“Miscegenation.” The word itself is so taboo and so old-fashioned that it feels strange to even write it in 2024. But that’s the problem if you’re genuinely interested in science; you have to rise above “feelings” and “fashion” and dispassionately look at the truth. An intriguing new evolutionary psychology study, “No Signals of Outbreeding Depression on General Factors of Self-Efficacy, Phobia, and Infant Growth: Debunking “Disharmonious Combination” Theory,” has done precisely that. If they are correct, then any problems caused by “miscegenation” are not due to the process itself, but, rather, due to the kind of people who tend to practice it.
The word “miscegenation” first became widely known as part of an elaborate hoax. The pamphlet Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of Races, Applied to the White Man and Negro appeared in 1863, as part of an anti-Lincoln campaign in the run up to the following year’s presidential election. The pamphlet espoused miscegenation in glowing terms and the anti-War Democrat authors even attempted to trick Lincoln into endorsing it. By 1924, there were anti-Miscegenation laws in 29 states and mixed-race marriage only became legal in California in 1948.
In 1958, a Black-White couple were arrested in Virginia for the crime of being married while in 1963, when former president Harry Truman was asked about his thoughts of the possibility of inter-racial marriage becoming widespread, he replied: “I hope not; I don’t believe in it. Would you want your daughter to marry a Negro? She won’t love someone who isn’t her color.” These ideas were backed up by various scientists. Charles Davenport, of the Eugenics Records Office, averred that there was a hierarchy of races and race-mixing would inevitably lead to degeneration of the higher races. He further averred that it would lead to “outbreeding depression.” We’ve all heard of “inbreeding depression:” when closely related organisms breed, the offspring are more likely to inherit double doses of harmful genes, leading to problems. “Outbreeding depression” occurs because some traits, especially psychological ones, are very complex and involve thousands of genes working together, all adapted to a very specific ecology. If you introduce some gene that’s not expected to be there, you interfere with the delicate gene complexes, disrupting “harmonious” gene complexes.
There is certainly some evidence of negative psychological outcomes among mixed-race offspring but this does not prove Davenport’s theory about genetic harmony to be correct. I have summarised all the various studies — such as from Brazil, the US and Canada — in my book The Naked Classroom: The Evolutionary Psychology of Your Time at School. In essence, the products of mixed-race unions are high in mental illness (especially depression and anxiety) and violent behaviour. Indeed, a study from Canada found that though Black-White children were intermediate between Blacks and Whites on physical health, they had far worse mental health than either parent race.
There are two possible reasons for this, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is Davenport’s model of disharmony, which has been tested in the new study in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science. The researchers looked at the effect of ancestral genetic diversity (in other words racial mixing) on the levels of three variables: self-efficacy and phobias (both of which capture mental health) and general growth. Drawing on a large sample, they found no evidence — when controlling for age, income, parental education, and sex — of outbreeding depression among mixed-race people. That said, caution is required in putting the “disharmony” hypothesis to rest because, as the authors admit, their results don’t take into account the genetic distances between the races involved. Davenport’s whole point was that a large genetic distance — such as between Black and White — would cause pronounced disharmony in a way that a smaller one, such as between White and Native American, might not.
However, if the authors are correct, then the solution to differences in mixed-race psychology appears to found an alternative model, comprehensively set out last year in “Predictors of Engaging in Interracial Dating” in the journal Mankind Quarterly. In summary, as I discussed in The Naked Classroom, we all sit on a spectrum from a fast to a slow Life History. Fast Life History Strategists are evolved to an easy yet unstable ecology. They could be wiped out at any minute and need to be fit and aggressive. Accordingly, they must invest their energy in copulation and, to the extent that they are selective, they must select for those who are physically fit. Cooperation does not pay off in such an ecology — a favour may never be repaid because the person could die — so such people are, relatively, mentally unstable and psychopathic. A person who is genetically very different could carry some useful adaptation and it would make sense to trade genetic similarity for fitness, because you’re calibrated to not invest much in each child, of which you’ll have many. Risk — something unusual — will also be attractive to you.
As the ecology becomes harsh yet stable, and the species members compete with each other, you must look after the offspring and be strongly adapted to a specific ecology. Thus, you invest less energy in copulation and more in nurture, you have fewer offspring and invest more in them, and you maximise your genetic legacy by selecting for genetic similarity. This also means that your offspring are strongly adapted to the specific ecology, something heightened by a longer childhood in which they can learn how to navigate that ecology. You can only survive as part of groups, so you become pro-social, mentally stable and risk-averse, as you are only just surviving.
All of this implies that pro-social, mentally stable people would be less likely to pursue mixed-race relationships, as the Mankind Quarterly study finds. That study found that assortative mating occurs between races: when people date people of a different race, they tend to date people who are psychologically similar to themselves. And when it comes to miscegenation, the people doing it are not very psychologically healthy. Their relationships are more conflictful and they are more prone to risk-taking. Their mixed-race adolescent children are more likely than monoracial adolescents to use drugs or engage in violent behavior.
So, it appears that Davenport’s theory was wrong. Miscegenation results, according to these studies, in offspring with worse mental health because it is people with worse mental health who are more likely to be attracted to potential partners of a different race.
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society—not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard.
The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
After its first five years in operation, the British Broadcasting Company became the wholly state-controlled British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927. John Reith, the first chief executive, wrote in 1924 of his “high conception of the inherent possibilities of the service” and later asserted that “‘the brute force of monopoly’ was a necessity in British broadcasting.”1 As a preponderance of politicians and civil servants as well as the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association agreed, the grant of the BBC’s first Royal Charter in 1927 and Reith’s ascent to the position of Director-General were virtually unchallenged. The brute force would fare better than the higher conception.
The Company, originally a cartel of radio set manufacturers, had been lucrative for its directors, but the Post Office had sanctioned their privileges for questionable reasons, and after the agreed period of royalties and having established the state enforcement of the licence fee, and under a government less obliging to Marconi and GEC, the Company was reformed into a ‘public corporation’. Reith himself was the leading advocate of the novel concept which, as with David Sarnoff and RCA in the USA, happened to provide him with a personal fief of immense influence. Reith’s “higher conception” consisted in a belief in “democratic aim, not in democratic method”, not aiming to give the public what they wanted, and still less any choice, but rather what he thought best for them.2 The BBC licence fee, originally a device to compel listeners to deliver royalties to the manufacturers’ cartel, served after the BBC’s incorporation to compel them to fund the state broadcaster while all other would-be broadcasters were prohibited.
The Public Corporation
The BBC’s official history describes Reith as desiring an organisation “independent” of the market and of governments.3 This has only ever been the case in the formal sense that the corporation depends directly on the crown instead, but the powers of the crown have for centuries been exercised by the government anyway. As Tom Mills describes, “renewals of the Royal Charter, as well as the appointment of BBC governors and trustees, have formally been made by an Order of the Privy Council” using “the residential powers of the absolutist state which have never been subject to democratic controls” and which are, “in essence, absolutist decrees of the central government, signed-off by the monarch of the day.”4 The government also grants the corporation its licence fee increases.5 The BBC could be deprived of funding or closed by any government that wished to do so, but none ever has; the idea of public corporations was initially embraced by leftists, but the Conservative Party exists to consolidate the gains of their faux-opponents.6
Reith’s BBC consciously strove to present itself as a kind of conglomerated person with whom the public would identify and whom they would trust. In Asa Briggs’ words, early BBC staff wanted “to ensure that people felt—without thinking—that the BBC was theirs.”7 Announcers were soon, by some listeners, “thought of as the BBC, for it was they who mediated between the listeners and the programmes.”8 Announcers were deemed the best placed of all BBC employees “to build up in the public mind a sense of the BBC’s collective personality.” They would represent “[t]he BBC itself” and its own “policy and ideals”.9 An article in the Spectator in 1936 said that “The BBC has a personality of its own, pervasive and unmistakable, and it affects its reactions to public events, to education, to entertainment, and to the arts: it is the foundation of its policy.”10 The Corporation was and is, as with any media organisation, unavoidably biased in whom it recruits, what its editors select to report and omit and how it allocates programme time. However, it developed the ability to appear objective to many viewers while expressing approval or disapproval by the variation of announcers’, presenters’ and newsreaders’ tones of voice and, in documentaries, the use of background music and lighting.11 The more trusting or unthinking elements of the public are subliminally persuaded by such methods.
Reith was chosen by the BBC’s first board of directors, but as they receded in importance, he grew, and standard histories of the corporation speak of ‘Reithianism’ as its founding ideology. This blurs the reality, but Reith was certainly a formative factor. He was a Presbyterian who served in and supported the Great War.12 His diary and memoirs show that he opposed unionisation at the BBC and in his previous job, had “no particular feelings about Communism”, privately sympathised with Adolf Hitler at times and made occasional favourable remarks about Benito Mussolini. Yet in 1939 he described himself as a “Gladstonian liberal”.13 He wrote in October 1942 that Winston Churchill was a “bloody swine” and “the greatest menace we’ve ever had” with “country and Empire sacrificed to his megalomania, to his monstrous obstinacy and wrongheadedness.”14 His insistence on formality, elocution and a privileged position for Christianity are commonly said to characterise the BBC during and long after his tenure, but his own political and cultural views do not appear to have become those of the organisation.
John Reith
Crusading
Reith appears to have concerned himself primarily with broadcasting per se; he did not attempt to control all the BBC’s output or those he began to disagree with in the 1930s—people he had also hired and had come to rely upon. As Asa Briggs says, “The BBC’s philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC’s programmes were the work of many men of extremely varied experience and outlook.”15 He describes them as “men and women who ‘believed in broadcasting’ almost as a social and cultural crusade.”16 They also, more or less frankly, saw broadcasting as a means of indoctrination and intended to use it as such. As early as 1925, the leading Fabian Beatrice Webb had written that wireless had “a stupendous influence… over the lives of the people” and “might become… a terrible engine of compulsory conformity … in opinion and culture” but asserted that the BBC’s use of its influence was “eminently right”. Hilda Matheson, after six years at the Corporation, wrote in 1933 that “Broadcasting is a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful the world has ever seen.”17 Labour politician Herbert Morrison, later Home Secretary under Winston Churchill, had from the BBC’s earliest days “demanded that broadcasting … should be publicly owned and controlled.”18 In 1946, Morrison described broadcasting as “at least as powerful a vehicle of ideas as the printing press” and acknowledged that “the body which decides what goes into a broadcasting programme has an enormous power for good and evil over the minds of the nation” and averred that “that power must not fall into the wrong hands”, out of the right ones.19
After it began to be allowed to broadcast ‘controversial’ programmes from 1927 and as it became involved in education, nearly all the department heads and editors Reith’s BBC hired ensured that the political and cultural output was routinely leftist.20 An early producer of ‘controversial’ programming, Lionel Fielden, wrote that “[w]e really believed that broadcasting could revolutionize human opinion.”21 Charles Siepmann, the second Head of Talks, was in his own words “fanatically devoted”; he believed that
“broadcasting was the greatest miracle in human history… everything that any man had ever written down on paper, every note of music that had ever been composed was now universally available. This was what you might call ‘the new age of cultural communism’. And I believed that.”
