Featured Articles

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVI: Serf’s Up!

It is not hyperbolic to state that the neo-liberal establishment is looking to create a globalized, mobile, de-racinated, and compliant serf class. They are already well on their way. The rhetoric is at this point well-understood, and as we enter what the ruling class believes is the end-stage in their consolidation of permanent power, they have become more brazen, in many instances not even bothering to hide their true intentions. One example is in Lewiston, Maine, where city officials explicitly state that their importation of Somalis is in no small part to become cogs in the service sector economy. They provide English classes to these imports “in order to improve their chances for employment. The goal is to compress the usual multi-generational English-acquisition process to one generation so that the Somalis can get jobs in the service economy.” With an average IQ of 68, two points below the threshold for mild mental retardation, we are not talking about the engineers of tomorrow, but that’s the beauty of a globalized workforce from the perspective of the multi-nationals. Somalis serve the dual purpose of working at McDonald’s and destroying social cohesion with violence and sheer alienness, whereas Asia, especially India, has been a vast resource for cheap tech sector workers. 70.9% of all H-1B applicants in 2015 were from India, with China in second at 9.7%.[1]

The burgeoning tech sector in the 21st century has been instrumental in destroying American labor rights and the middle class, and severely undermining national sovereignty. In many ways, it is the catalyst for the accelerating dissolution we are presently witnessing. First, the major players of Silicon Valley worked to violate the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, and then they lobbied for extensive replacement labor via H-1B visas. As Mark Ames reports:

In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple’s Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google’s Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers’ wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. … eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government and the state of California for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period…A class action lawsuit [was] filed [by the Department of Justice] on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered—an estimated $9 billion effectively stolen…to pad company earnings. Confidential internal Google and Apple memos…clearly show that what began as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers, expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM, eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.[2],[3]

As mentioned above, in addition to this domestic collusion, Silicon Valley—just like the rest of big tech’s co-conspirators in the Partnership for a New American Economy (NAE)—is uniform in its support for unlimited foreign workers visas. The “conservative” Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch,[4] makes the claim that there are “many upsides and no downsides,” which, if you’re Jeff Bezos or Salil Parekh, is true. Foreign scab labor is essential to your swollen profits and to maintaining lordship over your would-be serf class. As Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy state:

Employers decide whether to apply for an H-1B visa and select the candidates. Employers also have the power to decide whether the H-1B worker can remain in the country. As a result, employer motivations and behaviors are the primary drivers of the outcomes of the program. Nearly four in five H-1B applications approved by the US Department of Labor were for the lowest two wage levels, far below the average US worker’s wage. But, the costs savings run much deeper than just lower wages. Employers have enormous leverage over their H-1B workers, who are, in effect, indentured. A number of economists have recently described how rising monopsony[i.e., where there is only one buyer] power in the labor market is an important factor in explaining US wage stagnation. One of those economists, Princeton University’s Alan Krueger, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Barack Obama White House, has described how the executives of Silicon Valley technology firms were especially eager to use their monopsony power to keep their engineers’ wages low by limiting their opportunities to leave. The executives—including Google’s Eric Schmidt, a vocal advocate of H-1B expansion—went so far as to collude with one another by agreeing not to poach each other’s engineers. So, especially in the technology industry, employers see limiting worker mobility as an important human-resource strategy to keep wages low. The H-1B rules provide even greater ability for employers to exercise monopsony power over workers. H-1B workers have limited labor-market options, since only a subset of employers is willing to sponsor a work visa. Further, like many others, H-1B workers are subject to noncompete agreements and, in some cases, are even subject to employment bonds. They are afraid to complain of violations, and can be sued for liquidated damages if they leave, even by employers found to violate H-1B rules.[5]

