be on your toilet seat at 9:30 on a Thursday night and tweet, “I think that Mail-In ballots are illegitimate,” and you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security, classifying you as conducting a cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm and misinformation is a cyberattack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions.”  Trump is not our savior, but he certainly has the right enemies.

I post the transcript of the conversation in its entirety. I have done some light editing for readability and have underlined passages that I regard as most important,

Tucker [00:00:00] The defining fact of the United States is freedom of speech. To the extent this country is actually exceptional, it’s because we have the First Amendment to the Bill of rights. We have freedom of conscience. We can say what we really think. There’s no hate speech exception to that. Just because you hate what somebody else thinks, you cannot force that person to be quiet because we’re citizens, not slaves. But that right, that foundational right that makes this country what it is, that right from which all other rights flow is going away at high speed in the face of censorship. Now, modern censorship bears no resemblance to previous censorship regimes in previous countries in previous eras. Our censorship is affected on the basis of fights against disinformation and malinformation. And the key thing to know about these is they’re everywhere. And of course, they have no reference at all to whether what you’re saying is true or not. In other words, you can say something that is factually accurate and consistent with your own conscience, and in previous versions of America, what an absolute right to say those things. But because someone doesn’t like them, or because they’re inconvenient to whatever plan the people in power have, they can be denounced as disinformation, and you could be stripped of your right to express them, either in person or online. In fact, expressing these things can become a criminal act and is. And it’s important to know, by the way, that this is not just the private sector doing this. These efforts are being directed by the US government, which you pay for and at least theoretically own. It’s your government, but they’re stripping your rights at very high speed. Most people understand this intuitively, but they don’t know how it happens. How does censorship happen? What are the mechanics of it? Mike Benz is, we can say with some confidence, the expert in the world on how this happens. Mike Benz had the cyber portfolio at the State Department. He’s now executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, and we’re going to have a conversation with him about a very specific kind of censorship, by the way, we can’t recommend strongly enough if you want to know how this happens Mike Benz BENZ is the man to read. But today we just want to talk about a specific kind of censorship and that censorship that emanates from the fabled military industrial complex, from our defense industry, and the foreign policy establishment in Washington. That’s significant now because we’re on the cusp of a global war. And so you can expect censorship to increase dramatically. And so with that, here is Mike Benz, executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online. Mike, thanks so much for joining us. And I just can’t overstate your audience how exhaustive and comprehensive your knowledge is on this topic. It’s almost it’s almost unbelievable. And so if you could just walk us through how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors and DoD and just the whole cluster, the constellation of defense related, publicly funded institutions strip from us our freedom of speech?

Mike Benz [00:02:59] Sure. You know, one of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of internet freedom and its switch from internet freedom to internet censorship, because free speech on the internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the internet in 1991. We quickly discovered, through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department in our intelligence services, that people were using the internet to congregate on blogs and forums, and free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and our sort of CIA cut out NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow authoritarian governments, as they were sort of billed. Essentially the internet free speech allowed kind of instant regime change operations, to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishment’s State Department agenda. Google is a great example of this. Google began as a DARPA grant, by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs. And they got their funding as part of a joint CIA, NSA program to chart how, quote, birds of a feather flock together online through search engine aggregation. And then one year later, they launched Google and then became a military contractor quickly thereafter. They got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software, essentially, and the ability to track to use free speech on the internet as a way to circumvent state control over media, over in places like Central Asia, or all around the world, was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged.

And all of the internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state. VPNs, virtual private networks to hide your IP address. Tour the dark web, to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously and to end encrypted chats.

All these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA-NSA projects, to be able to help intelligence-backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing a problem, to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014, when there began to be an about face on internet freedom and its utility. Now, the high watermark of the sort of internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in 2011, 2012, when you had this one by one. All of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online during those periods. There was a famous phone call from Google’s Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that, the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter, to win that election.

So it was; free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all the NGOs, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbas broke away and they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote on, in 2014. And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted, to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet

In the eyes of NATO as they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Gerasimov doctrine, which is named after this Russian military, a general, who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed. You don’t need to win military skirmishes to take over Central and Eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem, because that’s what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it’s infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political, influence operation over social media. And legacy media and industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the the British Ministry of Defense in Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit, essentially infrastructure that was created, initially stationed in Germany and in Central and Eastern Europe to create psychological buffer zones, basically to create the ability to to have the military work with the social media companies, to censor Russian propaganda, or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.

So you had the systematic targeting by our State Department, by our [Inter-Service Intelligence], by the Pentagon, of groups like Germany’s AfD, the Alternative for Deutschland there, and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now, when Brexit happened in 2016, it was [it created a] crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t have to worry just about Central and Eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds.

And so that was Brexit was June 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as there as this new NATO capacity. So they went from, you know, basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets if they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it’s not just Russian propaganda. This was these were now Brexit groups or groups like Matteo Salvini in Italy, or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It’s losing domestic elections across Europe in two. All these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when the U.S. was pressuring this energy diversification policy. And so they made the argument after Brexit.

Now the entire rules-based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media, because Brexit would give rise to “Frexit” in France, with Marine Le Pen to “Spexit” in in Spain with a Vox party to “Italexit” in Italy, to “Grexit” in Germany, to “Grexit” in Greece, the EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being, being fired. And then not only that, now that NATO is gone, now there’s no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF or the world Bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the internet, every all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the. World after World War Two would collapse. So you can imagine that we.

Tucker [00:10:56] May I ask.

Mike Benz [00:10:57] Later. Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

Tucker [00:11:00] So you well, you just told a remarkable story that I’ve never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the State Department pause room and say, wait a second, we’ve just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries. I think that’s what you’re saying. They feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way, and they went to war against that.

Mike Benz [00:11:24] Yes. Now, you know, there’s a rich history of this dating back to the Cold War. You know, the Cold War in Europe was essentially a similar struggle for hearts and minds of people, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. You know, in these sort of, you know, Soviet buffer zones. And, you know, starting in 1948, the national security state was really established. Then, you know, you had the 1947 act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency. You had, you know, this new world order that had been created with all these international institutions. And you had the 1948 U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, which forbid the territorial acquisition by military force. So you can no longer run a traditional military occupation government in the way that we could. In 1898, for example, when we took the Philippines, everything had to be done through a sort of political legitimization process, whereby there’s some ratification from the hearts and minds of people within the country. Now, often that involves simply puppet politicians who are groomed as emerging leaders by our State Department. But the battle for hearts and minds had been something that we had been giving ourselves a long moral license. Leash, if you will. Since 1948, one of the godfathers of the CIA, George Kennan, at, 12 days after we rigged the Italian election in 1948 by stuffing ballot boxes and working with the mob, we published a memo called The Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare, where he said, listen, it’s a mean old world out there. We at the CIA just rigged the Italian election. We had to do it because if the communists won, maybe there’ll never be another election in Italy again. So. But it’s really effective, guys, we need a department of dirty tricks to be able to do this around the world. And it’s essentially a new social contract we’re constructing with the American people. Because this is not the way we’ve conducted diplomacy before, but we are now forbidden from using the War Department. In 1948, they also renamed the War Department to the Defense Department. So, again, as part of this, this diplomatic onslaught for political control, rather than looking like it’s overt military control, but essentially what ends up happening there is we created this foreign domestic firewall. We said that we have a department of dirty tricks to be able to rig elections, to be able to control media, to be able to meddle in the internal affairs of every other plant of dirt in the country. But this sort of sacred dirt on which the American homeland sits will, they are not allowed to operate there. The State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA are all expressly forbidden from operating on US soil.a Of course, this is so far from the case, it’s not even funny. But, but that’s because of a number of laundering tricks that they’ve developed over 70 years of doing this. Bal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people. Because if Trump was a Russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue. It was a national security issue. It was only after Russiagate died in July 2019, when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for three hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing. After two and a half years of investigation that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place, where they took all of this censorship architecture spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the DOJ, and then the thousands of government-funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms were all basically transmitted from a foreign folk, from a foreign predicate, a Russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate, by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it’s actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself. And so by that, they were able to launder the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit, just in time for the 2020 election.

Tucker [00:15:50] It I mean, it’s almost beyond belief this has happened. I mean, my own father worked for the U.S. government in this business in the information war against the Soviet Union. And, you know, was a big part of that. And the idea that any of those tools would be turned against American citizens by the U.S. government was, I think I want to think was absolutely unthinkable and say, 1988. And you’re saying that it’s there really hasn’t been anyone who’s raised objections. And it’s just it’s absolutely turned inward to manipulate and rig our own elections, as we would in say, Latvia.