Charles Siepmann
Siepmann referred to his own “progressive outlook” and “the progressive policies that both Hilda and I were pushing very hard indeed”. He lamented that Reith agonised too earnestly over balance and didn’t share Siepmann’s “very, very sensitive social conscience”. Siepmann remarked that his own “sense of balance” was “to redress the ultra-conservatism of the culture of that time… my theory of balance ‘was subversive in the sense that it was disruptive of the old Conservative clique” and the “Conservative Mind”.22
BBC Education and Talks
The BBC founded several publications, of which Radio Times continues today. Its first and formative editor from 1927 was Eric Maschwitz, son of a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, whose career, like many BBC employees, included spells in broadcasting, the movie and music industries, the intelligence services, and wartime sabotage and terrorism under the Special Operations Executive. The Listener, founded in 1929, was an “educational periodical”, a printer of BBC Talks and a vehicle for the Corporation’s ‘cultural mission’. “By 1935 its circulation had reached 52,000, more than that of the New Statesman and the Spectator combined.”23 Richard Lambert was the first editor, having previously been, with Siepmann, the BBC’s representative on the Council for Adult Education, which the BBC funded to promote socialists including G D H Cole, John Sankey, William Temple and Harold Laski.24 Lambert employed Janet Adam Smith, later of the Fabian New Statesman, and the homosexual Joe Ackerley as assistant editors; his team’s use of The Listener to promote homosexual and communist poets like Cecil Day-Lewis, Wystan Auden, John Lehmann, Stephen Spender and Herbert Read provoked complaints from readers.25 Christopher Isherwood, another favourite poet, was a close associate of the Berlin-based pro-transgender, anti-nationalist activist Magnus Hirschfeld.26
Auden, Isherwood and Spender
Talks were originally a sub-division of BBC Education (which also included religion and early news operations), but “…in January 1927 the Control Board decided that a separate “Talks Section’ should be formed, quite distinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson in charge. She remained there until January 1932, leaving a very powerful imprint on the BBC.”27 Matheson was hired personally by Reith, first as an assistant in Education, then as the first Director of Talks in 1927. The BBC’s news operations began at the same time, initially merely repeating press agency reports. According to Kate Murphy, Matheson was “part of London’s cultural and intellectual elite” and “[her] approach to Talks reflected her liberal and progressive viewpoint.”28 She was also a feminist, a lesbian and a Soviet sympathiser who used her position to promote the views of her friends, lovers and comrades, especially members of the subversive Bloomsbury group and the socialist Fabian Society.29 Lionel Fielden was her main producer, also homosexual, anti-imperial and a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi, whom he promoted on BBC radio in India.
According to Asa Briggs, “[t]he early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers—Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman, Stephen King-Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.”30 Simon Potter adds that “Matheson invited influential and pugnacious figures from the world of politics to speak on air, including Winston Churchill and Harold Nicolson, as well as cultural figures like HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw.”31 John Hilton was “an ardent trade unionist” admired by communists including Guy Burgess with whom he later collaborated at the BBC; both were recruited into the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).32 Nicolson, King-Hall, Bartlett and Churchill were all vociferous proponents of an anti-German foreign policy.33 Socialists were consultants as well as guests. “‘I remember best the trinity of EM Forster, Desmond McCarthy and HG Wells,’ Lionel Fielden has written, ‘who all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems and possibilities of broadcasting.’” 34 Nicolson was not only a guest but the husband of Matheson’s lover, Vita Sackville-West. Beatrice and Sidney Webb were central members of the Fabian Society and apologists for the Soviet Union during its most tyrannical period. George Bernard Shaw, also a Fabian socialist and Soviet sympathiser, was a proponent of racial mixing who cursed and derided ‘anti-Semites’ with the same canards used by The Times in 1882: “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the lazy, ignorant, fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business.”35 HG Wells, another defender of the Soviets, was given BBC airtime by Matheson to advocate for a world state and the end of nations.36 Matheson’s “pugnacious figures” also included the Marxist and Zionist Harold Laski, the Soviet agent EF Wise, the ‘Red Countess’ of Warwick, the Quaker and socialist Philip Noel-Baker, Ernest Bevin, the militant feminist Viscountess Rhondda and the pro-Soviet ‘pacifist’ and Focus member Norman Angell, as well as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, EM Forster and others of the Bloomsbury circle. William Beveridge, a Liberal by party though a Fabian socialist in deed, “gave six talks on unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on the same subject.”37
Hilda Matheson
Asa Briggs writes that “[u]nder Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of ‘leftwing bias’.”38 Briggs, a pro-BBC historian, was perhaps merely re-wording Matheson’s own statement in 1933 that “[a]n impression of left-wing bias is always liable to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views. … It does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left. In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.”39 As Ronald Coase said in 1950, “The fact that the Corporation has been criticised by the Right and the Left hardly proves, as many of its supporters contend, that it is impartial; of itself it merely shows that the Corporation has not been consistently at one of the extremes.”40 The Corporation leaned strongly to the left as soon as it began to broadcast opinionated content and was merely occasionally told to cancel one talk or disinvite a particularly aggravating speaker. I find no record of any nationalist or fascist being invited to give talks, and there were not even many Tories. All figures ‘of the right’ invited to speak on the BBC appear to have been anti-German.41 Ian McIntyre refers to Churchill as one of the “mavericks of the right”, a true if understated description in the sense that Churchill’s affectations and associations were vaguely right-wing but his deeds and legacy were the opposite.42 Lord Lloyd, first head of the British Council, an anti-fascist cultural propaganda body spun out of the Foreign Office, who spent the latter half of the 1930s agitating for war against Germany, was regarded within the BBC as of the “extreme right”.43 The BBC ‘balanced’ anti-German Soviet sympathisers with anti-German Soviet collaborators. The war, or the wars, against Germany, both of which Lloyd and Churchill supported, did more than any other events in history to empower the left and socialism, as Neville Chamberlain had predicted and striven to avoid.
Marxists and communists
Matheson’s contumacy toward Reith, especially in regard to criticism from the Daily Mail of her promotion of her comrades, resulted in her resignation. The New Statesman predictably blamed “official and orthodox pressure” which kept out “the expression of new ideas”, though “paid a tribute to the BBC as a whole” which, after all, was still a state monopoly and thus a castle to be held.44 Matheson was succeeded as Director of Talks by another leftist, the “like-minded” Charles Siepmann, of whose spell Briggs writes that “the same charges” of left-wing bias “were frequently repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek ‘rightwing speakers’ who would offset criticism.”45 The dearth of such speakers actually broadcasting suggests that the Corporation went no further than ‘finding them desirable’. Instead, the socialist JB Priestley was given space for a “personal comment”, Winston Churchill warned about the ‘threat’ of Germany, and “An excellent series called Whither Britain? … was broadcast in 1934 (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year by a series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaverbrook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas—of Social Credit fame—and Aldous Huxley).”46
Eventually Siepmann, like Matheson, was, as Kate Murphy describes, “censured for being too radical”, i.e., “transferred to the role of Director of Regional Relations” in 1935.47 Hilda Matheson objected in the Observer, seeing him as her continuation.48 In Siepmann’s new remit, the largest of the BBC’s regions was BBC North, for which the Programme Director, EAF Harding, on his appointment in 1933, had “raided the Manchester Guardian” for its journalists “and with the full co-operation of WP Crozier, the editor” had drawn upon “the services of a number of the Guardian’s leaderwriters and reporters as North Regional broadcasters.”49 The strongly left-wing Guardian is the newspaper most read at the BBC today, vastly out of proportion to its sales to the public, and the BBC long sought to recruit to the greatest extent possible from among Guardian readers. Under Siepmann, John Coatman had been “deliberately brought in” by Reith for the role of the BBC’s Chief News Editor “as ‘right wing offset’ to ‘balance’ the direction of talks and news” but “showed no sign of doing so”; Coatman “insisted on his own independence as a maker of policy”.50 Richard Maconachie, “a man of conservative views” became Head of Talks in 1936, formally senior to the Director of Talks. According to Ben Harker, “His Director of Talks, Norman Luker, was by contrast a liberal intrigued by the far left” who “was keen to create a platform for a Marxist analysis of the issue” of class and wanted to reorient talks to appeal to the same audience as the anti-fascist Picture Post, edited by Istvan Reich, a Jewish political exile from Hungary, and the Left Book Club run by the Jewish communist publisher Victor Gollancz. Luker was a long-standing friend of the Cambridge Apostle, homosexual, Soviet spy and producer at the BBC, Guy Burgess. The robustness of the “right-wing offset” was evident in the rejection of Luker’s preferred Marxist lecturer, the Cambridge communist don Maurice Dobb; instead Luker had to settle for Arthur Horner, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and a trade unionist. Dobb had, at any rate, already appeared “periodically” on the BBC earlier in the decade. Horner, in his broadcast in November 1938,
ranged freely from Marx’s theory of class struggle as the engine of history, through to an explication of the Communist Party’s line on fascism, to a description of the Spanish Civil War as militarized class struggle, and into a justification of the Moscow Trials as revolutionary justice against counter-revolution. His talk, which was published unedited in the BBC’s in-house magazine The Listener, concluded with a familiar Popular Front appeal for what he called ‘the cultural, clerical and professional classes’ – generally the assumed audience for National Programme Talks – to come over to the working class in the struggle against capital and fascism”51
BBC North
The BBC also issued Marxist propaganda via other avenues. As Ben Harker describes, communists coveted the BBC’s “growing cultural and political influence in the 1930s” which drew upon “its increasing significance in the construction of British identity, notably in its power to fashion the national narrative.”52 Fortunately for them, when the Corporation began to establish regional divisions in 1933, BBC North, the largest, became a “cauldron of Marxist and left-wing mischief” under its first Programme Director, the avowed Marxist EAF Harding.53 The producer Olive Shapley, the folk singer AL Lloyd, the thespian and director Joan Littlewood and her husband the singer and actor Ewan McColl (born Jimmie Miller) were central figures and all were members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to Shapley, Harding was also a “comrade”.54 The North producer Geoffrey Bridson was merely a close friend and a sympathiser who didn’t join the party but was introduced to Harding by the Comintern propagandist Claud Cockburn, inventor of the myth of the Cliveden Set.55 Shapley, though she left the party after university (as did Guy Burgess), continued as an agent of the cause, moved to New York in 1941, and interviewed guests like the subversive Eleanor Roosevelt and the singer Paul Robeson, later winner of the Stalin Prize, for the BBC’s Children’s Hour. According to Harker, “It was Harding’s view that all radio was propaganda: broadcasts which failed to give voice to the working class silenced it, those which failed to address structural inequalities shored up the status quo.”56 Harding broadcast propaganda without subtlety. Documentaries like May Day by Bridson simply issued a communist reading of history, one which led inexorably toward The Revolution.57 The North team produced programmes about Chartism that coaxed the listener toward the same conclusion: working Britons had not yet completed their revolution. The Classic Soil, proudly memorialised by the BBC today, was an overt vindication of the 19th-century writings of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto and Capital, read by Ernst Hoffman, an anti-fascist immigrant from Germany.58 Shapley, the producer, later described her own work as “probably the most unfair and biased programme ever put out by the BBC”.59
Olive Shapley and Eleanor Roosevelt on Children’s Hour
Soviet espionage
From its founding in 1917, the Soviet Union had engaged in ceaseless attempts to dissolve and undermine Britain and the empire, using the Comintern, espionage, front groups and the assistance of sympathisers.60 As John Costello says, referring to the late 1920s and early 1930s, “Stalin’s lust for obtaining secret intelligence endowed [the] OGPU and its “organs” with unrivaled power, and he stepped up the pressure to expand the penetration of foreign governments. The primary target was Britain—the main adversary, in Stalin’s eyes[.]”61 The OGPU was the successor of the Cheka and predecessor of the NKVD and KGB. The Soviet penetration strategy came to centre upon upper-class students at Cambridge and Oxford who were best-placed to enter the civil service; the infamous ‘Cambridge Five’ and others better concealed, were thus recruited. With some awareness of the threat, the most conservative elements at the Security Service (MI5) held meetings with the BBC in 1935 which “set in motion a system of political vetting” to cover new BBC employees which was “formalised with a written agreement in 1937.”62 The vetting was insufficient; in any case, MI5 itself had employed subversives like Hilda Matheson during the Great War and since.63 The Soviet spy Guy Burgess was appointed as a producer of BBC Talks in June 1936 and was recruited to work for MI6 during his time there.