As discussed in Volume XII regarding Nestlé, an individual or organization’s prior conduct and violations have no negative bearing on their present status unless the ruling class needs a sacrificial lamb. Speaking of Nestlé, under the pretense of spreading “social justice” globally and “empowering women,” corporations such as Nestlé endeavor to work with NGOs and governments to produce the kind of semi-literate, cheap workforce they thrive on across the Third World. The stated aim is to, “Strengthen women’s economic capacity as entrepreneurs, employees, and producers, and invest in women’s leadership development.” Nestlé is also a founding member of the UNHCR Business Council, which “aims to encourage private sector commitment, in programmes on health education…enhancing water delivery systems, promoting sports and education, especially for girls, as well as training skills and access to computers.” SwissContact [a joint project between the Swiss government and Nestlé] operates a program of Skill Development, including secretarial or beautician skills, as well as in construction, agriculture, energy, tourism, or media. SwissContact focuses on Asian, African, Latin American, and Central European countries, with the overall objective to “strengthen the private sector, facilitate the generation of sustainable employment for both men and women, and, ultimately, reduce poverty.” This faux-philanthropy is aimed at training a cheap, compliant workforce who will be loyal consumers and not ask questions. Nestlé also has a number of “global partnerships” and Development Programs:

·         Jamaica: “On-the-job” training for school leavers and apprenticeship programs in Nestlé operations, e.g. mechanics, industrial and electrical maintenance, welding, etc.

·         Brazil: An initiative of the government and with GR FoodServices, “First Job” creates 2000 working posts (over 2 years) in the catering field.

·         Philippines: Cut and Sew Livelihood Project provides jobs to community workers for factory orders for uniforms, hairnets, shoe covers, etc.

·         Kenya: Ndenderai youth generate income by producing banana-fibre boxes for Nestlé product displays.

·         Thailand: The “T-Bird” or Thailand Business Group for Rural Development, aims to harness and utilise private sector resources for underprivileged villages in remote areas, via loans to new businesses or contributions for education or infrastructure.

·         South Africa: More than 1 million SA Rand invested in the Apprenticeship Programme, situated Eastern Cape East London Factory which, in 2004, enrolled 12 people from a nearby disadvantaged community.

·         Dominican Republic: FORJA Project Training of young farmers, in collaboration with Swiss Association for International Cooperation, to develop business acumen and give technical and practical training in agriproduction techniques, while financing feasible micro-business potential. Includes scholarships to children of farmers and offers on-the-job practical training.[6]

They will be expected to be grateful for being lifted from abject poverty to relative poverty.  Meanwhile, in Western countries, the “externalities” of neo-liberalism force young people to flock to urban environs to pursue work, where they will be swiftly molded into hedonistic or sexless economic cogs, failing to reproduce and staying on the white-ish collar/barista treadmill to oblivion. The economic and taxation realities artificially depress White birthrates and “necessitate” the importation of huge numbers of non-Whites to fill the labor “needs” of the host country, as one line of propagandistic “reasoning” goes. As Paul Craig Roberts writes:

The rule of law is dead throughout the West. Democracy is a scam. There is oligarchic rule.  Everything is done for organized interest groups.  Nothing is done for the people…The number of white children, that is, the group of the next generation of parents, is not only declining relative to the populations of non-whites but also absolutely.  During 2010-2018 the number of white children shrank by 2.2 million. The American middle class, which is largely white, bears the brunt of income taxation which means that white Americans bear the brunt of the cost of the welfare support systems. The white middle class also bears the brunt through property taxes of the public school systems. Many middle class members pay again in private school tuition for the education of their children in safer and more ordered environments.  The cost of university education is exorbitant. All of these costs are rising faster than middle-class incomes, and this limits white procreation. The decline of people of European descent as a percentage of the US population can only accelerate as the child-bearing ability of the white population evaporates.[7]

All of this is by design. Maximizing profitability means the willful neglect of other considerations such as ethics, which includes commodifying the very misery created by neo-liberalism and marketing and selling it back to the alienated, disaffected population produced by the current system in the first place. What is vital to understand is that when we have the Democratic Socialists of America and the Libertarian Party essentially running on the same platform, the public-private binary is a false dilemma. The spectrum of options for American voters is either cultural degeneration and racial erasure with a “social justice” paint job, or one that masquerades as “individual liberty.” Though they may couch their ulterior motives in so much rhetoric, just as with the elephant and the jackass, the leadership’s eyes might as well be represented by those cartoon dollar signs. The nexus of venture capital and big tech has proven profoundly damaging to any notions of nation, but for executives, major shareholders, the various “compliance” cottage industries, advocacy groups, and the like it has been a financial bonanza.