Mike Benz [00:16:25] Yeah. Well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives. That is the same people who argued that, you know, we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia. You. And that’s the predicate for getting rid of, you know, Milosevic or any other country around the world where we basically overthrow governments in order to preserve democracy. Well, if the democracy threat is homegrown now, then that becomes, you know, then suddenly these people all have new jobs moving on the US side, and they can go through a million examples of that. But one thing on what you just mentioned, which is that, you know from their perspective, they just weren’t ready for the internet. 2016 was really the first time that social media had reached such maturity that it began to eclipse legacy media. I mean, this was a long time coming. I think folks saw this building from 2006 through 2016. You know, internet 1.0 didn’t even have social media. From 1991 to 2004, there was no social media at all. 2004 Facebook came out 2005, Twitter, 2006 YouTube, 2007 the smartphone and so. And in that initial period of social media, nobody was getting subscriber shifts at the level where they actually competed with legacy news media. But over the course of being, you know, so initially, even these dissident voices within the US, even though they, they may have been loud, in moments, they never reached 30 million followers, they never reached, you know, a billion impressions a year type thing as a uncensored, mature ecosystem allowed citizen journalists and independent voices to be able to outcompete legacy news media. This induced a massive crisis both in our military and in our State Department and intelligence services. And I give you a great example of this. In 2019, at a meeting of the German Marshall Fund, which is, you know, an institution that goes back to the US, basically, and I’m don’t want to say bribe, but the essentially the soft power economic soft power projection in Europe as part of the reconstruction of European governments after World War 2, to be able to essentially pay them, with Marshall Fund dollars. And then in return, they basically were under our thumb in terms of how they reconstructed. But the German Marshall Fund held the meeting in 2019. They held a million of these, frankly, but where they, where a four star general, got up on the panel and said what happens to the to the US military? What happens to the national security state when the New York Times is reduced to a medium sized Facebook page? And he posed this thought experiment as an example of we’ve had these gatekeepers, we’ve had these bumper cars on democracy in the form of a century old relationship with legacy media institutions. I mean, our mainstream media is not in any shape or form, even from its outset, independent from the national security state, from the State Department, from the War Department. You know, you had the initial, all of the initial, broadcast news companies NBC, ABC and CBS were all created by Office of War Information veterans from the from the War Department’s effort in World War II. You had these operation mockingbird relationships from the 1950s through the 1970s. Those continued it through the use of the National Endowment for Democracy [a thorough neocon operation] and the privatization of intelligence capacities in the 1980s under Reagan. There’s all sorts of CIA reading room memos you can read, even on CIA.gov about those continued media relations throughout the 1990s. And so you always had this backdoor relationship between The Washington Post, The New York Times, and all of the major broadcast media corporations. By the way, you know, Rupert Murdoch and Fox are part of this as well. You know, Rupert Murdoch was actually part of the National Endowment for democracy coalition in 1983 when it was formed as a way to do CIA operations in an above board way after the Democrats were so ticked off at the CIA for manipulating student movements in the 1970s.

But essentially there was no CIA intermediary to random citizen journalists, there was no Pentagon backstop. You couldn’t get a story killed. You couldn’t have this favors-for-favors relationship. You couldn’t promise access to some random person with 700,000 followers who’s got an opinion on Syrian gas. And so this induced and this was not a problem for the initial period of social media from 2006 to 2014, because there were never dissident groups that were big enough to be able to have a mature ecosystem on their own. And all of the victories on social media had gone, in the way of where the money was, which was from the State Department, and the Defense Department, and the intelligence services. But then as that maturity happened, you now had this situation after the 2016 election where they said, okay, now the entire international order might come undone. 70 years of unified foreign policy from Truman until Trump are now about to be broken. And we need the same analog control systems. We had to be able to put bumper cars on bad stories. Political movements through legacy media, relationships and contacts. We now need to establish and consolidate within the social media companies. An initial predicate for that was Russiagate. But then after Russiagate died and they used a simple democracy promotion predicate, then it gave rise to this multi-billion dollar censorship industry that joins together the military industrial complex, the government, the private sector, civil society organizations, and then this vast cobweb of media allies and professional fact checker groups that that serve as this sort of sentinel class that surveys every word on the internet.

Tucker [00:22:46] So, can you give us a, and thank you again for this almost unbelievable explanation of why this is happening. Can you give us an example of how it happens? How just and just pick one among I know countless examples of how the national security state lies to the population, censors the truth, in real life.

Mike Benz [00:23:08] Yeah. So, you know, we have this State Department outfit called the Global Engagement Center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel, who described himself as Obama’s propagandist in chief. He was the undersecretary for public affairs, which is essentially the relationship which is the liaison office role between the State Department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media.

Tucker [00:23:39] And I, may I add something to that is someone I know, Rick Stengel, he was at one point a journalist. And Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against free speech.

Mike Benz [00:23:50] And, oh, yeah, he wrote a whole book on it. He published an op-ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it. And he, you know, he made the argument that that we just, you know, went over here that essentially, the Constitution was not prepared for the internet. And, we need to get rid of the First Amendment, accordingly. And, you know, he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of time magazine. And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement Center, which was the first government censorship, operation within the federal government. But it was foreign facing, so it was okay. Now, at the time, they used the, the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department, having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform, in the U.S. because the, you know, at the time, there were these ISIS attacks that were and we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook. And so the Global Engagement Center was was established essentially to be a State Department, entanglement with the social media companies to basically put bumper cars on their ability to, to platform accounts, and one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which it’s called natural language processing. It is a artificial intelligence, machine learning, ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the internet and create this vast topography, topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influencers are, what they’re talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending, and to be able to create this sort of network graph, in order to know who to target and, and, and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS, folks were talking about on Twitter when, when Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department, was expecting these promotions to the White House, National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who I should remind, viewers, you know, was also Secretary of state under Obama, actually ran the State Department, but these folks were all expecting promotions on November 8th, 2016 and were unceremoniously, put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to 1 underdog, according to the New York Times, the day of the election and when when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills coercing governments, to, for sanctions in the State Department led the, the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation in 2014. These State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws, to censor the right wing populist groups in Europe, and as a boomerang impact to censor populist groups who were affiliated in the U.S. So you had folks, you had folks who went from the State Department directly, for example, to the Atlantic Council, which was which was this major facilitator, between the government, between government to government censorship. The Atlantic Council is a group that was one of Biden’s biggest political backers. They bill themselves as NATO’s think tank. So they represent the political senses of NATO in many respects. When NATO has, civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to, to synchronize with military action, a region the Atlantic Council essentially is deployed to consensus, build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to NATO. Now, the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. A lot of people don’t even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on the board of a single organization. That’s kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry. They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for democracy. The Atlantic Council in January 2017 moved immediately to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank attack on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for to have US mimic European censorship laws. One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called NetzDG in August 2017, which was which, which was essentially kicked off the era of, of automated censorship in the U.S. what NetzDG required was that unless social media platforms wanted to pay a $54 million fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than 48 hours that had been identified as hate speech, they would they would be fined basically into bankruptcy when you aggregate 54 million over tens of thousands of posts per day. And the the safe haven around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence based censorship technologies, which had been again created by DARPA to take on ISIS, to be able to scan and ban speech automatically. And this was a this gave no. I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code. And the way this is done is by aggregating basically the field of censorship science fuzes together two disparate groups of study, if you will. There’s this sort of political and social scientists who are the sort of thought leaders of what should be censored. And then there are the sort of quants, if you will. These are the programmers, the computational data scientists, computational linguistics. Every university, there’s over 60 universities now who get federal government grants to do this. Censorship, the censorship work and the censorship preparation work, where what they do is they create these code books of the language that people use the same way they did for ISIS. They do this, for example, with Covid, they created these these Covid lexicons of what dissident groups were saying about mandates, about masks, about vaccines, about high profile individuals like Tony Fauci or Peter Daszak or any of these other protected VIPs and individuals whose reputations had to be protected online. And they created these code books. They broke things down into narratives. The Atlantic Council, for example, was a part of this, this government funded consortium, something called the Virality Project, which which mapped 66 different narratives that dissidents were talking about around Covid, everything from Covid origins to vaccine efficacy. And then they broke down these 66 claims into all the different factual sub claims. And then they plugged these into these essentially machine learning models to be able to have a constant world heat map of what everybody was saying about Covid. And whenever something started a trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts. They did this in the 2020 election with Mail-In ballots. It was this week.

Tucker [00:31:04] I’m sorry. I just got to have there’s so much here and it’s so shocking. So you’re saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the U.S. Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle?