The intelligence services contained genuine opponents of the left, but the social worlds of their agents, Foreign Office employees and other civil servants, Cambridge Apostles, overt and covert communists, the Bloomsbury group, and upper class homosexuals all appear to have blended together, as is exemplified by Burgess himself. Burgess later made Anthony Blunt, a fellow Apostle, homosexual and Soviet spy, a frequent guest on the BBC, and elevated the already-high status of the bisexual anti-fascist Harold Nicolson at the corporation. Jews were prominent in the same circles. Burgess met the philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, both later to work in MI6, at a dinner party hosted by Felix Frankfurter.64 Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild, was another Apostle; according to Victor’s sister Miriam, Burgess was one of “the many people” whom her mother Rózsika, “assisted or supported by periodic and regular payments” for unclear reasons. Another was the Comintern agent Rudolph Katz.65 Victor Rothschild joined MI5 in 1939 (or before); the following year, Anthony Blunt was recruited on Rothschild’s recommendation.66
Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild
The suitability of Cambridge University as the prime location for Soviet recruitment owed much to the concentration of homosexuals among teaching staff and students. The Apostles, who included the amoralist philosopher GE Moore and others of the Bloomsbury group, had in earlier decades become “obsessed by homosexuality”, and several members “pursued what they called ‘the higher sodomy.’”67 “Higher” referred to their disdain for romantic love as well as their general sense of superiority. The Apostles were already a secret society, and homosexuality was actively prohibited in Britain until the 1960s. Some of those who practiced it formed “extensive underground ‘old boy networks’” which “reached out like a cobweb across the pinnacles of the British Establishment, with connections in Whitehall ministries, the universities, the foreign service, the church, and the armed services”; “several of the lines of this web of homosexual influence were spun by Apostles who, by the twenties, had anchored themselves firmly in the upper reaches of Whitehall” and “offered great opportunities to any blackmailer—or spy—who gained admission.” Jack Hewit, a lover of Burgess, first met him at a homosexual party in the War Office in 1936 at which Rudolph Katz was a guest.68 Burgess was extremely promiscuous and engaged in exchanges of love letters with ‘conquests’ to use as compromising material.
John Costello identifies Edward Marsh as “the leading behind-the-scenes string-puller in the interwar years” who “ascended the senior ranks of the civil service while pursuing his avocation as one of London’s leading literary impresarios”. Marsh
was always ready to pull strings and arrange favors for eligible Cambridge men of intellect, talent, and good looks. Successive generations of Apostles, including Blunt and later Guy Burgess, discovered this to their advantage. The Marsh network included bureaucrats, publishers, parliamentarians, and prominent members of London society. Marsh was longtime personal secretary to Winston Churchill, to whom ‘dear Eddie’ would attach himself like a faithful hound whenever Churchill had a ministry.69
Edward Marsh and Winston Churchill
Much of the same was true at Oxford University, where prominent dons like Maurice Bowra, aware of their closeness to Soviet intelligence agents, referred to themselves as being in the ‘homintern’; Bowra referred to Wadham, his college, as Sodom. During the Second World War he became a frequent guest on the BBC. Marxist members of the homosexual networks based in Cambridge, Oxford and London, including Roger Fulford and Kemball Johnston, attained positions in MI5 where they were able to influence their superiors in favour of members of the Communist Party.70
Popular Front
Though some communists may have been excluded from working at the BBC by MI5’s vetting, the corporation’s programmes were already used to support an effectively pro-Soviet foreign policy long before 1937. Winston Churchill is cited as one of a few right-wing speakers who disprove that the corporation was left-wing, but he exceeded the BBC in its fervour for the anti-German cause. In November 1934, Churchill was invited by the BBC to broadcast a speech in which he forebode the “destruction of the British Empire” and “Teutonic domination” of “our people” unless Britain sought allies to achieve “[p]eace… founded upon preponderance” by “mak[ing] ourselves at least the strongest Air Power in the European world.”71 This was, not by chance, the same demand as that of the civil service faction headed by Robert Vansittart and Warren Fisher that furtively supplied Churchill with false estimates of Britain and Germany’s military strengths.
The week after Churchill’s radio speech, the British arm of Samuel Untermyer’s Anti-Nazi Council was founded, and the following October it held a large demonstration in Hyde Park; the BBC broadcast the speeches by Eleanor Rathbone, Clement Attlee, Walter Citrine, JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst, all socialists or communists. There was no BBC Talk given by Oswald Mosley to ‘balance’ Churchill and no coverage of demonstrations against communism or hostility toward Germany. The BBC covered the events of the largest such demonstrations, those of the British Union of Fascists, by spotlighting the blackshirts’ eviction of hecklers and invaders. The BUF’s Olympia rally in 1934 occurred at the same time the BBC began to be allowed to create its own news reports. The ludicrous myth of the BUF intentionally causing violent disruption of its own events has endured.
Oswald Mosley and BUF members
From 1936, BBC Television broadcast selected newsreels from Gaumont and Movietone, the latter being a subsidiary of Wilhelm Fuchs’ Fox Corporation and the former owned by Isidore Ostrer. Ostrer was, according to Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, “the most skilful and clear-minded manipulator of the propaganda potential of the newsreel”; as Gaumont also produced films and owned many cinemas, the effect of his skills was amplified greatly.72 Fuchs and Ostrer were both descended of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The British film industry and cinemas were largely Jewish-owned through the 1920s and 30s.73 Burgess, before being hired by the BBC, was recruited to work for the Soviet NKVD probably by Arnold Deutsch, a cousin of Oscar Deutsch, the founder and owner of Odeon Cinemas and a referee for Arnold’s immigration application.74
The BBC, especially the North division, effectively joined the Popular Front, a Soviet anti-fascist initiative, and thereby aligned with the aims of the international Jewish alliance agitating for regime change in Germany and with organised Jewry in Britain, whose activists secured special privileges. According to Geoffrey Alderman, “An agreement … was reached with the BBC which undertook to submit” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews “the scripts of any programme “of Jewish interest” before the programme was broadcast.” The agreement was part of the Board of Deputies’ Defence Committee’s anti-fascist strategy which also included “intelligence-gathering, media-monitoring and co-operation with the Special Branch.”75 In the spring of 1938, recalling 1881, “a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the BBC and in the British Press.”76
According to William West, “The BBC and its staff… took an essentially Communist line” at the time of the Spanish Civil War which indicates how “the more sinister activities of Burgess and his circle remained unremarked.”77 During the Sudetenland crisis of September 1938, Burgess was the producer responsible for planned anti-German speeches by Harold Nicolson which were cancelled under pressure from the Cabinet Office, which was loyal to Neville Chamberlain, and the Foreign Office under Halifax who was still for peace with Germany at the time.78 Producing ostensibly non-political programmes about the countries of the Mediterranean, Burgess also collaborated with the Marxist academic EH Carr and tried to involve Winston Churchill, of whom he was “a keen supporter” though the latter withdrew in anger at being required to moderate his belligerence.79 According to West, “the line followed by Burgess and EH Carr in the BBC’s Mediterranean series was close to [Anthony] Eden’s…”.80 Eden “had broadcast to the world his welcome” of the Soviet Union to the League of Nations in 1934 and, alongside Churchill, was the most prominent Tory supporter of an alliance with the Soviets; Eden was particularly friendly to Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister, while Churchill liaised more with Ivan Maisky, the ambassador in London to whom he had been introduced by Vansittart.81 In contrast to its pro-Soviet slant, the BBC refused to broadcast or even acknowledge the impassioned radio speech from Verdun by the Duke of Windsor, the abdicated King Edward VIII, for peace between Britain, France and Germany in May 1939.82
Guy Burgess
Propaganda and black operations
As the BBC aligned with Jewish and Soviet policy, it applied its “power to fashion the national narrative” in accordance with the propaganda bodies of the British state, staffed and governed increasingly by anti-fascists, which were used to counter Italian and German (not Soviet) propaganda. The most overt, the British Council, was an initiative of Rex Leeper, head of the Foreign Office’s News Department and payee of the Soviet-aligned Czech government; he introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council, which Churchill renamed the Focus, in April 1936. The BBC’s Empire Service and foreign language broadcasting were launched to work to the same purpose as the Council. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, but the propaganda war was underway at least two years earlier when the Focus member Lord Lloyd, another figure of the “extreme right” who sided with the extreme left in foreign policy, became chairman of the Council.83 Anti-fascism and sympathy for the Soviet Union were already embedded institutionally in Britain long before the Anschluss, ‘Munich’ or Kristallnacht.
Section D of MI6 was created in March or April of 1938 “to provide lines of communication for covert anti-Nazi propaganda in neutral countries”, to “organise and equip resistance units, support anti-Nazi groups” and enact “sabotage, covert operations, and subversive propaganda.” Guy Burgess was employed by Section D, the first of a chain of propaganda bodies established by the British state which presented Jewish emigrants from Central Europe as friends of and spokesmen for Britain. Vansittart, Claude Dansey of MI6, Churchill and the Focus had been using the same people for (often fabricated) intelligence and propaganda for some years. As Andrew Lownie describes, “Section D used a series of front organisations, such as the news agency United Correspondents, which produced innocuous but anti-Nazi articles for circulation to newspapers around the world, and Burgess worked with writers such as the Swiss journalist Eugen Lennhof and the Austrian writer Berthe Zuckerkandl-Szeps.”84 In Section D, John Costello says, “Burgess appears to have been the main fount of ideas and principal producer of clandestine programming. In compiling the careful assembly of propaganda talks, variety shows, and hit records, he was assisted by Paul Frischauer, an Austrian refugee, and his wife, who were members of an anti-Hitler group in London.”85 The “radio war” consisted initially of illegally broadcasting Chamberlain speeches into Germany on Radio Luxembourg, owned by Isidore Ostrer and run by Eva Siewert, a Jewish lesbian and Soviet sympathiser.86
The covert counterpart of the British Council and an adjunct of MI6 and the BBC was the Joint Broadcasting Committee, which operated in sufficient secrecy as to be unknown to MI5. According to Lownie, “The JBC was very much a BBC operation. It was run by Hilda Matheson… assisted by Isa Morley, the foreign director of the BBC from 1933 to 1937. Burgess was number three and represented Section D’s interests. In March 1939 Harold Nicolson joined the Board.” Angus Hambro, a Tory MP from an established Jewish banking family, was also a member. “JBC staff were authorised to use BBC studios”, and though “scripts were prepared by JBC staff, many were read by prominent exiles such as the writer Thomas Mann, or later by well-known actors such as Conrad Veidt”, both married to women of Jewish ancestry. Burgess also recruited John Bernal, a Jewish communist and a science don at Cambridge, as well as Edvard Benes, the former Czech Prime Minister and a friend and ally of Stalin, to record speeches for the JBC.87
Conclusion
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society – not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard. The weakest period for the anti-fascists was in 1938, as Chamberlain’s Cabinet Office actively subdued them; Guy Burgess resigned from the corporation in frustration. Yet after Lord Halifax joined the war party, Chamberlain was isolated in the Cabinet and Parliament and cornered into adopting anti-German policies. The ensuing war enabled Churchill to form not only a government in May 1940, but a new anti-fascist regime which has ever since imposed a false version of history via the BBC and the education system. The ‘maverick of the right’ was the best friend the left have ever had.