The American Bar Association is keenly aware of the need to provide services—and reap the financial windfall—navigating the complex international framework of labor laws and corporate restructuring, especially as private equity firms have increasingly become involved in mergers and acquisitions—described by Market Realist as “a frenzy.” Tali Orner writes:

For companies that employ foreign nationals, that task is even more complicated as there are significant immigration-related consequences that must be addressed prior to sealing the deal on a merger or acquisition. Because most work visas are employer-specific, changes in a company’s structure could affect the validity of a foreign national employee’s nonimmigrant visa status or pending green card application…It is critical for in-house counsel to be aware of immigration-related issues that may arise as a result of a restructuring between companies that employ foreign nationals. Companies should work with competent and experienced immigration counsel early on in any transaction to ensure that they are in compliance with immigration regulations and to ensure that foreign national employees remain authorized to work in the United States.[8]

While parasitic in nature, these parasitic entities have their own kind of symbiosis that allows them to flourish and generally escape scrutiny while they scrap our nations for parts. They are all deeply dependent on each other, and their enmeshing—often collusion—provides for mutual benefit. It is vital to understand that this is how the neo-liberal model continues to perpetuate itself and accelerate the accrual of capital and resources to its beneficiaries at the expense of the many through its predication on exponential growth and its maintenance of a mutually-reinforcing network of inextricably intertwined universities, NGOs, think tanks, various media outlets, governing bodies, corporate boards, law firms, financiers, and the like.

One example of this type of relationship is exhibited by Ropes & Gray LLP, advisors to Kohlberg & Co. in connection with obtaining financing for the acquisition of CIBT Global, Inc., a provider of travel visa and immigration services to corporations, travel management companies, and individuals. They also make big money advising charitable foundations, and they work closely with Silver Lake Partners. Ropes & Gray also work closely with Bain Capital, which is very much invested in this particular model. On October 20th, 2016, Greg A. Shell, managing director of Bain Capital Double Impact Fund, gave the keynote speech at the Leading by Example conference hosted by The Boston Foundation, Boston College, and Ropes & Gray. This conference is one of the premier conferences of its kind where leading figures in this burgeoning industry—and yes, it should be abundantly clear by now it is an industry—compare notes and network. The 2018 edition featured a lot of kvetching about diversity, which will surely be reflected where you live and work and not where these people do. One major point of discussion was the nexus of “civic engagement” in “inner city communities” with economic output—so here you get the perfect twofer of Democrat votes and Chamber of Commerce GDP! Another point of discussion was why it is much more advantageous to lobby under the pretense of philanthropy as opposed to direct lobbying, and that is for several reasons, not least of which are avoiding “registration and disclosure requirements” and “restrictions imposed by sources of funding.”

Of the CEOs polled in “The Future of Foundation Philanthropy” (December 2016) sponsored by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, many stated that their philanthropic endeavors were necessary to circumvent the “political climate and structure that is hostile to advancement in our mission areas,” and “political gridlock, especially at the federal level, which makes it almost impossible to address critical long-term issues in an informed manner.” That’s all well and good if the causes being advanced were not terribly destructive and totally self-serving, but they are. And the government—at least in theory accountable to the people—is constrained in ways the private sector is not. Other salient points included (and as always, you need to read between the lines):

The majority of foundation CEOs interviewed—almost 60 percent—identify climate change or the environment as a pressing issue. Several comments stress the importance of climate change in particular… Several CEOs suggest that “federal government interference with philanthropy” or “governmental efforts to more tightly regulate foundations and endowments” may pose challenges and heighten restrictions for foundation philanthropy in the future. Some CEOs specifically mention a “backlash against tax deductions” or “potential changes to IRS tax laws related to foundation giving.”… On the topic of race, a number of CEOs contemplate what the future holds. Several believe that a “majority-minority shift in U.S. demographics” and “the browning of America” will have implications for foundation staffing and leadership—namely, in a needed “transition to multiethnic leadership” and a greater focus on “diversity in leadership.” Some note the importance of diverse staffing, governance, and leadership for foundations overall for “achieving better results.”… Others note that foundations can take risks and test ideas without the constraints or ramifications that business or government might have.