Mike Benz [00:31:19] Yes, they did this. They oh, they did this through the so so there’s the two most censored events in human history, I would argue to date are the 2020 election and the Covid 19 pandemic. And I’ll explain, you know, how I arrived there. So the 2020 election was determined by mail in ballots. And I’m not weighing into the substance of whether mail in ballots were or were not a legitimate or safe and reliable form of a voting. That’s a completely independent topic from my perspective and the censorship issue. One but the censorship of mail in ballots is really one of the most extraordinary stories in our American history I would argue. What happened was, is you had this plot within the Department of Homeland Security. Now this gets back to what we were talking about with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. You had this group within the Atlantic Council in the foreign policy establishment, which began arguing in 2017 for the need for a permanent domestic censorship government office to serve as a quarterback for what they called a home of society. Counter misinformation, counter disinformation alliance. That just means censorship. The counter missed this info, but whole of their whole society model explicitly proposed that that we need every single asset within society to be mobilized in a whole of society effort to stop misinformation online. It was that much of an existential threat to democracy. And so it but but they they fixated in 2017 that it had to be centered within the government because only the government would have the clout and the coercive threat powers and [in] the and the perceived authority to be able to tell the social media companies what to do, to be able to summon in government funded NGOs form, to create that media surround sound, to be able to arm in a, you know, an astroturf army of of fact checkers and to be able to liaise and connect all these different censorship industry actors into a cohesive, unified whole. And the Atlantic Council initially proposed with this blueprint called Forward Defense. It’s not offense, it’s forward defense guys. They initially proposed that running this out of the State Department’s Global engagement Center, because they had so many assets there who were so effective at censorship under Rick Stengel Steed, and under the Obama administration. But they said, oh, we we’re not gonna be able to get away with that because we don’t really have a national security predicate, and it’s supposed to be foreign facing. We can’t really use that hook unless we have a sort of national security one. Then they contemplated parking at the CIA and they said, well, actually, there’s two reasons we can’t do that. CIA is foreign facing, and we can’t really establish a counterintelligence threat to bring it home domestically. Also, we’re going to need essentially tens of thousands of people involved in this operation spanning this whole society model. You can’t really run a clandestine operation that way. So they said, okay, well, what about the FBI? They said, well, the FBI would be great. It’s domestic. But the problem is, is the FBI is supposed to be the intelligence arm of the Justice Department and weak. And what we’re dealing with here are not acts of lawbreaking. That’s basically support for Trump. Or if, you know, if a left wing populist had risen to power like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, I have no doubt they would have done in the UK, they would have done the same thing to him there. They targeted Jeremy Corbyn and other left wing populist NATO skeptical groups in Europe. But in the U.S. it was it was all Trump.

And so essentially what they said is, well, the only other domestic intelligence equity we have in the US besides the FBI is the DHS. So we are going to essentially take the CIA’s power to rig and bribe foreign media organizations, which is a power they’ve had since the day they were born in 1947. And we’re going to combine that with the power, with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI by putting it at DHS. So DHS was basically deputized. It was empowered through this obscure little cyber security, agency to have the combined powers that the CIA has abroad with the jurisdiction of the FBI at home. And the way they did this, how did a cyber and an obscure little cyber security agency get this power was they did a funny little series of switcheroos. So this little thing called CISA the and call it the Disinformation Governance Board. They didn’t call it the censorship agency. They gave it an obscure little name that no one would notice, called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who its founder said, we just [are concerned with] security, we care about security so much it’s in our name twice. And everybody sort of closed their eyes and pretended, you know, that’s what it was. But it was created by act of Congress in 2018 because of the perceived threat that Russia had hacked the 2016 election, had physically hacked it. And so we needed the cyber security power, to be able to deal with that. And essentially on the heels of a CIA memo on January 6th, 2017, and a same day, DHS executive order on January 6th, 2017, arguing that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election and a DHS mandate, saying that elections are now critical infrastructure. You had this new power within DHS to say that cyber security attacks on elections are now our purview. And then they did two cute things. One, they said so they said, mis- and mal-information online is a form of cyber security attack. They are a cyberattack because they are happening online. And they said, well, actually Russian disinformation is we’re actually protecting democracy in elections. We don’t need a Russian predicate after Russiagate died. So just like that, you had the Cyber Security Agency be able to legally make the argument that your tweets about Mail-In ballots, if you undermine public faith and confidence in them as a legitimate form of voting, was now you were now conducting a cyberattack on US critical infrastructure by articulating misinformation on Twitter. And just like that and now what they did then is they … .

Tucker [00:37:14] So in other words, complaining about election fraud is the same as taking down our power grid.

Mike Benz [00:37:21] Yes, you could literally be on your toilet seat at 9:30 on a Thursday night and tweet, “I think that Mail-In ballots are illegitimate.” And you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security, classifying you as conducting a cyber attack on U.S. critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm and misinformation is a cyber attack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions. They would end up going far beyond that. They would actually define democratic institutions as being another thing that was a cyber security attack to undermine. And lo and behold, the mainstream media is considered a democratic institution. That would come later. What ended up happening was in advance of the 2020 election, starting in April of 2020, although this goes back before. You had this essentially Never-Trump neocon Republican DHS working with essentially NATO on the national security side and and essentially the DNC, if you will, to to use DHS as the launching point for a government coordinated mass censorship campaign spanning every single social media platform on Earth in order to pre censor the ability to dispute the legitimacy of mail in ballots. And here’s how they did this. They aggregated four different institutions: Stanford University, the University of Washington, a company called Graphika, and the Atlantic Council. Now all four of these institutions, the centers within them, were where we’re essentially Pentagon cutouts. You had, you had at the Stanford Internet Observatory. It was actually run by Michael McFaul. If you know Michael McFaul, he was the U.S. ambassador to Russia under the Obama administration. And he personally authored a seven step playbook for how to successfully orchestrate a color revolution that is, in part of that involved maintaining total control over media and social media, juicing up the civil society outfits, calling elections illegitimate in order…. All of these people were professional Russiagaters, professional election de-legitimizers in 2016. So Stanford University, the Stanford Observatory under Michael McFaul was run by Alex Stamos, who was formerly a Facebook executive who coordinated with DNI and the, with respect to, Russiagate, you know, taking down Russian propaganda at Facebook. So this is another, liaison essentially to the national security state and under Alex Stamos at Stanford Observatory was Rene DiResta, who started her career in the CIA and wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian disinformation. And there’s a lot more there that I’ll get to at another time. But, the next institution was the University of Washington, which is essentially the Bill Gates University in Seattle, who is headed by Kate Starbird, who, is is basically three generations of military brass who got her PhD in crisis informatics, essentially doing, you know, social media surveillance for the Pentagon and getting, you know, DARPA funding and, and working essentially with the national security state then repurposed to take on mail in ballots. The third firm, Graphika, got $7 million in Pentagon grants, and got their start as part of the Pentagon’s Minerva initiative. The Minerva initiative is the psychological warfare research center of the Pentagon. This group was doing social media spying and narrative mapping for the Pentagon until the 2016 election happened and then were repurposed into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to censor, you know, 22 million Trump tweets, pro-Trump tweets about Mail-In ballots. And then the fourth institution, as I mentioned, was the Atlantic Council, who’s got seven CIA directors on the board. So one after another, it is exactly what Ben Rhodes described it during the Obama era as the blob, the foreign policy establishment. It’s the Defense Department, the State Department, or the CIA every single time. And of course, this was because they were they were threatened by Trump’s foreign policy. And so while much of the censorship looks like it’s coming domestically, it’s actually [run] by our foreign facing department of dirty tricks, color revolution blob, who are professional government topplers who then basically descended on the 2020 election. Now they did this.

They explicitly said the head of this election integrity partnership on tape, and my foundation clipped them. And it’s been played before Congress. And it’s in, you know, a part of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit now, but they explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned from doing itself. And then they articulated a multi-step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions. They said on tape, the tech companies would not have done, but for their pressure, which involved using threats of government force. Because they were the deputized arm of the government, they had a formal partnership with the DHS. They were able to use DHS as proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk to top brass—All the tech companies for takedowns, and they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation band called delegitimization, which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any discord posts, any Twitch video, anything on the internet that that, undermined public faith and confidence in the use of mail in ballots or early voting dropboxes or ballot tabulation issues on election Day was a prima facia, Terms of Service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy that they only adopted because of past through government pressure from the Election Integrity Partnership, which they bragged about on tape, including the grid that they used to do this and simultaneously invoking threats of government, breaking them up, or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies unless they did this, as well as inducing crisis PR by working with their media allies. And they said the government, DHS could not do that themselves. And so they set up this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon, and I.C. networks to run this pre censorship campaign, which by their own math, had 22 million tweets on Twitter alone. And I think it’s on 15 platforms. This is hundreds of millions of posts which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they could not be amplified or they exist in a sort of limited state purgatory, or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact checking labels where you couldn’t actually click through to [the] thing [you wanted to look at] or you had to. It was is an inconvenience to be able to share it. Now, they did this seven months before the election because at the time they were worried about the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a so-called red mirage blue shift event. They knew the only way that Biden would be able to was would win mathematically, was through the disproportionate Democrat use of mail in ballots. They knew there would be a crisis because it was going to look extremely weird if if Trump looked like he won by seven states and, you know, and then three days later it comes out, actually, the election switched. I mean, that that would put the election crisis of the Bush-Gore election, on a level of steroids that the national security state said, well, the public will not be prepared for it. So what we need to do is we need to in advance we need to pre censor the ability to even question the legitimacy this took out.

Tucker [00:45:11] Wait, wait, wait. May I ask you to pause right there. So what you’re saying is… What you’re suggesting is they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held.

Mike Benz [00:45:21] It looks very bad.

Tucker [00:45:25] Yes, Mike, it does look very bad.

Mike Benz [00:45:29] You know, and especially when you combine this with the fact that this is right on the heels of the impeachment, the Pentagon-led, CIA-led impeachment. You know, it was, Eric Ciaramella from the CIA, and it was the Vindmans from the Pentagon, who led the impeachment of Trump in late 2019 over, you know, an alleged phone call around withholding Ukraine aid. This same network, which came straight out of the Pentagon, hybrid warfare military censorship network created after the first Ukraine crisis in 2014, were the lead architects of the Ukraine impeachment in 2019 and then essentially came back on steroids as part of the 2020 election censorship operation. But, you know, from their perspective, I mean, it certainly looks like the perfect crime. These were the people DHS at the time [who] had actually federalized much of, of the national election, administration through this January 6th, 2017, executive order from outgoing Obama DHS head Jeh Johnson, which essentially wrapped all 50 states up into a formal DHS partnership. So DHS was simultaneously in charge of the administration of the election in many respects, and the censorship of anyone who challenged the administration, of the election. It’s just like essentially [making] the defendant of a trial, as the judge and jury of the trial.