Horus is the pen name of a British historian. He posts his essays on Substack. Please subscribe.
The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p180-2. Reith sought to apply the “brute force of monopoly” beyond Britain, as British law alone could not prevent commercial stations broadcasting into Britain from transmitters abroad, which they did through the 1930s. The BBC lobbied via the International Broadcasting Union for the greatest possible restrictions on Radio Luxembourg, Radio Normandie and others, and did so with the support of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but Radio Luxembourg exceeded the BBC’s listening figures at times and only ceased operations when its facilities were effectively nationalised after Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939. Under Reith, the BBC had only broadcast for a few hours on Sundays and the content was mostly religious while Radio Luxembourg played more dance music. See The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p92, 360.
McIntyre, p99, 217, 250. ‘The Trumpet of the Night’: Interwar Communists on BBC Radio, Ben Harker, History Workshop Journal, Volume 75, Issue 1, Spring 2013, p82
Briggs, Golden Age, p13. One early element of the “social and cultural crusade” was to expose the public to subversive artists, writers and musicians. In music, as Asa Briggs describes, the BBC chose “the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the British listener Schönberg and Webern as well as Bartok and Stravinsky. In music it was always among the avant-garde…” Briggs, Golden Age, p171-2
Briggs, Golden Age, p124. “The place of adult education in the BBC’s central organization was never secure. In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department and became a separate department under the direction of Siepmann; in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branch when Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks; in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch, losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties about what exactly was the relationship between Talks and organized adult education.” Briggs, Golden Age, p222
Harold Nicolson was the son of Arthur Nicolson, a diplomatic protégé of King Edward VII. Stephen King-Hall was a future Labour MP and publisher of the anti-German London Newsletter which shared an audience with publications of the Focus and the Comintern; he was “a frequent broadcaster”. Briggs, BBC, p119
Bernard Shaw, Michael Holroyd, 1998, chapter 2, 3. Shaw “was to define fascism as ‘State financed private enterprise’ or ‘Socialism for the benefit of exploiters’. From the 1930s onwards Shaw chose to call himself a communist: ‘that is, I advocate national control of land, capital, and industry for the benefit of us all. Fascists advocate it equally for the benefit of the landlords, capitalists and industrialists.’”
Briggs, Golden Age, p126-7. Wells speaking on BBC radio. The Listener praised Wells as a man “who can see the future”; presumably the producers who chose him were prescient too.
Briggs, Golden Age, p43. Matheson continued: “How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled with the spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable from all education, from any search after truth?’”
Interview with Olive Shapley, 1984, p3-4 and Broadcasting a Life, Olive Shapley, 1996, p37. From the latter, referring to her first meeting with Harding where he asked her to stay behind: “‘When the room was empty apart from the two of us, he extended his hand and said, ‘Welcome, comrade.’ I was never a very devout communist, but I could tell that I was among friends.’”
Though they had small resources and were about to engage in war on several fronts, the Bolsheviks commenced espionage against Britain immediately after the coup. Chapter 5, ‘Exporting the Revolution’, of John Costello’s book The Mask of Treachery gives a summary. See also chapters 1-5 of Giles Udy, Labour and the Gulag.
Mills, p42. “The practice was maintained for fifty years, abandoned only in 1985 after being exposed by a team of investigative journalists. Much of what is known about political vetting, stems from the revelations at that time and the declassified BBC files that have become available since.”
Costello, p299-300. Costello suggests that Burgess worked for the Rothschilds’ own intelligence network as well as MI6 and the NKVD:
“Since private intelligence was an essential element of the Rothschild business operation, what better cover could they give their latest recruit in 1935 than to characterize Burgess as an investment counselor and dispatch him as their private spy to monitor the Anglo-German Fellowship? Information about threats to the House of Rothschild resulting from secret deals between British sympathizers and the Third Reich would more than justify the hundred guineas a month paid to Guy Burgess.
Victor Rothschild had implicit faith in his Cambridge friend because he, like Blunt, knew of Burgess’s true loyalties. But Burgess’s volatile enthusiasms would help persuade his right-wing friends that he had recanted his earlier Marxism. His homosexual appetite would prove an exploitable talent when it came to sharing the bed of a pro-German Tory well placed to pull strings and advance an ambitious young man’s career. Nor should it be forgotten that Rudolph Katz, with his own extensive network of homosexual and Comintern contacts, also contributed to Rothschild’s private intelligence network that, at the time, shared with Stalin a common enemy: Hitler.” Costello, p303-5
Winston Churchill – the Greatest Briton, Parliament Archives. Churchill – “After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War series there were complaints that he had delivered a ‘gratuitous attack on Germany’, and one writer said that it was ‘in need of far more censorship than Professor Haldane’s’, a talk on the extreme left.’” Briggs, Golden Age, p146
Truth Betrayed, WJ West, 1989, p40. Burgess’ friend Kim Philby, who worked for MI6 and the NKVD simultaneously, was The Times’ correspondent during the civil war and MI6’s head of undercover operations in Spain and Portugal during the world war. Burgess and Philby both worked for MI6’s propaganda-focused Section D and, like Eric Maschwitz, the sabotage-focused Special Operations Executive in 1939 and 1940. In 1934 Philby had married Litzi Friedmann, a communist from Vienna and an associate of the Soviet spy Edith Tudor-Hart. By 1941, when Burgess rejoined BBC Talks, the corporation was under the control of Churchill’s government and hired Burgess precisely because he was pro-Soviet.
In November 1938, according to the ambassador to Italy, Eric Drummond, the 7th Earl of Perth, BBC presenters used tone of voice to mock Chamberlain and praise Anthony Eden. West also says that “There had been a number of concerted attacks on Chamberlain by the BBC, usually in the form of selective reporting of speeches and debates.” See West, p166, including note 101.
Alderman, New Directions, p165. See also West, p111. Reith had been the leading advocate of the International Broadcasting Union, in the violation of which the BBC now collaborated.
Lownie, chapter 13. The JBC had a “strong focus” on “securing British propaganda broadcasts on the American networks.” American networks also had their own plans. “The covert side, where Burgess largely worked, produced programmes for distribution in enemy countries, working with Electra House. Burgess was responsible for a variety of programmes that were recorded on large shellac discs and then smuggled in the diplomatic bag or by agents into Sweden, Liechtenstein and Germany, and broadcast as if they were part of regular transmissions from the German stations themselves.” The ‘Chaos of the Ether’ had gone from a myth to a tactic. About the JBC, see also Murphy, Behind the Wireless, chapter on Hilda Matheson, and West p118, 140.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Horushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngHorus2024-11-25 07:12:052024-11-25 08:11:47The Engine of Compulsory Conformity: The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
Ursula Haverbeck (11/8/1928 – 11/20/2024) recently passed at the ripe old age of ninety-six. She was known or “notorious” in Germany because she dared to challenge the Jewish Holocaust ‘narrative’ of six million. Time after time, she got into trouble with the German authorities for ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ a crime that often results in either an exorbitant fine or imprisonment. The poor woman’s offense was that she dared to believe that Auschwitz was a work camp (which it was) and not a death camp. In a speech that Ursula gave in 2016 in the southern Berlin district of Lichtenrade, she described the Holocaust as one of the greatest lies in history. She also stated that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were not real.
According to her Wikipedia entry,“In November 2015, at the age of 87, she was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment for Holocaust denial. Several additional convictions in the fall of 2016 led to further such sentences. She unsuccessfully appealed all sentences, and on 7 May 2018 began to serve her latest two-year jail sentence after being picked up at her home by German police.Released from a prison in Bielefeld at the end of 2020, she was quickly charged again, faced a new trial in March 2022, and was sentenced to one year in prison.She was again convicted on 26 June 2024 and sentenced to an additional 16 months in jail.”
Ursula’s imprisonments, however, reveals something deeply maniacal about our enemies. It shows not only how desperate they are to maintain at all costs the Holocaust propaganda they’ve spoon-fed us for the past 60 years, but how foundationally weak it is that they feel it necessary to imprison a woman in her 90s simply because she thinks differently about Auschwitz. Ursula’s crimes were essentially thought crimes; she happened to think differently than what the German authorities thought about that historic period of time from 1939–1945. And as a result, she was arrested, fined, sentenced, and imprisoned.
Ursula might have been allowed to keep such ‘heretical’ thoughts and never suffer a day in court if she had just kept it to herself. But she dared to share her ‘heresy’ with others and to align herself with Germany’s ‘far right’ political dissidents. Tyrannical governments, such as Germany’s, can’t allow their citizenry to ‘notice’ or even publicly question Jewish dogma about what happened at Auschwitz. All of it must be believed. To do otherwise is to invite inquiry, differing opinions, or even disbelief in the entire Holocaust story itself. Thus, it’s better to stamp out a dissenting whisper or even the mildest objection lest the entire house of cards crumble to the ground.
Would Ursula have been fined and imprisoned had she dared to challenge or question whether the Cambodian genocide (1976-1980) by the Khmer Rouge actually occurred? Would she have been arrested for ‘incitement to hatred’ if she professed not to believe certain parts of the Holodomor genocide (1932-1933) that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians? Or what would have happened to Ursula if she refused to believe the Armenian genocide by the Turks (1915-1923) in which approximately one million Armenians were brutally slaughtered? Or what if Ursula had thought differently about the Rwandan genocide (1994) which led to the mass murder of nearly one million Tutsis? Would Ursula have been arrested or fined if she declared Joseph Stalin’s mass murder of approximately 50 million people (1929-1953) never occurred or that his regime had nothing to do with the Great Purge which targeted political dissenters? If Ursula were to tell her German countrymen that Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1976) never led to the mass murder of an estimated 40 to 70 million people, how likely is it that she would have been summoned to the authorities for questioning?
Truth is, nothing would have happened to Ursula. No German court would have criminally convicted her for believing differently about such human genocides, nor for sharing her thoughts to others. The subject of the Holocaust, however, in their minds is an entirely different matter and that not because of its overwhelming historical and numerical veracity when examined carefully, but because of the power, money and influence that Jewish power wields throughout Europe. Jews will not permit any deviation on whether the Holocaust death count was six million or something far less. They will not agree to anything less than Auschwitz being a death camp for the sole purpose of exterminating Jewish prisoners. And they have placed enormous pressure on the German authorities to never allow even the slightest departure from the received narrative.