As a second example of the kind of neo-liberal incestuousness that would make Gellius blush, the entire political enterprise of “liberal democracy” is only so much corporatized oligarchic rule. Let’s consider major private equity firm Silver Lake Partners. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s former chief of staff—replaced by Dan Meyer of the Duberstein Group[9]—Barrett Karr is now a managing director and Head of Government Affairs in Washington, DC at Silver Lake Partners, assuming many of the duties of departed CFR member and international security adviser to the United Nations secretary-general Gordon M. Goldstein. Karr’s position entails coordinating with lobbyists, trade associations, media contacts, government agencies, and local, state, and federal government officials, working to see to the implementation of policy proposals and ensuring a generally favorable environment for Silver Lake to continue to grow its $43 billion in assets.

One of Silver Lake’s founders is Maine native and Lewiston High School graduate David Roux. Bristol Seafood, Inc. in Portland is now positioned for “exponential growth” in the international market, according to former CEO Darrell Pardy, after Roux’s decision to invest in the company and provide it with an infusion of capital. With the much-discussed addition of another facility and a consequent spike in its demand for cheap labor, Bristol will likely be using the same Hancock, DeCoster, Wyman, and company playbook.[10] For his part, Roux will likely see to it that Silver Lake’s private equity model be applied to Bristol’s seafood harvesting, which will have predictably disastrous consequences affecting wages, demographics, social cohesion and trust, and the Atlantic ecosystem.

Silver Lake Partners is emblematic of the private equity model so pervasive in driving America’s transformation from nation to economic zone. Silver Lake co-founder and CFR and NAE member Glenn H. Hutchins is on the New York Federal Reserve Board of Directors, co-chairs the Brookings Institution and Harvard University’s capital campaign, and is a director of AT&T and Virtu Financial—there is of course no conflict of interest. As a case-in-point, speaking of the Brookings Institution, their Hamilton Project is yet another outlet publishing policy papers and memoranda advocating for “a twenty-first century immigration policy.” There is a near-uniformity in the policy positions of these pro-immigration, GDP-centric organizations like the Hamilton Project or the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), which has featured Hutchins as a speaker at its conferences in the past. Organizations partnering with NABE include Facebook, Google, Netflix, IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Zillow, Brandeis University, Wells Fargo, Haver Analytics, Ford, Thomson Reuters, the US Census Bureau, Fidelity Investments, Fannie Mae, the McKinsey Institute, FedEx, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, once again clearly signaling the beneficiaries and supporters of unfettered non-White immigration. Many of those names are very familiar to us by now. What does their “twenty-first century immigration policy” entail? From the Hamilton Project’s May 2012 framing memorandum “The US Immigration System: Potential Benefits of Reform”:

The United States is a nation of immigrants…Even as immigration to the United States continues to rise after a midcentury dip, most agree that America’s immigration policy has failed to keep up with changing circumstances. The current system does not meet U.S. economic needs, no longer reflects the historic humanitarian goal of reuniting families set out in the landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, undermines the confidence of Americans in the rule of law, and has produced divisive and fragmented policy responses at the state level…While there are many ways in which both immigrants and U.S.-born citizens benefit from immigration, few are as stark as the fact that when a non-European college-educated immigrant moves from her native country to the United States, her annual productivity and compensation leaps by $57,000.[11]

Right. In the realm of per-capita GDP, immigration does have benefits—98% of which accrue to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.[12] The presumption that natives will experience a net gain is wholly theoretical and is also predicated on wealth re-distribution, that is to say an increased concentration of wealth in the hands of business owners at the expense of workers. This particular idea has been thoroughly discredited and yet remains the staid talking point of Koch Brothers types—the re-distribution in question amounts to $531 billion, and the net gain to natives amounts to $54 billion.[13] Furthermore, as Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies reports:

The National Academy of Sciences’ comprehensive look at the economic and fiscal impact of immigrants (taxes paid minus services used) found that the net fiscal burden immigrants create (taxes paid minus services used) is actually larger than the immigrant surplus…Whenever the impact of immigration on the labor market is discussed the argument is often made that immigration can fix the problems associated with our aging society, in particular the decline in the share of the population who are workers. However, this is not the case. For example, if we remove the 17.3 million immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in 2000-2014 and their 3.9 million U.S.-born children from 2014 Census Bureau data, 66 percent of the U.S. population would be of working age (16 to 65); if they are included, 66.2 percent are of working-age—a miniscule difference…Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants…In the fourth quarter of 2015 only about two-thirds of working-age native-born Americans actually had a job; as recently as 2000 about three-fourths were working. American does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs.[14]

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that globally over 200 million people are unemployed and 1.44 billion people are in vulnerable employment. Both numbers are projected to continue to get worse. Trends in labor force participation also indicate a decline, and wage growth has been suppressed, contributing to a long-term decline in the labor share of income.