Tucker [00:47:01] But you’re not describing democracy. I mean, you’re describing a country in which democracy is impossible.

Mike Benz [00:47:06] What I’m essentially describing is military rule. I mean what’s happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. You know, the democracy sort of draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is, rule by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it’s not really being ruled by an overlord, because the government is actually just our will expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the 2016 election and after Brexit and after a couple of other, you know, social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the 2016 Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the internet. And what they essentially said is we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions. And who are the democratic institutions? Oh, it’s us, you know, it’s the military, it’s NATO, it’s the IMF and the World Bank. It’s the mainstream media, who it is, the NGOs. And of course, these NGOs are largely State Department funded or IC funded. It’s essentially all of the elite establishments, that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you’re left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the democratic institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work. I mean, I mean, the amount of work these people do. I mean, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region for the for the finance and the JPMorgan’s in the BlackRock’s in a region, for the NGOs in the region, for the media, in the region. All of these need to reach a consensus. And that process takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation. From their perspective, that’s democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with Blackrock, to agree with the Wall Street Journal, you know, to agree with, you know, the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative. That is the difficult vote building process from their perspective. At the end of the day, a bunch of, you know, populist groups decide that they like a truck driver who’s popular on TikTok more than the, you know, carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass. Well, then, from their perspective, you know, that is now an attack on democracy. And this is what this whole branding effort was. And of course, democracy again, has that magic regime change predicate, where democracy is, is our magic watchword to be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style, whole of society effort to toppling a democratically elected government from the inside. For example, as we did in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people, like him or hate him. I’m not even issuing an opinion there. But the fact is, is we color revolutioned him out of office, we January 6th’d him out of office. Actually, to be frank, I mean with respect to… you had, you know, a State Department funded right sector thugs and, you know, $5 billion worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of democracy. And they took that special set of skills home. And now it’s here, perhaps potentially, to stay. And this is fundamentally changed the nature of American governance because of the threat of, you know, one small voice becoming popular on social media.

Tucker [00:51:04] May I ask you a question. So into that, that group of institutions that you say, now define democracy, the NGOs, foreign policy establishment, you included the mainstream media. Now, in 2021, the NSA broke into my private text apps and read them and then leaked them to the New York Times against me. That just happened again to me last week. And I’m wondering how common that is for the Intel agencies to work with so-called mainstream media like the New York Times to hurt their opponents.

Mike Benz [00:51:43] Well, that is the function of these interstitial, government funded non-governmental organizations and think tanks. Like, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is, you know, NATO’s think tank. But other groups like the Aspen Institute, which draws the lion’s share of its funding from the State Department and other government agencies. You know, the Aspen Institute was busted doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. You know, you had this strange situation where the FBI had advance knowledge of the pending publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and then, magically, the Aspen Institute, which is run by essentially former CIA, former NSA, former FBI, and then a bunch of sort of civil society organizations, all hold a mass, stakeholder censorship simulation, a three-day, conference. You know, this came out and Yoel Roth was there. This was a big part of the Twitter file leaks. And it’s been mentioned in multiple congressional investigations. But somehow the Aspen Institute, which is basically an addendum of the national security state got the exact same information that the national security state spied on journalists and political figures to obtain and not only leaked it, but then basically did a joint coordinated censorship simulator in September, two months before the election, in order, just like with the censorship of mail in ballots, to be in ready position to pre censor anyone online amplifying a news story that had not even broken yet.

Tucker [00:53:19] The Aspen Institute? … Walter Isaacson, formerly of Time Magazine, ran it, former president of CNN. I had no idea it was part of the national security state, I had no idea its funding came from the US government. This the first time I ever heard that. But given assuming what you’re saying is true, it’s a little weird that Walter Isaacson left Aspen Institute to write a biography of Elon Musk. Strange?

Mike Benz [00:53:48] Yeah. I don’t know. I haven’t read that book. From what I’ve heard from people, it’s a relatively fair treatment. I, you know, just total speculation. But I suspect that Walter Isaacson has struggled with this issue and may not even firmly fall in one particular place, in the sense that, you know, Walter Isaacson did a series of interviews of Rick Stengel, actually, with the Atlantic Council, in other settings, where he interviewed Rick Stengel, specifically on the issue of the need to get rid of the First Amendment and the threat that free speech on social media poses to democracy. Now, at the time, I was very concerned. This was between 2017 and 2019 when he did these Rick Stengel interviews. I was very concerned because Isaacson expressed what seemed to me to be a highly sympathetic, view about the Rick Stengel, you know, perspective on killing the First Amendment. Now, he didn’t formally endorse that position, but it left me very skittish about Isaacson. But what I should say is, at the time, I don’t think very many people, in fact, I know virtually nobody in the country, had any idea how deep the rabbit hole went when it came to the construction of the censorship industry and how deep the tentacles had grown within the military, in the national security state, in order to Bouie and consolidated much of that, frankly, did not even come to public light until even last year. You know, frankly, some of that was galvanized by Elon Musk’s acquisition in the Twitter files and the Republican turnover in the House that allowed these multiple investigations, the lawsuits like Missouri v. Biden in the discovery process there. And, you know, multiple other things like the Disinformation Governance Board, who, by the way, the interim head of that, the head of that, Nina Jankowicz, got her start, in the censorship industry from this exact same, clandestine intelligence community censorship network created after the 2014 Crimea situation. Nina Jankowicz, when her name came up in 2022, is part of the Disinformation Governance Board. I almost fell out of my chair because I had been tracking Nina’s network for almost five years at that point, when her name came up as part of the UK inner cluster cell of a busted clandestine operation to censor the internet called the Integrity Initiative, which was created by the UK Foreign Office and was backed by NATO Political Affairs unit, in order to carry out this thing that we talked about at the beginning of this, of this dialog, the NATO, sort of psychological inoculation, and, the ability to kill so-called Russian propaganda or rising political groups who wanted, to maintain energy relations with Russia at a time when the U.S. was trying to kill the Nord Stream and another, pipeline relation.

Tucker [00:56:45] Well, they did that.

Mike Benz [00:56:48] Nina Jankowicz was a part of this outfit. And then who is the head of it after Nina Jankowicz went down. It was Michael Chertoff, and Michael Chertoff was running the Aspen Institute Cyber Group, and then the Aspen Institute then goes on to be the censorship simulator for the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then two years later, Chertoff is then the head of the disinformation governance board after Nina was forced to step down. Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman at BAE I’m sorry. And Michael Chertoff was the chairman of the largest military contractor in Europe, BAE Military.

Tucker [00:57:24] So you’ve blown my mind so many times in this conversation that I’m going to need a nap directly after it’s done. So I’ve just got two more questions for you. One short, one a little longer. The short one is, for people who’ve made it this far — an hour in — and want to know more about this topic. And by the way, I hope you’ll come back whenever you have the time to explore different threads of the story. But for people who want to do research on their own, how can your research on this be found on the internet?

Mike Benz [00:57:53] Sure. So our foundation is FoundationForFreedomOnline.com. We publish all manner of reports on every aspect of the censorship industry from what we talked about with the role of the military industrial complex in national security, state to what the universities are doing to, you know, like I sometimes refer to as digital MKUltra, there’s just the field of basically the science of censorship and how and the funding of these psychological manipulation methods in order to nudge people into different belief systems, as they did with Covid, as they did with energy and every sensitive policy issues, what they essentially had an ambition for. But my FoundationForFreedomOnline.com website is one way. The other way is just on X. My handle is at Mike Benz Cyber. I’m very active there and publish a lot of long form video and written content on all this. I think it’s one of the most important issues in the world today.

Tucker [00:58:48] It certainly is. And so that leads directly and seamlessly to my final question, which is about X. And I’m not just saying this because I post content there, but I think objectively it’s the last big platform that’s free or sort of free or more free. You post there too. But, you know, we’re at the very beginning of an election year with a couple of different wars unfolding simultaneously in 2024. So do you expect that that platform can stay free for the duration of this year?