In a way I understand this because every aggrieved group or ethnicity that feels it has been wronged view themselves as history’s ultimate victims. Jews, then, are only doing what other groups who feel they have been wrongly persecuted have done.
But there is an important difference.
Jews use lawfare and criminal indictments to enforce their beliefs that pressure non-Jews to comply lest they be summoned by the authorities. As it currently stands, there are 17 European countries, including Israel and Canada, that make Holocaust denial a punishable offense. Jews often publicly malign those who refuse to go along with the narrative via their media outlets. They do all in their power to portray any and all dissenters in the worst possible light. This is something no other ethnic group on the planet does.
The Armenian people, in contrast to Jews, will not engage in a holy crusade against anyone who happens to think differently about the details of the Armenian genocide. They may argue against such notions as individuals, but not in some collective public campaign to force everyone to agree on every conceivable detail over those events. The same may be said of any other ethnic group that has experienced wholesale slaughter at the hands of their enemies. Neither do Armenians erect sympathy museums throughout Europe and America that visually dramatize their sufferings by the Turks as Jews have done in their Holocaust museums. Armenians have not sought exorbitant amounts of reparations from other countries either nor have they instituted policies of perpetual reparations to each new generation of their people as Jews have. Only Jews could create such devious financial scams and trickery and manage to get away with it. Rightly did Norman Finkelstein title his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.
The Israeli government,interestingly, has refused to formally acknowledge the Armenian genocide (see Yossi Melman, “Israel’s Refusal to Recognize the Armenian Genocide is Indefensible,” Foreign Policy, 4/29/2019). Jews have tended to either deny or downplay the horrors of the Armenian genocide because anything that detracts from the centrality of Jewish suffering is seen as a threat to their power, to their very existence as a people.
The Jewish obsession to marginalize and criminally prosecute those who refuse to believe the Holocaust reflects a strongly religious character. Like the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that persecuted ‘heretics’ for their thought transgressions, so also today’s Jewish power system that has infiltrated the West fanatically believes it must attack and, if possible, criminally prosecute anyone who renounces Holocaust dogma and makes it known to others.
Many Jews cannot even accept that one might reject the Holocaust story because of problems that make it appear questionable or greatly exaggerated and still have positive feelings for the Jewish people. In their minds, an unwillingness to fully accept what Jews have suffered is clear proof that they are ‘anti-Semites.’ No reasonable nuances are accepted. For the Jews, the Holocaust is an all or nothing proposition that again reveals its overly dogmatic and religious nature.
All of this on the part of Jews stems from an inflated and grandiose view of themselves. Nothing in the world even matters except how it impacts the Jewish people, and this includes the suffering of other groups. Jews may claim to care about non-Jews, poor migrants and the impoverished in their efforts to ‘repair the world.’ But what it almost always amounts to is burdening White western governments with more non-White immigrants at tax-payer expense and less social cohesion.
There is a popular phrase among Jews taken from the Talmud: “Whoever destroys a single life is considered as if he destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life is considered as if he saved an entire world” (Sanhedrin 37a). I was at first bewildered by what it meant until I realized that what it’s really saying is that saving oneJewish life has so much intrinsic value and worth that it’s equivalent to saving the entire world, all of humanity! Granted, modern Jews try to argue that it applies universally to everyone, Jews as well as non-Jews. But this is not the dominant opinion among the ancient rabbis, especially when one considers how painfully derogatory Jews routinely spoke of gentiles evident in their Talmudic writings.
One understands, then, why Jews are unwilling to see the genocidal suffering of other groups as equivalent or greater than that of their own. This is one of several reasons why Jews seek to punish all forms of Holocaust denial. The same will occur here in the U.S. if the First Amendment is ever neutered or abolished altogether. Jews in America are currently working on doing that very thing since the First Amendment stands in the way of their efforts to outlawing all speech deemed ‘anti-Semitic.’
What Jews seem to fear most are words. As Abe Foxman, the former national director of the ADL, reminds us: “The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers or Auschwitz. It started with words.” Is it any wonder, then, why they do so much in their power to both control the thoughts and words of others? Jews only want free speech when it benefits them. What they really want is controlled speech.
Our opponents try to justify prosecuting dissenters to the Holocaust story by arguing that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were unique in all of history. It’s necessary, therefore, to maintain the historical integrity of what occurred, including Germany’s complicity in the deaths of millions of Jews which must never be forgotten. Thus, it’s incumbent upon the German government to fine and even imprison those who ‘incite hatred’ against Jews lest the same events be repeated.
But such thinking is wrongheaded from the outset. The Holocaust is not a unique event in all of history if one is talking about genocides or human death tolls. Aside from serious questions about where the notion of ‘six million’ originated, including its symbolic usage among Jews many years prior to WW2, the Holocaust story is replete with a multiplicity of historical problems that have caused a growing number of people to question its veracity.
Moreover, a host of truly bizarre and outright silly Nazi death stories surround the Holocaust narrative that only serve to cast even more doubt on what we’ve been told about it (e.g., death by masturbation machines; soap made from the skin of Jews; and the silliest accounts of surviving the gas chambers).
There have also been numerous genocides throughout human history that were greater in number and sheer horror than the alleged Holocaust. Any attempt to make the Holocaust the greatest human atrocity one could imagine is absurd and flies in the face of the historical record.
Finally, when has outlawing speech and free inquiry ever benefitted the progress of Truth? If the Holocaust narrative is factually true, why is it necessary to surround it with legal penalties and punishments if one dares to think and speak otherwise? Why can’t the proponents of the Holocaust story defend their position in the arena of ideas and open inquiry rather than so often resorting to threats of criminal punishment and costly fines? Is the conduct of Jews in this realm the mark of a people devoted to Truth, or a people so desperate to maintain lies that they will gladly resort to imprisoning a 96-year-old elderly woman because she dared to have a contrarian viewpoint?
Ursula Haverbeck was a brave woman who stood by her convictions. She was willing to pay the price for it too. I hope more Whites will be as steadfast in their convictions as she was.
Vigor Vaginae Veneris. Latin says in three words what can take seven words in English: “The Vigor of the Vagina of Venus.” Or V3 for short. It’s V3 that powers one of the most remarkable images I’ve ever seen. It’s so remarkable, in fact, that I’ve sometimes wondered whether it’s a modern fake. And what is it? It’s a painting on a twelve-sided table that shows a naked blonde Venus from whose vulva golden rays are extending to the faces of six young knights kneeling in worship.
Vigor Vaginae Veneris: a beautiful blonde goddess beams golden vulva-rays at six white knights
Painted by an anonymous medieval artist and currently held in the Louvre in Paris, its full name is Le Triomphe de Vénus vénérée par six amoureux légendaires (Achille, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Pâris et Troïle) — The triumph of Venus, worshipped by six legendary lovers (Achilles, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Paris and Troilus). However, you could sum it up in two words: Pussy Power! But that’s vulgar and the painting isn’t in the slightest vulgar or pornographic. Instead, it’s beautiful. It wasn’t created to raise a snigger or pump a penis, but to venerate the vulvina of Venus, goddess of sex and love (vulvina is my blend of vulva-and-vagina).
Maiden, Mother, Matriarch
That vulvina-veneration is obvious in the painting, but there’s a lot of more subtle symbolism there too. Venus stands inside a mandorla, an almond-shaped aura that here represents the labia (and that often appears around the Virgin Mary in Christian art). And what are the fruit-bearing trees below and to left and right of Venus? They’re almond-trees. And the young knights are in quest of the Holy Grail, the awe-inspiring chalice that brims with blood and that is, on some gynocentric interpretations, another symbol of the female pudenda.
Those gynocentric interpretations say that Christianity became paganized as it spread into Europe from its austere Semitic roots. The Virgin Mary isn’t prominent in most of the New Testament and the virgin birth isn’t mentioned at all by St Paul. Nor does the New Testament formally define and name the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But Mary is very prominent in Catholicism. So is the male Trinity. However, it’s a woman’s life, not a man’s, that falls naturally into three stages: maiden, mother, matriarch, or the pre-menstrual girl, menstrual woman, and post-menstrual crone who stand behind triple goddesses like Artemis, Hera, and Hecate. That image of naked blonde Venus, with her golden-rayed vulva, was painted in Christian Europe about an ostensibly Christian legend, but it’s pagan, not Christian, and openly expresses pussy-power.
Jewish porn as cultural terrorism
That power is submerged and sublimated in Catholicism, and altogether absent in true Protestantism, which is Pauline in its attitude to the Virgin Mary. She doesn’t matter there, which helps explain one of H.L. Mencken’s best and funniest lines: “The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.” Yes, God is boring — lifeless, sterile, uninspiring — when the female principle is stripped away from religion. But what happens when religion is stripped away from the female principle? You can see the answer all around you in the modern West. Pussy-powered paganism in the past and pussy powers pornography in the present. That is not a good thing. The central role of Jews in pornography has often been described and decried by White nationalists. See, for example, Kenneth Vinther’s article “Oppression by Orgasm? The Porn Industry as Jewish Anti-Fascist Action and Cultural Terrorism” at Counter Currents. Pornography degrades and exploits the special beauty and sexual power of White women. What’s not to like for anti-White, money-hungry Jews?
Jews in pornography
But one White-harming aspect of Jewish pornography hasn’t been extensively discussed by White nationalists: its role in encouraging, first, mass migration by non-Whites and, second, the rape and harassment of White women by non-Whites after their arrival. For example, the young non-White men pouring across the English Channel into Britain or across the Mexican border into America are, of course, economic migrants seeking White money. But they’re also erotic migrants seeking White women. It’s absolutely certain that a large or even overwhelming majority of those men have consumed pornography featuring White women and have been conditioned by that porn to see White women as promiscuous and readily available. This does not promote the welfare of White women, to put it mildly. But do feminists ever mention the pull of porn for non-Whites in their critiques of pornography and the patriarchy?
From veneration to vulgarity
Of course not. But if pussy powers porn, it also powers the solipsism and self-worship so obvious in feminism. You’ve seen vagina-veneration from the fourteenth century above. Now here’s some vagina-vulgarity from the twenty-first century:
Vagina-vulgarity and a bushy-haired Black: the book V
That book by the biologist Florence Schechter is subtitled “an empowering celebration of the vagina and vulva.” In fact, it’s a self-worshipping celebration. By saying “V-V-V,” Schechter is really saying “Me-me-me.” And if you’re wondering about her surname, yes, the vulgar, self-worshipping creatrix of the Vagina Museum and author of V does indeed seem to be Jewish:
Self-worshipping vagina-fan Florence Schechter
But Schechter’s self-worship isn’t the simple and satisfying thing it would once have been. The cult of leftism to which she belongs is ever-restless and ever-evolving. That’s why the cover of Schechter’s book features a bushy-haired Black woman standing on her hands and doing the splits. As a White racist, I will freely admit that the Black woman presenting her pudenda makes me feel queasy rather than quim-curious. I am not interested in or attracted to Black vulvas and vaginas. But White feminists would not freely admit that the Black woman also makes the book less attractive to them.