Then there is the erroneous historical claim of America’s wealth being mostly generated by generous immigration (let alone slavery, but that is a topic for another time). Far from immigration being economically necessary, in the time period from 1790 to 1912, all immigration accelerated capital stock gains by a mere decade compared to where the country would’ve been if there was zero immigration. What this means is that the founding colonial stock has been almost exclusively responsible for the country’s economic growth, and any additional immigration approaching the 1924 cut-off had only slight benefits to the country. Hence, immigration, which is taken as sure as death and taxes these days, is by no means necessary, and as we’ve seen post-1965, far from being beneficial, even slightly as was the case in the 19th and early 20th centuries, has proven to be a major detriment to the country at large. I’ve dedicated ample space elsewhere to further debunking these dubious claims of economic benefit, to say nothing of the litany of other fallacies—the “nation of immigrants” trope, the acceptance of the 1965 Immigration Act as “humanitarian” in aim, the conception of America as a contract, etc.—so let’s look behind the curtain to see who might lend their support to such deeply erroneous claims. Cui bono? Below is the Hamilton Project’s Advisory Council with accompanying position(s) at the memo’s time of publication:

George A. Akerlof, Koshland Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; Roger C. Altman, Founder & Chairman of Evercore Partners; Alan S. Blinder, Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics & Public Affairs at Princeton University; Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer at Ripplewood Holding, LLC; Jonathan Coslet, Senior Partner & Chief Investment Officer, TPG Capital, L.P.; Robert Cumby, Professor of Economics at Georgetown University; John Deutch, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Karen Dynan, Vice President & Co-Director of Economic Studies, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution; Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law University of California, Berkeley; Blair W. Effron, Founding Partner, Centerview Partners LLC; Judy Feder, Professor & Former Dean, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University; Roland Fryer, Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs; Mark T. Gallogly, Cofounder & Managing Principal, Centerbridge Partners Advisory Council; Ted Gayer, Senior Fellow & Co-Director of Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution; Richard Gephardt, President & Chief Executive Officer, Gephardt Group Government Affairs; Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Chuck Hagel, Distinguished Professor, Georgetown University; Glenn H. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Silver Lake; Jim Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC; Lawrence F. Katz, Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics at Harvard University; Mark McKinnon, Global Vice Chair, Hill + Knowlton Strategies; Eric Mindich, Chief Executive Officer, Eton Park Capital Management; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Richard Perry, Chief Executive Officer, Perry Capital; Penny Pritzker, Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of PSP Capital; Meeghan Prunty, Senior Advisor, The Hamilton Project; Robert D. Reischauer, President Emeritus of The Urban Institute; Alice M. Rivlin, Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University; David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder & Managing Director of The Carlyle Group; Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations and Former U.S. Treasury Secretary; Leslie B. Samuels, Senior Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; Ralph L. Schlosstein, President & Chief Executive Officer, Evercore Partners; Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.; Eric Schwartz, 76 West Holdings; Thomas F. Steyer, Senior Managing Member, Farallon Capital Management; Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Greenstone, Director.