Mike Benz [00:59:20] It’s under an extraordinary amount of pressure, and that pressure is going to continue to mount as the election approaches. Elon Musk is a very unique individual, and he has a unique buffer, perhaps when it comes to the national security state, because the national security state is actually quite reliant on Elon Musk properties, whether that’s for the, the electrical, you know, the sort of the green revolution when it comes to Tesla and, and the battery technology there when it comes, when it comes to SpaceX, the State Department is hugely dependent on, on SpaceX, because of its unbelievable, you sort of pioneering and saturating presence in the field of low Earth orbit satellites that, are basically how our telecom system runs to things like Starlink. There are dependencies that the national security state has on Elon Musk. I’m not sure he’d have as much room to negotiate if he had become the world’s richest man, selling, you know, at a lemonade stand. And if the national security state goes too hard on him by invoking something like CFIUS to sort of nationalize some of these properties, I think the shockwave that it would send to the international investor community would be irrecoverable at a time when we’re engaged in great power competition. So they’re trying to kill, you know, they’re trying to sort of induce a, I think, a sort of corporate regime change through, a series of things involving a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts. I think there are 7 or 8 different Justice Department or SEC or FTC investigations into Elon Musk properties that all started, after his acquisition of X. But then what they’re trying to do right now is what I call the transatlantic flank attack 2.0. You know, we talked in this dialog about how the censorship industry really got its start when a bunch of State Department exiles, who were expecting promotions, took their special set of skills in coercing European countries to pass sanctions on themselves to cut off their own leg despite themselves, in order to pass sanctions on Russia. They ran back that same playbook with doing a road show for censorship instead for sanctions. We are now witnessing, you know, transatlantic flank attack 2.0, if you will, which is because they have lost a lot of their federal government powers to do this same censorship operation they been doing from 2018 to 2022, in part because the House has totally turned on them, in part because of the media, in part because Missouri v. Biden, which won a slam dunk case actually banning government censorship at the trial court and appellate court levels, is now before the Supreme Court. They’ve now moved into two strategies. One of them is state level censorship laws. California just passed a new law which the censorship industry totally drove from start to finish around… They call it platform accountability and transparency, which is basically forcing Elon Musk to give over the kind of narrative mapping data that these CIA conduits and Pentagon cutouts were using to create these weapons of mass deletion, these abilities to just censor everything at scale because they had all the internal platform data. Elon Musk took that away. They’re using state laws like this new California law to crack that open. But the major threat right now is the threat from Europe, with, you know, something called the EU Digital Services Act, which was cooked up in tandem with folks like Newsguard, which is run by, you know, which has a board of Michael Hayden, head of the CIA, NSA, four-star general. Rick Stengel is on that board. You know, from the State Department’s propaganda office. Tom Ridge is on that board from the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen is on that board. He was the General Secretary of NATO under the Obama administration. So you have NATO, the CIA, the NSA, a four-star general, DHS, and the State Department working with the EU to craft the censorship laws that now are the largest existential threat to X other than potential advertiser boycotts, because disinformation is now banned as a matter of law in the EU. And the EU is a bigger market for X than the US. There’s only 300 million some people in the U.S., there’s 450 million in Europe. X is now forced to comply with this brand new law that just got ratified this year, where they either need to forfeit 6% of their global annual revenue to the EU to maintain operations there or put in place essentially the kind of, you know, CIA bumper cars, if you will, that I’ve been describing over the course of this, in order to have an internal mechanism to censor anything that the EU, which is just a proxy for NATO, deems to be disinformation. And you can bet with 65 elections around the globe this year, you can predict every single time what they’re going to define disinformation as. So that’s what the main the main fight right now is—dealing with the transatlantic flank attack from Europe.

Tucker [01:04:16] I said this five times, but that’s just one of the most remarkable stories I’ve ever heard. And I’m grateful to you for bringing it to us. Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. And I hope we see you again.

Israel über Alles: The Rochdale By-Election Exposes the Zionist Control of British Politics

/12 Comments/in , , /by

There’s only one problem with opposing identity politics. All politics is identity politics. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a fraud. For example, the American pseudo-conservative Ben Shapiro (born 1984) is a fraud. He’s a strongly identified Jew and Israel-Firster who tells his White followers to eschew identity politics. He wants them to ignore race and emphasize character. He promotes the lie that America is based on ideas, not on identity. As he famously said: “I don’t give a good damn about the so-called ‘browning of America.’ Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.” But would Shapiro be indifferent to the “browning” of Israel? Of course not. When he says he opposes identity politics, he means he opposes the wrong kind of identity politics: anything that threatens Jewish interests.

Ben Shapiro fights for Israel by fooling goyim (cartoon by Jinjer Zilla)

There are many other frauds like Shapiro. And even more fools who believe what the frauds say. You can’t escape identity. In a mono-racial society, politics is a struggle between different classes or religions, with relatively small genetic differences playing an important but largely unrecognized role. In a multi-racial society, politics is a struggle between different races, with much larger genetic differences playing a decisive role. Sometimes racial politics will be disguised as class politics, as they were when the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks won power over the old Tsarist empire and proceeded to slaughter and tyrannize millions of White Christians.

“Same as the old boss”

In formerly mono-racial Britain, the Labour party was founded in 1900 to champion the interests of the working-class. The White working-class, of course, but that didn’t need saying in the early twentieth century. Now it does need saying, because Britain has become multi-racial and Labour has become a dedicated enemy of the White working-class. White Labour-supporters completely opposed the mass migration by non-Whites that subjected them to violent crime, huge financial losses, and ethnic cleansing. But the Labour elite ignored their wishes and betrayed its most loyal supporters. That’s because Labour had been taken over by Jews and turned into a vehicle for Jewish interests. Jews espouse identity politics for themselves and anti-identity politics for Whites. That’s why they welcomed immigration by non-Whites and by Muslims in particular, because they saw the newcomers as “natural allies” against the White Christian British. Tony Blair’s so-called New Labour might as well have been called “Jew Labour,” because Blair was a narcissistic gentile front-man for Lord Levy and other Jewish plutocrats.

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

When Levy was forced out by a scandal over hidden donations to Labour by Jews like Sir David Garrard (born 1939), he was replaced as Labour fundraiser by the Jewish plutocrat Jonathan Mendelsohn, who was described by the Telegraph as “steeped in the north London Jewish community” and “a close friend of Lord Levy, who was at the heart of Labour’s cash for peerages affair.” As Roger Daltrey of the Who has often sung, it was a case of “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” However, Jewish control of the Labour party was threatened in 2015 by the unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Corbyn was very popular with ordinary Labour supporters and party membership increased sharply during his leadership. But he wasn’t popular with Labour’s Jew-controlled Zionist elite. Jews didn’t object to Corbyn championing the interests of non-Whites and Muslims, because that meant that he continued to betray the White working-class. But Jews certainly objected to Corbyn refusing to make Jewish interests his first and overwhelming priority. Indeed, he didn’t want to make Jewish interests a priority at all. This was completely unacceptable, so Jews made an example of Corbyn first by vilifying him for years in the mass media, then driving him out of the party after he was toppled as leader.

A dedicated shabbos goy

Unlike Corbyn, the present Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is thoroughly kosher. He has a Jewish wife and belonged to a radical Trotskyist sect at university. Like Tony Blair, he intends to be a dedicated shabbos goy. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell once told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” That “community” is small in numbers but gigantic in power, influence and wealth. Starmer knows about Jewish power as well as Blair did, which is why he intends to govern Britain as Blair did: in strict obedience to Jewish orders. This is what Peter Hitchens, the insightful brother of the neo-conservative gasbag Christopher Hitchens, has said of the impending Labour victory in the general election: “Sir Keir [Starmer], whose hard left political roots are in a revolutionary movement called Pabloism, comes from the same stable as the 1997 Blairites. He will try to manipulate the voters with populist slogans, but his real programme will be miles to the left, concentrating more and more power in a left-wing state.”

Starmer is heading for victory because he has returned Labour to the paths of righteousness after the blasphemies of Corbynism. The party continues to betray the White working class, of course, and it continues to champion non-Whites, Muslims, and the “transgender community.” But all that is secondary, because Starmer now runs Labour as all decent and respectable parties should be run: as a vehicle for Jewish interests. However, this isn’t proving as easy for Starmer as he would have hoped, because Muslims aren’t being the “natural allies” that Jews fondly imagined they would be. To the dismay of Jews around the world, the war in Gaza has prompted Muslims in the West to side with Muslim Palestinians rather than with the poor persecuted military superpower of Israel.

Typical Muslim duplicity

And so, even as Keir Starmer has allied Labour with the completely Zionist and Jew-controlled Conservatives, Muslim members of the Labour party have been campaigning not of behalf of Jews but on behalf of their fellow Muslims. Look at the by-election in the solidly Labour constituency of Rochdale, where Muslim rape-gangs have preyed on White working-class girls for decades just as Muslim rape-gangs have done in the solidly Labour constituency of Rotherham. Because Labour is now the enemy of the White working-class, it did nothing to stop the rape-gangs either in Rotherham or in Rochdale. On the contrary, it sided with Muslims and helped the sexual jihad to continue. It’s still siding with Muslims, which is why the official Labour candidate in the Rochdale by-election was a fat and sleazy-looking Muslim Pakistani called Azhar Ali. With typical Muslim — and Pakistani — duplicity, Ali pretended to be an ally of Jews as he rose in the party. But his real allegiance was revealed in words he uttered in a meeting of the Lancashire Labour party shortly after October 7, the day that will live in infamy when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel to murder and rape the wrong kind of people.