A White woman on the cover would have been much better for a solipsistic White feminist. But the self-worship of feminism has been hijacked by the self-worship of Blacks, which is why Florence Schechter collaborated on V with the Afro-autolatric Nadia Akingbule, “an illustrator from London, working predominantly with themes relating to minority representation and activism. Alongside colourful editorial illustration, she specialises in portraiture, often referencing her experience as a person of dual heritage in her practice.”
“The female penis”
As I said: celebrating “V-V-V” really means celebrating “Me-me-me.” But Black women want to celebrate “B-B-B” too or, as John Derbyshire puts it: “Blackety Blackety Black Black Black Blackety-Blackness.” Yet another self-obsessed group wants to celebrate “T-T-T.” That’s why Florence Schechter’s Vagina Museum had to market itself as “trans-inclusive.” I’ve never visited the Vagina Museum, so I don’t know how it pandered to the egomania of so-called transwomen, with their fake (and fetid) vaginas. And I’ve never read the book V, so I don’t know how it avoids the blasphemous assertion that vulvas and vaginas are in any way central to or defining of womanhood. As mainstream leftism now proclaims: any human being with a penis and testicles can be just as much a woman as any human being with a vagina and ovaries, if the penis-possessor claims to be a woman. This being so, vulvas and vaginas are not central to womanhood. Not for mainstream leftists, anyway.
But leftists are lunatics in thrall to a pernicious ideology based on fantasy and egomania, not on reality and objective science. The ideology is pernicious by design — Jewish design. Just as Jews have been central to pornography, so they’ve been central to translunacy, as Kenneth Vinther describes at Counter Currents in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020). The godfather of translunacy was the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935), who was energetically promoting pornography, transgenderism and homosexuality well before the Second World War.
“There are a lot of Jews”
Jews like Hirscheld have been central to the promotion of all three things and all three have been harmful to the West. That isn’t to say that all Jews and only Jews promote harmful things like those. But Jews have been necessary, if not sufficient, in the noxious growth of porn, transgenderism, and homo-cultism. That’s why the hyperbolic meme “Every. Single. Time.” works so well when applied to Jews. It isn’t every single time, of course, but it’s often enough for the meme to work. Jews themselves have openly admitted their central place in the promotion of sexual perversion and subversion. Take the Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams. He has argued in the Jewish Chronicle that “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film” and that Lolita has a “Jewish appeal” because pedophiles and Jews both embody “the outsider who is passionately committed to action against the social order.”
And take the Jewish pediatrician and apparent “transwoman” Dr Ilana Sherer. He has proposed “renaming … clitorises as ‘dicklets’” and claimed in the Jewish News of Northern California that puberty-blockers are “fully reversible.” He has also proudly acknowledged that “there are a lot of Jews” in the field of translunacy and has described how “we [in a transgender group] were trying to schedule our next meeting and realized that everyone in the room but one person was Jewish.” Mark Steyn’s resident Jewish mother, the highly ethnocentric Laura Rosen Cohen, didn’t mention Sherer’s Jewishness when she asked of him: “Why do they all look like that?” Indeed, Sherer looks both demented and depraved in typical transgender fashion.
The revolutionary power of zoophilia
Another trans-skeptic Jew, James Esses, didn’t mention Jewishness either when he used the following as the first example in a list of the perversion and subversion promoted by “queer theory”:
In 2020, the elite academic publisher, Cambridge University Press, published an article titled ‘LGBTQ…Z’. In case you were wondering, the ‘Z’ stands for ‘zoophilia’, another term for bestiality — human beings sexually abusing animals. The article argued that the ‘Z’ should be brought into queer theory, in order to bring about “the revolutionary power of love”. (“Our societies must not be ‘queered’,” James Esses at Matt Goodwin’s Substack, 18th November 2024)
The two leading figures in queer theory are the Jewish-lesbian academics Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. I think another Jewish-lesbian academic was behind the zoophilia-friendly article highlighted by James Esses. It was written by the lesbian queer-theorist M. Kathy Rudy (also known as Mary K. Rudy and born 1956), an “American women’s studies professor and theologian.” However, to be fair to Esses, Kathy Rudy’s Jewishness is much less obvious than Ilana Sherer’s. In fact, I can’t prove that she is Jewish. But she looks Jewish, has a surname that can be “eastern Ashkenazic,” and has a Wikipedia biography in six languages, one of which is Hebrew. She also got a positive review of her book Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy (2011) from her fellow academic Frances Bartkowski, who has based her career on “years of reading, writing, and teaching about the Shoah,” has written a novel about two Polish Jews fleeing the Shoah, and has a promotional page at the Jewish Book Council. I conclude that Kathy Rudy is Jewish, although I can’t yet prove it. Here’s the abstract for her promotion of zoophilia in the feminist journal Hypatia:
In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love. (“LGBTQ…Z?”, Hypatia, Volume 27, Issue 3, Summer 2012, pp. 601-615)
As you can see from the video-still of Kathy Rudy above, I started this article with a beautiful blonde and have ended it with a bloated bull-dyke. That’s a brutal description, I know, but it’s also an accurate one. Kathy Rudy is an ugly woman promoting an ugly ideology. That’s part of why I conclude she’s Jewish. Sex and sexuality can be both sublime and sordid. When Whites controlled and created Western culture, the sublime suppressed the sordid. Now that Jews control and create Western culture, the sordid submerges the sublime.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2024-11-23 07:47:492024-11-23 07:48:33The Power of Pudenda: Surveying Sex from the Sublime to the Sordid
All is lost. Western Civilization is over. There is no point in fighting against it. Embrace defeat.
This was the thesis of an article published here on The Occidental Observer this weekend. The writer argued that fighting for the future of our race was pointless, because it would accomplish nothing and only lead to personal tragedy.
“Don’t take heed of anyone who tells you to fight. There is no fight to have, we have already lost…. If you start fighting, you will just be jailed, lose your job, and probably your family and your mental health.”
I disagree. I have done those things and I feel great.
I have lost my job, my family, lots and lots of money. I have been brought up on a politically motivated charge that took me almost four years to overcome. I have been attacked in the streets, betrayed and lied to by the authorities, investigated, been illegally searched and so on.
Many people have suffered way worse. They have done hard prison-time. They have lost more money, wasted more time in court. Many of the writers at this publication have sacrificed more than me.
Have we achieved anything in politics? Have we weakened Jewish power? Had any effect on the health of our race? I don’t know.
What I do know is, my mental health has never been better. I feel awesome. I LOVE fighting against Jewish power! If I had to have a normal job and never ever say what I really think… then I would be depressed. I know many others who feel the same. What is life worth if you can’t fight for something?
So the writer is dead wrong about that. If more people took up the fight against Jewish power, their mental health would certainly improve. And if all Whites took a stand, Jewish power would collapse that very day.
As to the author’s notion that “we have already lost” and should therefore do nothing. Not only is the conclusion wrong, but the premise is too. We have not lost. It’s not over. It’s never over until you and everyone like you is dead. History goes on. More people to fight, more empires to build and destroy, more art and literature to create and forget, more more more.
That people can fall for such simplistic and history-denying arguments tells me that they have no education in the humanities. This is a big problem in our civilization generally, with far too much emphasis being placed on technical subjects and statistics. People have become blind to “the human element,” that is, morale and will-power. They see a graph of a demographic trend and think “oh, the White line is going down, the non-White line is going up, therefore this will continue indefinitely until we are all dead.”
They would know better if they understood the difference between technical subjects and the humanities. History concerns itself with what men do and why they do it. In physics, you can predict with total accuracy the acceleration of a falling object given Earth’s gravity and no resistance. In history, you know what happened only after it has happened. You cannot predict the future with total accuracy, because you have to account for men’s intent. Even if you knew what all the historical actors intended to do, knowledge of other actors’ intentions would cause other actors to change their behavior, and thus, the outcome.
Americans in particular seem to fall into the writer’s kind of defeatism. This defect of our national character is attributable to the fact that (unless you’re a Southerner) our country has not fought a stronger enemy since 1812. We have no historical memory of being on the weaker side in any fight. Exceptions—the Alamo, Bataan, Bastogne—are all either well out of living memory, and they only occurred because a weaker enemy briefly achieved temporary superiority. In the last eighty years, all Americans have known is massive material superiority in any fight. Few of us even have enough experience in team sports to know what it’s like (and what it takes) to win against the odds. This is something we have to fix.
The first step is understanding that nothing is ever hopeless. If only material things matter—money, armies, natural resources, governmental and media apparatuses—history would have “ended” a long time ago. Sumeria or Egypt would have conquered the world and we would be under their heel even now. That didn’t happen, because great empires can and do collapse, and smaller and weaker—but more motivated—groups can beat bigger, stronger ones. That should be obvious, but it seems necessary to say it again. Whites need to keep things in perspective. What German in Caesar’s time could have imagined annihilating three legions a mere generation later, or conquering the whole empire in five centuries?
The next step is identifying and analyzing your opponent’s weaknesses, then exploiting them the same way that they have exploited our weaknesses. We could be doing this. Most Whites just aren’t trying. Everyone has either some money to give or some time to volunteer. Since White resistance against Jewish power is not well organized, the burden is on each of us to figure out how to make his contribution count. I’m constantly hearing about how good we Americans are at taking initiative and what individualists they are. Well, prove it!
So no. It isn’t over. The Jews can have all the money, all the government agencies, all of the media and they will still lose. The trait that got them into power will be their undoing—their monumental arrogance. Because it blinds them to the hidden moral power of their opponents.
I assume that the author of the dystopian vision isn’t a Jew or a political enemy trying to sew defeatism in our hearts. I assume he is acting in good faith. If so, at least he had the willpower to write an article, no matter how wrong he is and how damaging his attitude is to our cause. If he really believed that everything was hopeless, he would not have bothered lifting up the pen.
He does point out, rightly, that there are many charlatans trying to profit from our race’s grief. “There is an industry selling hopium [hope used as a drug] to the White man”.
Indeed. It is called conservatism. Conservatives will try to tell you that “This time it will be different,” Trump will expel all of the illegal Hondurans, he will put real men in charge of crucial government ministries, he will restore order in the military, he will root out the liars and thieves from academia, and a thousand other things.
We all know that Trump won’t do any of that. The writer is right in that regard. There is no hope for conservatism. Thousands of their writers, editors, fundraisers, Twitter-people and operatives are selling desperate White people false hope. They have been doing it for decades. You cannot trust anything they say, because they are always balancing truth with what gets them paid.
Conservatism is a pitiable delusion. We cannot settle for anything less than the complete overthrow of Jewish power in America and the West. There is no sense in hoping for lesser, easier to achieve goals. The Jews see us Whites as a dire threat, and they have no desire to offer us concessions. It’s either us or them in their minds. The only option we have is to tear down their power bit by bit. And since they have all of the material power, we have to have stronger willpower. We have to want it more, no matter the cost.
As Adolf Hitler pointed out:
When self-interest threatens to replace idealism, we notice an immediate weakening in the force that maintains the community. When the community breaks, so falls civilization. Once we let self-interest become the ruler of a people, the bonds of social order are broken. When man focuses on chasing his own happiness, he falls from Heaven straight to Hell. (Mein Kampf, vol 1, chapter 11. Trans. by Ford)
Of course, it will be an awful grueling fight. We will all have to face far worse things than losing our jobs or going to jail. We will have to prepare for pain and loss. “Embrace the suck.” We’re going to have to learn to love this unfair and uneven fight. That is the only true hope.