Yes, mass immigration really is great if you’re on this list. A lot of Jews on there, too. Must just be a coincidence.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] Kenneth Rapoza reports: “The H1-B visa…is the hallmark of every Indian IT company operating in the U.S.  Infosys, Wipro. Tata Consultancy, Tech Mahindra and HCL Technologies are the top Indian-owned companies importing foreign workers. In fact, of the top 10 companies that petition for the 85,000 H1-B visas issued annually, five are Indian. Cognizant, Accenture, Amazon, IBM and Deloitte are the biggest U.S. users…Indian IT firms fear Trump will either stop Indian companies from importing workers temporarily, or make it harder to provide evidence that Infosys is hiring from Bangalore because it cannot hire from Boston.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/27/trump-h1b-immigration-silicon-valley-outsourcing-india/#73d0078a7ff1

[2] https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

[3] Ames writes: “The realities of inequality and capitalism invariably lead to mysticism of this sort, a natural human response to the dreary realities of concentrating so much wealth and power in the hands of a dozen interlocking board members at the expense of 100,000 employees, and so many other negative knock-off effects on the politics and culture of the world they dominate…One of the more telling elements to this lawsuit is the role played by ‘Star Wars’ creator George Lucas, who emerges as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the wage-theft scheme. It’s almost too perfectly symbolic that Lucas — the symbiosis of Baby Boomer New Age mysticism, Left Coast power, political infantilism, and dreary 19th century labor exploitation — should be responsible for dreaming up the wage theft scheme back in the mid-1980s, when Lucas sold the computer animation division of Lucasfilm, Pixar, to Steve Jobs. Jobs held to this agreement, and used it as the basis two decades later to suppress employee costs just as fierce competition was driving up tech engineers’ wages.”

[4] Corporate partners and donors include McGraw-Hill Financial, Facebook, Google, the Walton Family Foundation, Koch Industries family foundation, eBay, Microsoft, Walmart, General Motors, ExxonMobil, Time Warner, Verizon, Visa, and Comcast. The Cato Institute in turn finances organizations such as the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

[5] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

[6] https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/reports/csv%20reports/community%20and%20development/un_millennium_development_2005_2006_english.pdf

[7] https://www.darkmoon.me/2019/the-end-of-white-america-is-now-assured/

[8] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2013/04/05_orner/

[9] Founded by Kenneth Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff to President Reagan and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Duberstein Group is a lobbying firm whose services have been retained by the likes of United Airlines, Pfizer, Northrup Grumman, Estee Lauder, Comcast, Hasbro, Bank of New York Mellon, British Petroleum, General Motors, Pepsi, McGraw-Hill Financial, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, Kellogg’s, DeBeers, Lenovo, Sara Lee, Fannie Mae, and Lockheed Martin. During the bailout, the Duberstein Group made in excess of $600,000 lobbying for Fannie Mae and $2.3 million lobbying for Goldman Sachs. The Duberstein Group regularly rubs elbows with previously-discussed firms such as Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hoauer, and Feld LLP and Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand, as well as the Wexler Group.

[10] Hancock Foods, along with Coastal Blueberry Service Inc., recently settled a suit over the mistreatment of eighteen Haitian migrant workers who had been recruited by contactor Carol Paul in Florida to come to Maine to pick blueberries in 2008. The suit alleged hundreds of violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act involving Paul’s promises to the workers. As evidenced elsewhere, these practices are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to these companies.

[11] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/05_immigration_greenstone_looney.pdf

[12] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Camarota%20Testimony.pdf

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism

“If man will strike, strike through the mask!”
Ahab, Moby Dick

It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson’s recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer’s vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I first profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer’s escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker’s segment very starkly illustrated, their reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities. Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a “vulture fund” practicing “vulture capitalism.” But these funds aren’t run by carrion birds. They are operated almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most influential “vulture funds,” to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I want us to strike through the mask.

Who Are The Vultures?

It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management, Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital, Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort, the “Wolf of Wall Street,” who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton Oakmont.

These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by, and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:

  • Elliot Management — Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
  • Cerberus — Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub, Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum
  • FG Hemisphere — Peter Grossman
  • Autonomy Capital — Derek Goodman
  • Baupost Group — Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach
  • Canyon Capital Advisors — Joshua Friedman, Mitchell Julis
  • Monarch Alternative Capital — Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
  • GoldenTree Asset Management — Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro
  • Aurelius Capital Management — Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan
  • OakTree Capital — Howard Marks, Bruce Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone
  • Fundamental Advisors — Laurence Gottlieb, Jonathan Stern
  • Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP — Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff

The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don’t have a special relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice. Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory of Jewish-European relations.

How They Feed

In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more than $74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was owed to all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg’s Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, “They owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street, and we’re going to have to wipe that out.” But Trump’s statement, like all of Trump’s statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: “I think what you heard the president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt problem.” In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.