The fat and sleazy-looking Azhar Ali, former Labour candidate in the Rochdale by-election (image from The Daily Mail)

And who are the wrong kind of people? Jews, of course. Jews have never cared about Muslims and other non-Whites murdering and raping Whites. Indeed, many Jews see this as well-merited payback for historic persecution of Jews in the West. That isn’t openly stated in the Jewish media, but nor is any regret for what Muslims and Blacks are doing to Whites. Jews have overwhelmingly ignored the Muslim rape-gangs of Rochdale and Rotherham. But they certainly condemned the Rochdale candidate Azhar Ali when he espoused a “vile conspiracy theory” at that meeting of the Lancashire Labour party. Ali said that Israel was warned by Egypt and America about a Hamas attack, but “deliberately took the security off.” According to Ali, Israel wanted to ensure the “massacre that gives them the green light to do whatever they bloody want.”

“Deeply offensive, ignorant, and false”

Ron Unz has convincingly argued that the conspiracy theory espoused by Azhar Ali is very probably baseless. Yes, Israel is happy to sacrifice unlimited numbers of goyim to secure its own interests, as it did in the false-flag attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 and as it intended to do in false-flag bombings of Egyptian targets in 1954. But the Hamas invasion of 2023 seems to have succeeded because of Israeli incompetence and arrogance, not because of Israeli complicity. All the same, why shouldn’t Azhar Ali be allowed to express his views? In a genuinely pluralist Labour party, there would be debate about the war in Gaza, not defenestration of all who disagree with the Zionist line. But Keir Starmer’s Labour party isn’t pluralist. It exists to serve Jewish interests and oppose White interests. That’s why Azhar Ali was forced to make a grovelling apology in words that were clearly dictated to him by Labour’s Zionist elite:

I apologise unreservedly to the Jewish community for my comments which were deeply offensive, ignorant, and false. Hamas’s horrific terror attack was the responsibility of Hamas alone, and they are still holding hostages who must be released. October 7 was the greatest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust, and Jews in the UK and across the world are living in fear of rising anti-Semitism. I will urgently apologise to Jewish leaders for my inexcusable comments. The Labour Party has changed unrecognisably under Keir Starmer’s leadership — he has my full support in delivering the change Britain needs. (“Outrage after Labour candidate claims Israel deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred on October 7 in order to give it the ‘green light’ to invade Gaza,” The Daily Mail, 10th February 2024)

Ali wasn’t sincere in his apology, of course, but like countless other ostensibly leftist Muslims in the West, he entered politics deciding that, for the time being, it’s better to submit to Jewish authority in public. However, what British-based Muslims intend to do in the future can be seen in Germany, where the Turkish president Recep Erdogan has set up “a political party for ‘people with foreign roots’ in Germany that will ‘stand against anti-Muslim racism’.” Indeed, what Muslims intend to do in future can also be seen in Rochdale, where the former Labour MP and eternal exhibitionist George Galloway is standing in the by-election for the far-left Workers Party of Great Britain. Galloway is pursuing Muslim votes and his campaign foreshadows the arrival of one or more permanent Muslim parties. In the meantime, the Labour party, formed to champion the White working-class, is the scene of a struggle between Jews and Muslims for supremacy. Here is a Jew responding to Azhar Ali’s comments and openly admitting that Jews are interested only in themselves:

Mike Katz, the national chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement, said his group would not campaign in Rochdale because Ali had “destroyed his past record of allyship with the Jewish community” with his “totally reprehensible” comments. But he stopped short of calling on Labour to drop the candidate, warning that the “alternative in Rochdale is George Galloway”, whose victory would “harm the Jewish community far more than electing Ali”. (“Labour’s Rochdale byelection campaign engulfed in antisemitism row,” The Guardian, 12th February 2024)

Katz isn’t bothering to hide his ethnocentrism and his belief that Labour exists first and foremost to serve Jewish interests. However, he’s unable to admit that Ali’s past “allyship” with Jews was never sincere. Ali simply recognized that Jews currently control Labour and that he had to pretend to care about them in order to get on. Now his mask is off and he’s been suspended from the Labour party while an “investigation” is carried out into more of his comments, this time about Jewish power in the media.

Hidden in plain sight

Again, in a genuinely pluralist Labour party there would be debate about such topics, not defenestration of anyone who raises them. But Labour isn’t pluralist. It’s run for Jews by shabbos goyim, so Azhar Ali has been defenestrated, not debated. The trouble for Labour is that Azhar Ali holds the same views as the vast majority of Labour’s Muslim supporters. There are far more Muslims than Jews in Britain, so why does the party leadership side with Jews and Israel rather than with Muslims and Palestine? What hidden factor is at work?

In fact, it’s not hidden at all. It’s simply unmentionable in the mainstream: Jewish wealth and Jewish power in the media. Jews finance British politics and naturally enough dictate the pro-Jewish, anti-White agenda for British politics. Jewish interests must come first and White interests must come nowhere. The Rochdale by-election is a perfect example of Zionist control. It’s also a perfect example of how all politics is identity politics.

Architecture and Art: Explaining the Revolt against Beauty

/18 Comments/in , /by

In May last year I found myself in Budapest, surrounded by Neo-Classical architecture. The centre of the city is incredibly beautiful, and so consistently so, that it’s easy to become lost. A young, and rather cynical, female student I was with actually commented, referring to two London skyscrapers: “Budapest needs a Gherkin or a Shard, just so there are a few landmarks.” It’s the little details that are so uplifting: gargoyles, tessellations . . . These edifices were built with beauty in mind.

The Gherkin Juxtaposed to Some Examples of Traditional London Architecture

How different it is walking around most British city centres, marred as they are by brutal post-War architecture, where “beauty” is almost a dirty word. The same is clearly true of Art. Modern Art is quite deliberately vile and shocking: Damien Hurst’s cow cut in half, the Chapman Brothers’ child mannequins with anuses on their faces, flowers (“Piss Flowers”) ultimately cast from artist Helen Chadwick’s urine and so on. English philosopher Roger Scruton bemoaned the hideousness of Modern Art and Modern Architecture. But why does it have to be so revolting? The answer is surprisingly simple and it can be traced all the way back to the most primitive humans, eking out an existence on the Savannah.

Damien Hurst’s Cow Cut in Half   

Humans are “pack animals,” which means they must fight for the survival and triumph of their group, but, in the polygamous mating systems to which we are evolved, only the highest status males pass on their genes. Put simply, these males are better at fighting and at hunting. The females sexually select for these Alpha Males because they will have more resources to invest in the female and her offspring and the offspring will inherit the physical and psychological traits which lead to health, high status and the passing on of ones genes. As I have explored in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, among the hunter-gatherer Bushmen of southern Africa only 40% of males have any children at all, while in seventeenth century England the richer 50% of males had about double the number of surviving offspring compared to the poorer 50% of males. So, it is very important – and thus built into us – to want to attain social status.

Consequently, we balance different sets of what are known as “Moral Foundations.” The “binding” or “group-orientated” foundations are Obedience to Authority, In-group Loyalty and Sanctity/Disgust. The latter involves sacralising practices which are adaptive to the group and reacting with disgust to that which is maladaptive. Thus, people tend to react with disgust to foreigners because they may introduce novel pathogens into the group or disrupt its internal dynamics. Of course, high disgust can also be adaptive on the individual level, such as a strong revulsion to rotting food. But these three foundations correlate. Group-oriented people are higher in disgust, presumably due to its importance in policing group boundaries.

There are also the individually-oriented foundations of Equality and Harm Avoidance. A concern with equality means that you will get your fair – equal – share, while a concern with harm means that you personally are less likely to get harmed. People who are highly group-oriented have little concern with these, being happy to lay down their lives for the group, meaning they may pass on their genes only indirectly, by helping to save their group.

Liberals and Conservatives differ in the importance of these Moral Foundations. Conservatives score about the same in all of five of them. Liberals score very low in the binding foundations and they score very high in the individualistic foundations. As I explore in Breeding the Human Herd, liberals are also, on average, shorter, physically weaker, less physically attractive and more anxious and otherwise mentally unstable than conservatives. In a sense, they are bad, unsuccessful hunter gatherers. So, how do you gain status if you are such a person?

You can’t have a fair fight because you will be paranoid that you will lose, and you probably will. Accordingly, you “virtue signal”: You appeal to the conservative society – which is genuinely concerned about equality and harm – and attain status by seeming very kind. You also collaborate with outsiders. Being low in in-group loyalty and low in disgust, it has been found that the liberal moral circle – those with whom they identify – is further from self, in genetic terms. Conservatives are concerned with people in a series of concentric circles. In general, they prefer family to kin, kin to ethny, ethny to race and so forth. By contrast, liberals are more likely to identify with foreigners than with their own. This allows them to collaborate with foreigners and, so, take over their own in-group.

This will shake up everything but they don’t care. They are low in sanctity and they are low in obedience to traditional authority. What is the upper class socialist really doing? He is gaining power by collaborating with the working class against the interests of his own social class, in a context in which there is abundant evidence that social classes are substantially genetic castes. What are elite White people in Britain’s Labour Party doing? They are collaborating with working class Whites and foreigners in order to dominate the elite class of which they are a part.

How does this relate to Art and Architecture? I’m sure it’s clear by now. The traditional purpose of both was, in part, to create beauty. Beauty inspires people; beauty makes people feel good (feel transcendent, even). Beauty is symmetrical, it is about order, it aims to inspire the group with a sense of the sacred and the eternal. If you are low status, it is central to the system which caused you to be of low status. Thus, if you are physically and mentally weak, and cannot attain status within the system, it makes sense to attack the system, to attack “order,” so creating a vacuum in which you can take power.