In the end, I’m here because I love to fight. Even if it’s not fair. Even if we can never have an honest White man’s fight, and we have to fight the Jews on their own turf like lawyering, or weird rhetorical maneuvering. It’s a lot more thinking and less physical exertion. But it is still fighting, because you have an opponent who hates you and wants you poor, imprisoned or dead. There is real danger. And not stupid purposeless danger like jumping off buildings or overdosing on Benadryl. This is not mere thrill-seeking.
The fight against Jewish power is meaningful, purposeful danger in pursuit of noble aims. I love it and I will never give it up.
Thank you to Doctor MacDonald for everything you do. It’s been 10 years this month since I came to understand the Jewish Question, thanks in no small part to this website. Thank you to all the writers and donors to The Occidental Observer. You have changed my life all for the better.
If you understand the problem of Jewish power and the lamentable condition of the White race, you have a choice to make:
Join us in the fight. Or get out of the way.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Gregory Contehttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngGregory Conte2024-11-22 05:45:152024-11-22 05:45:15Losing is No Reason Not to Fight
I voted for Trump and would do it again. We escaped permanent rule by the left, so this website won’t be considered a criminal enterprise for at least four years. And it’s quite clear that Trump 2.o will be very different from Trump 1.o with his horrible, self-defeating appointments and the constant harassing and obstruction by his DOJ, the national security agencies, the Pentagon, and the Democrats (impeachments, investigations, lawfare). Trump has obviously learned something from his mistakes and is now targeting the prime culprit: the federal bureaucracy—the deep state that is in large part responsible for his ineffectual first term and has continued to pursue him since he left office.
It’s going to be different.
Somehow disruption doesn’t begin to cover it. Upheaval might be closer. Revolution maybe. In less than two weeks since being elected again, Donald J. Trump has embarked on a new campaign to shatter the institutions of Washington as no incoming president has in his lifetime. here
Trump’s appointments make it clear that he intends to be a transformative president—a president that future historians will record as a watershed figure between an old and a new America. Of course, he may not fulfill his intentions—there will be many roadblocks, not the least from the remaining stuffed-shirt Republicans who want their world to return to the GOP of Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, and Liz Cheney.
So far his appointments that have caused the most angst in the legacy media and among liberals are RFK Jr. (Health and Human Services), Matt Gaetz (Justice), Pete Hegseth (Defense), and Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence). Each would be a thorn in the side of the Establishment. Each could be expected to lop off the most odious people within their purview. Make no mistake, heads will roll, and we would be far better off for it.
I very much hope they all get confirmed. This includes RFK Jr. who would be a great Secretary of Health and Human Services. He does not oppose vaccines (“I’m not going to take away anyone’s vaccines”) but makes a strong case that the RNA vaccines for covid have been a disaster—the school lockdowns, a result of teacher union lobbying, were a disaster for children, the least likely group to be negatively impacted by the virus. No more mandates. And whatever you think of his opinions on vaccines, his opinions on processed foods, food additives, and pesticides in foods are of critical importance in starting to make America healthy again. And he will end the revolving door between the federal regulators and the companies they regulate. It’s no surprise that the previous Secretary of HHS was a Latino identity-politics appointee with no experience at all in these areas.
Babylon Bee: Fattest, Sickest Country On Earth Concerned New Health Secretary Might Do Something Different
U.S. — Citizens in the most obese, unhealthy country on the face of the planet have expressed concern that new Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might try to do a few things differently.
With seventy-five percent of the adult population now overweight or obese, government officials expressed deep reservations about doing anything differently whatsoever. Thousands of employees within Health and Human Services have even threatened to quit if the new Secretary tries to get the country to change direction in some way.
“RFK Jr. is a nut and his ideas are crazy,” said FDA employee Sharon Wilmington, as she slapped a “Heart Healthy” sticker on a box of Froot Loops. “We obviously have this thing under control.”
Gaetz and Hegseth are being criticized because of charges of sexual improprieties. I get it, and there may be something to the charges. But I really don’t care. The point is that they will clean house in two areas desperately in need of overhaul. Selecting Matt Gaetz as Attorney General is a giant middle finger to the Justice Department. “None of the [other candidate] attorneys had what Trump wants, and they didn’t talk like Gaetz,” a Trump adviser told the Bulwark. “Everyone else looked at AG as if they were applying for a judicial appointment. They talked about their vaunted legal theories and constitutional bullshit. Gaetz was the only one who said, ‘yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ fuckin’ heads.’”
Hegseth will likely be the same. The system needs a massive shake-up, and they’ll do it. Interests over principles is foreign to a lot of White people, but Democrats who act all principled on this issue looked the other way or made excuses for the obvious corruption that pervaded the Biden family during its time in power. They ignored Biden’s obvious senility and they colluded in Hunter laptop scandal, the Russiagate hoax and much else. And now they are counting votes in Pennsylvania ruled invalid by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Ellis-Marseglia said that “precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country” because “people violate laws anytime they want”). Unfortunately for the Dems, the court reiterated its ruling.
Tulsi Gabbard horrifies the left because she is steadfastly against wars that are not in U.S. interests. Amazingly for a major public figure, she is on the Quiet Skies secret terrorist watch list which means she has been subjected to added security checks at airports. She will clean house on this issue, and it’s very reassuring to see that Gabbard is slated to be in the administration as Director of National Intelligence, replacing the half-Jewish Avril Haines. She is very much against the Ukraine war, as are J.D. Vance, Tucker Carlson (who, even though he has no official position in Trump 2.0, certainly has influence), proposed National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and proposed Secretary of State Marco Rubio (“Trump’s Foreign Policy Picks Are All America First“). So fears that Trump 2.0 would see the re-ascendency of neocon-minded war hawks are overblown to say the least. It’s hard to believe that anyone ever seriously mentioned Mike Pompeo as possible Secretary of Defense.
But yes, Trump 2.0 will be very pro-Israel, as seen by the appointments of Evangelical Protestant Mike (“There’s no such thing as a Palestinian”) Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel, Zionist Steve Witkoff as Special Envoy to the Middle East, Marco Rubio, a strong supporter of Israel, who objected to linking the foreign aid bill to aid for Ukraine, as Secretary of State, and Elise Stefanik, who earned her stripes by her aggressive questioning of Ivy League presidents’ responses to pro-Palestinian protests, as UN Ambassador. In my opinion, these appointments are a testament to the power of Jews in the U.S.; similar policies will occur regardless of whether the Dems or GOP are in power, although it’s reasonable to think that Trump 2.o will be even more pro-Israel than Biden-Harris in word if not in deed. Prepare for the Jewish resettlement of Gaza. Israel is the only country in the world that can engage in ethnic cleansing with impunity.
One has to believe, as I do, that policy toward Israel does not indicate a general pro-war stance in Trump 2.o. The worry is that Israel will be aggressive to the point that Iran and perhaps Turkey, which has severed all ties with Israel, would join up with other Middle Eastern countries to wage all-out war against Israel. That would certainly drag the U.S. into the war, and doing so may very well be Israel’s strategy: the thinking would be that genocide, oppression, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians along with aggressive military encroachments against Israel’s neighbors would ultimately lead to a war that the U.S. could not stay out of. Already we have seen the U.S. military defending Israel against retaliatory attacks by Iran. But I very much doubt that Trump could be persuaded to start a war with Iran—the war that the Lobby has wanted for years.
Trump 2.0 will be multiethnic because that’s the way it has to be in contemporary America. But it won’t be obsessed with identity politics the way the previous administration has been.
But the interesting question is whether this portends a sea change in American elites—the rise of an elite that could replace the current liberal-left, substantially Jewish elite that has dominated American politics and discourse for the last 60 years and is still very powerful. But if the election showed anything, it’s that the mass media, a major stronghold of the liberal-left elite, has lost much of its power. The New York Times published a daily blizzard of articles lambasting Trump in the runup to the election, and the NYT’s influence percolates through the entire liberal-left media landscape. To no avail. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, while social media continues its rise, including Elon Musk’s X which is leaning much more conservative than in pre-Musk days. (Reading comments on Kamala Harris’s posts on X was a real treat. She was slaughtered.) With his wealth and influence over X, Musk is a huge asset for the forces in opposition to the liberal-left consensus. And frankly, I think he loves being in the limelight and basking in the adulation that high-level political involvement brings.
This new coalition will not be anti-Jewish, but neither will it be run by Jews to anywhere near the extent that the previous elite has been. Religious Jews and some Jewish billionaires have supported Trump, while the general Jewish community likely voted between 71–79 percent for Harris. Results depended greatly on whether religious Jews were polled (~40% for Trump among religious Jews vs. ~25% Trump support among of non-religious Jews—non-religious Jews are over 90 percent of the Jewish population):
A poll conducted by the Democratic firm GBAO Strategies, sponsored by the partisan organization J Street and widely touted by the Jewish Democratic Council of America [JDCA]—which used the same pollster for an October poll that reported a similar outcome—brought the reassuring news that only 25% of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania went for Trump, comparable to the reported 26% of Jews that voted for him nationally. Granted, that represents a 5-point improvement from what the firm found in a similar study amid the 2020 vote, although in the view of Halie Soifer, CEO of the JDCA, “increasing one’s share of the Jewish vote by 5% when the margin of error is 3.5% is not meaningful.”
… “The biggest problem Democrats have with Jewish voters is there aren’t more of them, because if there were there’d be very different outcomes,” Jim Gerstein, lead pollster for GBAO, said in a Nov. 13 conference call organized by JDCA. “They’re not a swing constituency, and they’re certainly not a Republican constituency,” Gerstein added later in the event. “You have to look at the Jewish population as a core Democratic base constituency.”
So, not much evidence of change, although theTablet article notes that precinct-by-precinct totals indicate a general shift toward Trump. According to the JDCA poll, the main issues for Jews who voted against Trump were that they see Trump as a threat to democracy and to abortion access, typical liberal-left concerns (although they would love an authoritarian leftist government). Trump has said that Jews who vote for Harris “need to have their head examined,” so it wouldn’t be too surprising to see Trump harbor some resentment against liberal-left Jewish power and try to do something about it. As indicated above, I think at bottom most Jews see Israel as doing fine with either party in power, so they gravitate to what I regard as the anti-White coalition represented by the Democrat mainstream.
As of August 14 according to Forbes, of 26 billionaire donors to Trump (not including Musk who donated at least $119 million), 22 are not Jewish, while 4, including Bernard Marcus (who recently died) are Jewish, with only one in the top ten (Miriam Adelson [$100 million]). This may well underestimate total Jewish giving to Trump, but it does imply that there is plenty of non-Jewish money supporting Trump—enough to make a Trump-like candidate in our pay-to-play democracy viable even without Jewish support. Harris received over $1 billion in campaign contributions, over 2.5 times the amount Trump received. Money talks but can’t overcome terrible policies (e.g., Harris’s support for radical pro-trans policies like government-paid sex change operations for prisoners and illegals was a disaster) and a terrible candidate, especially when that candidate is supported by a media that is vastly less influential than in previous decades.