Trump’s reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to “your friends on Wall Street” he really meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt, leaving the country prone to a “wave of home repossessions” on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall) made thousands of Americans homeless. Feinberg has also been associated with mass evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to label him a “Jewish mega parasite” in charge of the “world’s vilest vulture fund.” In May 2018, Trump made Feinberg chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board, and one of the reasons for Trump’s sluggish retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg’s DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.

But Trump’s association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece in the New York Post declared “Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in 2020.” This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions, coupled with his commuting of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin‘s 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel, where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, “We screened all of the people in attendance, and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican. People were standing up on their chairs chanting … eight more years.” The reality, of course, is that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.

The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial predators is certainly nothing new. Congo, Zambia, Liberia, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Vietnam, Poland, and Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching Greece and India. The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On its most basic level, “vulture capitalism” is really just a combination of the continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain “considerable surpluses … if need be, by ruthless methods.”[1] The activities of the Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets, bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.

This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer’s predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:

It couldn’t be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in 2016. He’s given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never have heard of Paul Singer — which tells you a lot in itself — but in Washington, he’s rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh yeah, it is.

Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a commentary on Carlson’s piece at the American Conservative, points out that Singer gave a speech in May 2019 attacking the “rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party.” Singer continued, “They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers.” Dreher comments: “The productive efforts of businesspeople and workers”? The gall of that man, after what he did to the people of Sidney.”

What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn’t even any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately believe they have a right to be “showered by free stuff promised by politicians.” Singer places himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, “this is not the free enterprise that we all learned about.” That’s because it’s Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it’s clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about — as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.

Whom They Feed

Singer’s duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds, awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?

Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has declared “free enterprise has been good for me,” is a rapacious debt exploiter who was integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman’s Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated island for bond payments. It’s clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists, investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies (Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:

Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked directly with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a firm fitting Baupost’s profile on his experience page. … I called Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back (apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn’t call back if he wasn’t, and he seemed to get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer and has clients, how I must think I’m onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him – while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.

One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by Klarman under his Klarman Family Foundation. While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his “areas of focus” which prominently includes “Supporting the global Jewish community and Israel.” While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to “improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country’s prosperity.” Among those in Klarman’s nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest, are the American Jewish Committee, Boston’s Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also contributes to candidates who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, has said “The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being Neanderthals on this issue.”

Steven Tananbaum’s GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5 billion of the island’s debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has commented:

Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree’s chief investment officer, told a business conference in September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent $610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for exorbitant profits.

Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.

Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls, and utilities (Steve Feinberg’s Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011, Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland’s largest university, comments: “The aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies.” One homeowner, Anna Flynn recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital, owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were “very, very difficult to deal with,” said Flynn, a mother of four. “All [Mars] wanted was for me to leave the house; they didn’t want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home].”

When Bruce Karsh isn’t making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation, Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.

Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and have a stake in every company you’re likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar stores. With the profits of exploitation, they fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration, boost Zionist politics, invest millions in security for Jews, and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican, and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom’s Watch. Another key Singer project was the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from Singer.

Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics (“Paul Singer represents amnesty and he represents illegal immigration pouring into the country”), Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews—Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate’s most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a “retaliatory strike” against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put it, “These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump’s GOP.”

The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture, exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at the heads of the world’s most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of regurgitated profits.

Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won’t be stopped through blunt support of “free enterprise,” and they won’t be stopped by simply calling them “vulture capitalists.”

Strike through the mask!

[1] S. Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.

Student Life and the Alt-Right: Reply to Prof. Griffin

As a relatively new movement—some 10 years old now—the alt-right, like any such movement, must be open to continual refinement and articulation.  Thus it is both to be expected, and welcome, that we get a range of opinions from diverse perspectives.  People have different experiences and different knowledge bases, and they naturally approach such a topic from different angles.  This is especially true here, given that we are dealing with a serious and potent social theory, one that furthermore comes into direct conflict with the prevailing power structures in the West.  In such a case, we need to hear the pros and cons of our various ideas, especially from thoughtful and knowledgeable colleagues.