Being low in sanctity (and low in disgust), you will be positively attracted to Art and Architecture which is revolting and repelled by Art and Architecture which is beautiful. Being concerned with “Equality,” you will horrified by the very idea that some things are more “beautiful” than other things. With your high Neuroticism, this will incur resentment. You will question the very notion of objective “beauty,” argue that there are “different kinds of beauty” and ultimately maintain that the ugly is beautiful so that everyone can feel equal. The very notion of “beauty” will hurt the feelings of –“harm” – those who are repugnant-looking, so it simply cannot be accepted. This destruction of tradition creates dysphoria, it confuses people, it creates a sense of instability; a lack of order. It is in this chaos that the Machiavellian — and liberals are individualistic and thus power-hungry — can take over.

As I have explored in my book The Past Is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, due to asymmetrical empathy between conservatives and liberals, culture will tend to drift leftwards. Eventually, once a sufficient percentage of the elite accept these ideas, we very quickly tip over into being a liberal society, as people understand that things are changing and wish to be on the winning team. As the more intelligent better understand the benefits of socially conforming and are higher in what Kevin MacDonald has called the “effortful control” that allows them to do so, they will spearhead this change. Once this takes place the more intelligent start competitively signalling their conformity to the new moral dispensation.

The result is a kind of “runaway individualism” where Art and Architecture become uglier and uglier and uglier across time. This will continue until there is such dysphoria, until so many people are so unhappy, due to their group-oriented foundations being ignored, and due to a general sense of unnerving chaos, there is a right-wing backlash. This will often be provoked by a situation which strongly sets off disgust – such as an epidemic – or which sets off other binding foundations, such as war. We became more conservative in the 1980s about sexuality due to AIDs for example. So, beautiful Art and Architecture may well re-emerge . . .

Mark Collett and I discuss Tucker’s interview with Putin

/9 Comments/in /by

Not what you’ll see on the New York Times, HuffPo or Newsweek.

ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/PWR249:a

RUMBLE:https://rumble.com/v4dbalo-patriotic-weekly-review-with-dr-kevin-macdonald.html

Tucker’s comments on the interview.

https://tuckercarlson.com/after-the-vladimir-putin-interview/

 

Gaza and the Climate Hoax

/19 Comments/in /by

This is a corrected version of the article posted yesterday. The main problem was that the author was incorrectly identified. It’s Pierre Simon.

Since according to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews are approximately 0.2% of the world population, the probability that most of the key individuals involved in the climate hoax would be Jews is infinitesimally small. Yet, since at least the 60s, all false alarms have been sounded almost exclusively by Jews.

It all started with Ira Einhorn, the satanic-Jewish-trunk-murderer of his girlfriend Holly Maddox, the founder of the environmentalist “Mother Earth” movement that was selected as the hippy front of the globalists (1) who wanted to promote and use environmentalism as their key method of establishing an end-times Marxist dictatorship for planet earth:

In search of a new common enemy against which we could unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and other such problems would do the trick. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do indeed constitute a common threat that must be confronted by all of us together. (2)

Dr. Stephen Schneider, with his Climate Change Journal, followed by Dr. Barry Commoner, whom Ralph Nader called “the greatest environmentalist” of the twentieth century, were among many others, big advocates of impending climate doom. (3) With them, we went from planetary glaciation to ozone depletion, acid rain, rising sea levels and the melting of eternal snow. (4)

Then there were the global warming theories of Michael Mann, an internationally-renowned, rogue climatologist, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an offshoot of the United Nations (UN). (5) His hockey-stick graph, first published in 1998 in the scientific journal Nature, (6) was the star of the UN climate report (2001), which resulted in a massive mobilization of environmental activists determined to do battle to save the planet. (7)

Figure 1 Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph

According to this graph, the atmospheric temperature of Europe — where the use of hydrocarbons began during the industrial revolution — soared after more than a thousand years of stability (Figure 1). According to Mann, this sudden and unprecedented rise in temperature could only be due to human activity, in particular to the production of CO2, that “climatocidal” molecule that young environmental activist Greta Thunberg claims to see with the naked eye.

Michael Mann’s theses were then popularized in the famous documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. This “warmist” propaganda film earned Al Gore and the IPCC a Nobel Prize in 2006. Based on computer modeling by Michael Mann’s team, Al Gore predicted an imminent catastrophe of biblical proportions. He also predicted that it would be the end of humanity if we didn’t set up a world government within 10 years — that would have been in 2016 — to combat this unprecedented scourge. (8)

Al Gore is not Jewish himself, but his daughter is married to the heir to the international banking fortune of Jacob Schiff, (9) a representative of the Rothschild financial empire that helped finance the Bolshevik revolution. (10) David Guggenheim, the film’s director, Jeffrey Skoll, the executive producer and all the other producers, on the other hand, are all Jewish.

Greta Thunberg herself is the great-grand-daughter of the famous banker Lionel Walter Rothschild, son of the first Baron Rothschild. (11) The €4 million yacht on which Greta travelled to the United States to deliver her famous speech at the UN belonged to the Rothschild family before being sold to another Jewish billionaire involved in the climate hoax. (12)

Even Luisa-Marie Neubauer, Greta Thunberg’s coach, is related to the founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, who changed his last name to Rothschild after returning to Frankfurt to take over his father’s business. Luisa Neubauer’s “job” is “climate activist,” and she’s a volunteer for the One Foundation Campaign founded by Bono and Bill Gates, which also has ties to Jewish stock speculator and predator George Soros. (13)

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive director of the World Economic Forum, “the epicenter of evil in our world today” is possibly Jewish. (14) So is the new czar of climate fraud, John Kerry partly Jewish, as is his daughter Dr. Vanessa Kerry. (15)

And let’s not forget the Jewish French oligarch Jacques Attali, who constantly promotes climate catastrophism as a means of achieving global governance through fear:

History teaches us that mankind only evolves significantly when it is truly afraid: it then first sets up defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (scapegoats and totalitarianism); sometimes futile (distraction); sometimes effective (therapeutics which, if necessary, set aside all previous moral principles). Then, once the crisis is over, it transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom and part of a democratic health policy. (16)

The Bernie Madoff of the Climate Hoax

There was a bigger fish behind the climate hoax and the Jews listed above. The mastermind was a Canadian Fabian socialist, the late Maurice Strong, who is thought to be Jewish himself although it has never been proven.

According to journalist John Izzard, Strong was “the man who, more than any other redefined a trace gas as the meal ticket for tens of thousands of climate functionaries — the same people whose light-fingered heirs,” are still pushing today the climate change hoax. (17)

In the name of egalitarianism, Strong used ecology and climate science supposedly to enrich the poor at the detriment of the rich. The United Nations Environment Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were his instruments. (18)

But the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the fruits of his efforts and the policies they spawned such as the wind turbine madness, the carbon tax gimmick and the cow dung gas scam are hurting the poor and the middle class in every country of the world through rising food and energy costs. (19)

Fortunately for the 99%, in 2005, “the most powerful man in the push to save humanity,” writes J. Izzard with delicious irony, “by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases was caught with his hand in the till. He had endorsed a check for $988,885 USD made out to his name by South Korean business man, Tongsun Park, who was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal Court for conspiring to bribe UN officials.” (20)

Strong, the Bernie Madoff of climate change who had to resign from all his functions at the UN, fled like the crook he was to Canada and then to China where his communist sister was living. (21)

Canadian Dr. Tim Ball

It was the late Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climate scientist, who let the cat out of the bag. Thanks to this fearless scientist, many people were able to see through the climate hoax. (22) To produce the famous hockey curve that ignores the medieval optimum, MANN and his fraudster colleague Jacoby “forgot” to take into account data that did not confirm the climatic explosion. Fortunately, the archives came to light and the fraud was exposed: ten observation sites were retained and 26 hidden (Figure 2). (23)

In the “science trial of the century,” Dr. Ball won a multimillion-dollar judgment against UN climate fraudster “Dr.” Michael E. Mann. (24)

The CO2 “error” is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into collective trust to be managed by them. Technocracy News & Trends, September 13, 2018.

Dr. Ball deserves all the credit, because the libel suit brought against him by the trickster Michael Mann was of uncertain outcome. Mann was morally supported by a large number of climate functionaries just as rotten as he is; he also was financially supported not only by the UN, but by the Suzuki Foundation, an organization itself financed by large corporations and foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation (25), an influential member of the Fabian Society. (26)

Figure 2 reconstituted curve with the missing data. There is no hockey-stick type graph.

The medieval warm period on the left was hidden from the public.

Those Who Reign Supreme

The Fabian Society, founded by two German Jews, Beatrice and Sydney Webb, born Weber (27), one of a myriad of similar organizations — whose claimed objective is to recreate the Garden of Eden — counts among its members the richest people in the World and their many emanations, proxies, and golems.