The most powerful positions in the Biden cabinet related to the issues of most interest to White advocates have been held by Jews—Homeland Security (Mayorkas), Justice (Garland), State (Blinken), and Chief of Staff (Klain, Zientz). This is critical because Biden is and has been a complete non-entity with no ability or desire to rein in his nominal subordinates. So we have mass immigration, mass injustice, and a very expensive (and likely futile) war.
Thus far, Howard Lutnick (Secretary of Commerce) and Lee Zeldin (Head of the EPA) are the only Jews proposed for cabinet-level positions in Trump 2.0. Thankfully, Jared Kushner is noticeably missing from any proposed positions in Trump 2.0.
Also of interest to White advocates, Tom Homan, who is to be in charge of the deportations, is not Jewish and is very committed to mass deportation. Jewish immigration patriot Stephen Miller will be homeland security advisor and deputy chief of staff in Trump 2.o. Thus Jews in line with Trump’s overall agenda are welcome. But the point is that Trump 2.0 will have a much less Jewish look and—most importantly— be much less in sync with the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community on policies of interest to White advocates than the Biden-Harris administration.
This portends well for the future. Trump’s policies, particularly his mass deportation plan, will be extremely contentious and will likely result in massive civil disobedience and violence in the big cities. But media coverage of the disorder will certainly be further indication to Trump voters and to White Americans in general that White America is under siege.
However, the money and the media are in place for a sea change in American political culture in the direction of White interests. Let’s hope it happens
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2024-11-20 13:00:512024-11-21 08:20:28Trump 2.0: Harbinger of a New Elite?
The Arch of Titus in Rome east of the Roman Forum. This relief depicts the triumph after the capture of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when Titus put an end to the Jewish revolt. Roman soldiers carry spoils of war from the conquered Jerusalem, including the seven-armed candlestick.
This article was originally published in Danish on January 14, 2018.
In recent decades, a number of so-called right-wing populists have experienced a significant rise in almost all European countries. Their rise is fueled by a growing number of Europeans’ natural dissatisfaction with the immigration policies of recent years, which have opened Europe’s borders to a tsunami of Third World surplus population.
A common feature of right-wing populists is their single-minded focus solely on the religion of immigrants, Islam. The foundation of their activities is thus not opposition to non-European mass immigration per se. As a consequence, right-wing populist policies are consistently hypocritical, incoherent and inconsistent, which is evident in the countries where right-wing populists have had political influence for several years. Multi-ethnicization in these countries continues unabated. Another important general feature of almost all European right-wing populists is that they seem to be deeply in love with the state of Israel and everything Jewish.
A typical example of this is Dutch politician Geert Wilders. There can be no doubt about Wilders’ deep and sincere love for Israel. As a young man, Mr. Wilders spent two years living in the Jewish state, which he sees as a Western bastion in a sea of Arab or rather Muslim primitiveness and barbarism. In this context, Wilders has stated that
“If Jerusalem falls into Muslim hands, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory, but more precisely an ideological struggle between the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism.”
Wilders also sees Judaism as an integral part of the European cultural tradition and has stated that the “European Judeo-Christian tradition should be formally recognized as the dominant culture”.
Finally, Wilders has been quick to dismiss certain elements on the European right who might be so naughty that they don’t share Wilders’ unconditional enthusiasm for all things Jewish:
“My allies are not Le Pen or Haider… We will never make common cause with fascists and Italy’s Mussolinis”.
With such an impressive pro-Jewish resume, you would think that Mr. Wilders would be very popular among Jews. However, this does not seem to be the case. In the 2011 elections, Wilders only received support from a paltry 2% of the Jewish population in the Netherlands. It is one thing to support Israel and publicly declare his unconditional love for all things Jewish, but Wilders’ other policies, especially his so-called restrictive immigration policy, are not compatible with Jewish interests, according to a Jewish source.
The article “Not crazy about Wilders? Populist’s anti-Islamic message worries European Jewish leaders” from 25-10-2010 in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency makes it clear to everyone that the organized Jewish communities in Europe, just as in the US, want a multi-ethnic and multicultural future for native Europeans. In general, European Jewish leaders are saying that Europe should definitely continue to import both Muslims and other non-Europeans on a large scale in order to create a multicultural Europe – the Europe of the future.
The fact that the multicultural project in general seems to be very close to the hearts of Jews is also admitted by Barbara Lerner Spectre, an American/Israeli Jewish woman living in Sweden and head of the state-funded Jewish “Paideia Institute”.
“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”1
In Denmark, too, several prominent Jews have joined the multiethnic cheerleading squad. At a hearing on anti-Semitism in March 1994, Israeli citizen, Mossad agent and former editor-in-chief of Politiken Herbert Pundik quite tellingly stated that “we want to educate the Danes so the Turks can be here”. Former head of information at the Danish Refugee Council Klaus Rothstein eagerly helped with this education by spewing out endless amounts of “informational materials” to convince Danes of the enrichment of receiving refugees. In the metropolitan area, the education was supported by Dan Tschernia, who as head of TV2 Lorry for 25 years ensured that viewers were bombarded daily with multicultural propaganda so that they gradually matured to accept the new colorful multicultural reality. Similarly, former editor of TV-Avisen and former editor-in-chief of Dagbladet Information Georg Metz has been one of immigration’s strongest advocates throughout his career, and he has never missed an opportunity to smear nationalist-minded Danes. The blessings and absolute necessity of mass immigration were also proclaimed by another well-known Jewish personality. At a public hearing on immigration policy in 1997, Arne Notkin, then editor-in-chief of BT, former chairman of the Danish Zionist Association and former head of DR2, lectured the audience that “it is immigration to Denmark that has made Denmark an industrial nation.” In practice, Arne Notkin also demonstrated his dedication to the multicultural project when he ensured that Denmark got its first Muslim TV host, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, in 2006, when she became a presenter on the DR2 program “Adam and Asmaa” together with Jewish Adam Holm, wearing a traditional Muslim headscarf. Most recently, the former Chief Rabbi, the first honorary member of the Danish Refugee Council and honorary president of the influential Jewish lobby organization B’nai B’rith Europe Bent Melchior stated in the TV show “Rabbi” on 26.11.2016 that Jews “have everything in common with Muslims”. There are many more examples of this behavior among leading Jews in Denmark, but for Denmark, let us conclude by referring to an article in BT, 10.12.20181, which states that “Danish Jews experience intolerance against Muslims at its worst” and that “hostility directed against Muslims is the most pressing problem.”
That Jewish organizations in general are very concerned about the well-being of Muslims is also confirmed on 9 April 2017, when none other than Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, called for solidarity with Muslims. The pious rabbi states that Jews and Muslims have a “common interest” in fighting the rise of nationalism in Europe and that “Jews have always felt safer in places where other cultures and religions are respected”. The fact that a few Jews here and there have been victims of Muslim cultural enrichment seems to be of minor importance, the most important thing for organized Judaism is to “protect minorities” in general, thus cementing the multicultural society where Jews supposedly thrive.
The Jewish organizations’ fundamental problem with Wilders and others like him is that, albeit on a populist, superficial and indirect level, he is agitating for the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of native Europeans, which according to the Jewish organizations is not in their interest and represents a dangerous development. As the president of the official Jewish community in Sweden, Lena Posner Körösi, aptly puts it, “history has shown us where this kind of thing can lead, and it is not necessarily good for the Jews”.
This kind of reasoning is entirely consistent with the traditional Jewish aversion to their host peoples having ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation-states. The reason for this behavior is quite logical: Major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations, and ethnic and religious pluralism therefore serves outward-looking Jewish interests because Jews become just one among many ethnic groups, they go under the radar, so to speak, making it difficult or impossible for the majority population to build unified, cohesive groups that could unite in their opposition to Jews specifically. In the words of American psychology professor Kevin MacDonald, this is a survival strategy, which is illustrated in his three groundbreaking books; A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A Group Evolutionary Strategy, Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.
What is strange, of course, is the support for Israel by the same Jewish organizations. It seems as if the Jewish organizations want to huff and puff with all their might; in the diaspora they seek to dissolve the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of the European host peoples, thus weakening them, while at the same time wholeheartedly supporting Israel’s sensible ethnic-based nationalism and healthy racist policies.
That organized Jewish communities in the West generally support and promote immigration – including Muslim immigration, even though many Muslims are hostile to Jews and Israel – clearly demonstrates how dedicated organized Judaism is in its campaign against the West’s indigenous people and traditional culture.
The harsh fact is that Jews, like Muslims, are an ethnic group that is generally hostile to us and our interests. The relationship of Wilders and other European right-wing populists with the Jews can thus be seen as a kind of unrequited love. You woo and woo, but the Jews are not the least bit interested.
Povl H. Riis-Knudsen
Translated by means of AI
Postscript
Even more very revealing confessions from Barbara Lerner Spectre have come to our attention and we are sharing them here with our readers.
In the meantime, our readers may wonder why no Jewish organizations have spoken out against the Jewish promotion of multiculturalism and mass immigration in the West (Interestingly, not for Israel), is there even one Jewish organization fighting for the preservation of European peoples and European culture? Just one? We’re still searching.
Barbara Lerner Spectre is an academic, philosphy lecturer and the founding director of Paidea. She was born in the United States and has studied and taught at American universities and Jewish universities in Israel. She moved to Sweden in 1999 to join her husband, who was rabbi at the Jewish synagogue in Stockholm. The following year, she applied to the Swedish government for funding for Paidea, the European Institute for Jewish Studies, which she founded and continues to lead today. The organization trains people for leadership positions in the renewal of Jewish culture in Europe.
She is best known on the Right for the statement that we have quoted above. WhiteRabbitRadio has made a parody of her in the video “AntiRacist Hitler”. Entertaining and scary, be sure to watch till the end.
Videos
Will he succeed this time? Watch and find out.
Clip from Barbara’s interview with a Jewish channel on November 16, 2023.
There can be no doubt who the elite are after seeing this confession. BLS says what we’ve known all along, it’s them. She is known for her self-incriminating honesty, we attribute it to hubris, a common feature of Jewish history, they go too far, incur the wrath of the host population and then have to pack their bags and find a new country where the pattern repeats itself. Jews lack self-awareness and a brake pad.
Ethnically self-conscious Jews receive financial support from the EU in their work to spread cosmopolitan (Jewish) anti-nationalist values and the European identity is the Jewish identity according to the EU.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Povl H. Riis-Knudsenhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngPovl H. Riis-Knudsen2024-11-19 07:24:362024-11-19 07:24:36The multiculturalization of Denmark: Unrequited love
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Ursula Haverbeck (11/8/1928 – 11/20/2024) recently passed at the ripe old age of ninety-six. She was known or “notorious” in Germany because she dared to challenge the Jewish Holocaust ‘narrative’ of six million. Time after time, she got into trouble with the German authorities for ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ a crime that often results in either an exorbitant fine or imprisonment. The poor woman’s offense was that she dared to believe that Auschwitz was a work camp (which it was) and not a death camp. In a speech that Ursula gave in 2016 in the southern Berlin district of Lichtenrade, she described the Holocaust as one of the greatest lies in history. She also stated that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were not real.
Jews in pornography
Vagina-vulgarity and a bushy-haired Black: the book V
Self-worshipping vagina-fan Florence Schechter
Zoophilia-friendly M. Kathy Rudy 