The oligarchs of this plutocracy are not all Fabians in due form but this Jewish-led-Anglo-American cabal, aka, the “International community,” which Alexander Dugin has recently labeled “the most disgusting phenomena of world history,” (28) is all for one world government (unipolar world) and neoliberal capitalism, an Orwellian type of “inclusive” capitalism defined by the morally unrestricted exploitation of goods, people, animals, services, and capital under the mantle of democracy, humanism, philanthropy, goodness, and love. (29)(30)(31)

The end goal of these wolves in sheep’s clothing who hide their evilness in goodness is indeed to recreate a Garden of Eden, but only for themselves. They want to “own everything and control the entire global population through a combination of false flag disasters, social engineering technologies, ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ development policies, a revamped food system of their own making, and global biosecurity measures.” (32)

Dugin Quote in Full

What does it mean for Russia to break from the West? It is salvation. The modern West — where the Rothschilds, Soros, Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg triumph — is the most disgusting phenomenon of world history. It is no longer the West of Greco-Roman Mediterranean culture, nor the Christian Middle Ages, nor the violent and contradictory 20th century. It is a graveyard of the toxic waste of civilization, it is the anti-civilization. (28)

Although the Zionists are without a doubt at the helm of the New World Order project, (33)(34) as says the late investigative journalist, Michael Collins Piper,

they are not in complete control, of the mechanism of power in our world today. However, their level of influence is so substantial especially in the West, that they can, in a sense, be referred to as the fulcrum upon which the balance of modern power rests: every day, they are working relentlessly to make certain that in the end, they do achieve absolute power. (35)

The project of world governance in its present form is also, at the origin, an Anglo-American project promoted on one side of the Atlantic by Cecil John Rhodes and his associates, including Lord Milner, and on the other side of the Atlantic by the pioneer families of the very wealthy White Anglo-Saxon Protestants led by the bankers J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and the Rockefellers. (36)(37)(38)

 

According to South African journalist Ian Benson, when this essentially non-Jewish financial elite lost its position at the top of international financial capitalism, it was not wiped out, but absorbed into a constellation of Jewish financial powers that it could no longer control, but with which it had strong affinities; they both read the Old Testament and both thought of themselves as the “Chosen People.” (39)

Weaponization of Money, the Media, and Science

With money as their weapon, these psychopaths can buy anyone and anything; impoverish any country through usury and debt; bribe, ruin, censor, persecute, even assassinate or “drone” those who stand in their way. The banksters of the New World Order will stop at nothing to achieve their plans by destroying everything that stands in the way of their hegemonic ambitions.

In order to achieve their objectives, this plutocracy which makes the 99% voiceless in the running of their governments have also built a formidable brainwashing machine which spreads at all hours of the day and night, throughout the whole world, in all social strata, all kinds of double talk, false accusations, and false information about historical events, atrocities, demographic crises, climatic crises, and pandemic. Much in this media-created reality is false and deceptive. These shenanigans have the sole function of dumbing down the herd and forcing it to walk the line, according to a method clearly described by Noam Chomsky in his book The Manufacture of Consent.

With absolutely all the major information agencies and media in their pocket, it is easy for them to hide anything that is detrimental to their interests like the massive electoral fraud perpetrated against Trump during the November 3, 2020, election.

The UN’s Jewish Under-Secretary General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, admitted in a discussion at the World Economic Forum held on October 2022, that the globalist institution has partnered with Big Tech platforms, such as Jewish-owned Google in order to control search results on subjects like climate change and the COVID pandemic. (41)

The establishment narrative is thus the predominant narrative while information and data that runs contrary to the UN’s climate agenda, for example, is suppressed. Fleming went on to state that the UN is in control of the science: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and platforms themselves also do.” By “owning the science,” they can in fact support a narrative even if it is false when according to the scientific method, they should abandon it if the data does not support it.

This open admission only reconfirms what “conspiracy theorists” have been saying for years: Big Tech corporations such as Jewish owned Google, YouTube, and Facebook,  governments, mainstream media, and globalist institutions such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, the UN and its emanations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Health Organization are actively collaborating to censor dissenting data and opinions as a means to keep the public as ignorant of the truth as possible. Instead of “fact checking” or fighting “disinformation,” globalist efforts are purely about elevating their own propaganda as a means to gain more authority over society:

Carbon emissions laws associated with the UN’s “Agenda 2030” give immense and intrusive power to governments over industry, private property as well as individual freedoms. It only makes sense that the UN would try to combat any information source that contradicts the implementation of such laws; they have everything to gain by preventing the pubic from viewing all the information and making an informed decision on their own. (42)

The public, cut off from reality, is no longer able to make informed judgments about anything. The powerful do not want them to think for themselves. It is still, in other words, Stalinist tyranny, but more sophisticated thanks to technology. Today, you are no longer locked up in a gulag to put you out of action, you are simply ignored by dynamic silence and total censorship.

In the end, the common enemy against which we must unite to save humanity is neither climate change nor wind turbine madness nor the carbon tax gimmick nor the cow dung gas scam but a small clique of miscreants determined to satisfy their greed and lust for power under the mask of good intentions and sentiments regardless of the consequences on the populations of the world.

With the Gaza genocide, the climate hoax is without a doubt one of the most disgusting things of recent world history.

References

  1. Ira Einhorn, Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
  2. Alexander King et Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution. A report by the Club of Rome, p. 115.
  3. Chris Morrison, The Top Scientist Who Warned of a Coming Ice Age – Then Switched to “Catastrophic” Global Warming, The Daily Sceptic, April 30 2023.
  4. M.S. KING, Climate Bogeyman. The Criminal Insanity of the Global Warming /Climate Change Hoax, 2017.
  5. John O’SULLIVAN, “Climate fraud justice: Dr. Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit”, Signs of the Times, August 23, 2019.
  6. 6. Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 1998, vol. 392, pp. 779-787.
  7. Climate Change 2001, Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations.
  8. Benoît Rayski, “Moronism also pollutes. Better than Joan of Arc: Greta Thunberg sees CO2 with the naked eye!” Atlantico, June 25, 2019.
  9. Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme, American Free Press, 2009, pp. 166, 169, 189.
  10. Albert S. Lindenmann, Esau’s Tears. Modern anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 302.
  11. Politikus, Are the Rothschilds ending their “Israel” project? Réseau International, November 28, 2023.
  12. Brabatian, Greta Thunberg – Rothschild Pawn, henrymakow.com, September 29, 2019.
  13. “Greta Thunberg’s handler, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, is a Rothschild,” Winter Watch, May 1st, 2020.
  14. Karl Haemers, “The not-so-friendly folks at the World Economic Forum,” The Occidental Observer, March 26, 2021.
  15. Dina Kraft, When Kerry Was Kohn: The Jewish Roots of John Kerry, Haaretz, December 21, 2012.
  16. Jacques Attali, Avancer par la peur, L’Express, le 6 mai 2006.
  17. John Izzard, “Maurice Strong, Climate Crook,” Quadrant on Line, December 2, 2015.
  18. Tim Ball, Ph.D., The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Stairway Press, 2014, p. 55.
  19. Ibid.
  20. John Izzard, article cited.
  21. Ibid.
  22. Marc Morano, Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: ‘Global warming is the greatest deception in history,’ Climate Depot, a CFACT project, December 13, 2016.
  23. Steven McIntyre, Discovery of Data for One of the “Other 26” Jacoby Series, Climate Audit, December12, 2023.
  24. John O’sullivan, Climate fraud justice: Dr. Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit, Signs of the Times, August 23, 2019.
  25. Vivian Krause, “Suzuki’s funding,” Financial Post, 19 avril 2012.
  26. Guy Bouliane, La société fabienne : Les maîtres de la subversion démasqués, Éditions Dédicaces, 2019.
  27. John Green, La société fabienne. L’instauration d’un nouvel ordre international chez Béatrice et Sydney Webb, Éditions Saint-Rémi, 2015, p.110.
  28. Alexander Dugin, Wartime Remarks, The Postil Magazine, March 1, 2022
  29. Scott Howard, The Open Society Play-Book, Antelope Hill Publishers, 2021.
  30. John Q. Publius, Plastic Empire, Ostara Publications, 2020.
  31. Michael Collins Piper, work cited.
  32. Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Elitists’ Goal: Wipe Out Good Food”, Mercola.com, July 28, 2022
  33. Valérie Bugault, Les raisons caches du désordre mondial. Analyse de géopolitique économique, juridique et monétaire, Éditions Sigest, 2021, préface du Général Dominique Delawarde.
  34. Larry Romanoff, “The Richest Man in the World,” The Unz Review, November 21, 2022.
  35. Michael Collins Piper, ouvrage cité, p. XIV.
  36. Carroll Quigley, Histoire secrète de l’oligarchie anglo-américaine, Le Retour aux Sources, 2015, préface de Pierre Hillard.
  37. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Dauphin Publications, 2014.
  38. Joël Van Der Reijden, “The Pilgrims Society: A Study of the Anglo-American Establishment; Rockefeller, Mellon, Luce, Rothschild, Cecil, Windsor, the Federal Reserve, WW2, the CIA, and so Much More,” NGP Study Center, April 20, 2019.
  39. Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor: A Study of the Jewish Presence in the 20th Century History, Veritas Publishing Company, 1986, p. 208.
  40. Donald Trump, Joe Biden says he’s built most extensive “voter fraud” org in history, YouTube,

42. Melissa Fleming, WEF/UN: “We own The Science” – UN spokesperson boasts of partnering with Google to manipulate search results,” YouTube.