Thus I was pleased to read Dr. Robert Griffin’s critical reply (here) to my recent piece, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right” (here).  He shares a common background with me, and has a similar interest in campus life in particular—as do many contributors here, not the least, Prof. MacDonald.  I can’t match Dr. Griffin’s 47 years of teaching, but I have been teaching at universities on and off (mostly on) since the early 1980s, which gives me well over 30 years’ experience.  I have taught at three different American universities, and one foreign, in that time.  Perhaps more to the point, throughout much of that period I have been actively involved with student groups and student activists, often serving as an official or unofficial faculty advisor; this experience helped to inform my previous essay.  Though he does not say so explicitly, I get the impression that Dr. Griffin has perhaps less direct experience in working with student groups.  Be that as it may, I will take a look at his many helpful remarks, to see if I can offer a response or rebuttal.  After all, we share many of the same goals, and so it is certainly worthwhile to examine our different thoughts on how to arrive at them.

To begin with, Dr. Griffin jumps directly to my final section, “How to Organize.”  I take this to mean that he is in broad agreement with the first two sections.  My initial “Preamble” laid out some history and context of the dissident right, and identified the three pillars of alt-right philosophy:  1) biology is destiny, 2) Whites and White culture deserve defense, and 3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests.  My short middle section offered a “brief manifesto” of White nationalism, summarizing its nine key points, and emphasizing the scientific, non-violent, and ‘non-hatred’ nature of such a view.  The three pillars seem to be widely recognized, whereas the nine points of White nationalism are my interpretation of this worldview.  Given that he offers no comment at all on these issues, I have to assume that Griffin accepts the general outline that I presented.  This is unsurprising; as an alt-right forum advocating for White interests, any TOO contributor should naturally endorse such an outlook, broadly speaking.

The disagreements come in my final section, where I offer thoughts on how to promote and advance an alt-right view on college campuses.  It goes without saying that there is no one “right way” to do this, and the wide variability in campus cultures, student bodies, local social attitudes, and individual student beliefs necessarily requires much flexibility in how to implement such a program.  My original essay was, indeed, a “guide” in every sense of the word:  guidelines and recommendations, thought-starters and practical advice.  It was never intended to lay down the law on student alt-right activism.

In that section, I gave 31 bullet-point items of brief discussion.  Griffin offers critical commentary on 13 of these; hence I presume that he has little or no objection to the remaining 18 (it’s always good to note points of agreement).  Thus we will focus on the points of contention.

(1)  Students have more power than they think.[1]  Griffin emphasizes the difference between individual and collective power.  Yes, of course, any one student has only a microscopic impact on university finances, as does any one taxpayer with respect to his state or federal government.  My main point was that students are, in large part, funders of the university; they (or yes, their parents) are the paying customers; and as such, they have all the rights of any paying customer.  They have the right to be treated fairly and with respect.  They have the right to complain.  They have the right to point out abuses or incompetence on the part of their “employees.”  And they have no particular obligation to their fellow paying customers, provided that they follow the broad rules of behavior that apply equally to all.  That said, I see no real point of disagreement here.  Yes, it’s more complicated than taking your money elsewhere, but the principle is the same.  You pay (a lot!), and you have rights.  Don’t let your “employees” tell you otherwise.

(2)  Stay within the rules of the university, and they can’t punish you.  Here, we begin to get into more substantive disagreements.  Dr. Griffin seems inordinately sensitive to negative opinions of others.  Or at least, he is imputing such sensitivity to many (most?) students.  I guess it goes without saying that if you are a sensitive flower, don’t become an alt-right activist.  Anyone bothered by “verbal disconfirmation,” “looks of disdain,” or not being called on in class is probably too immature to engage in contentious politics.  Same with anyone affected by “put-downs, smirks, snubs, exclusion” or social media bashing.  The movement needs young people with a thick skin and a strong backbone.

And I don’t know how things work at Vermont, but in my experience, a professor cannot simply dish out “bad grades” to students he doesn’t like.  Sure, some things are subjective, but much is not.  A biased professor is likely to get called out and have to explain himself.  I have had many students whom I found distasteful, but I always gave them fair grades and never considered using grades as a weapon.  Any such individual professor who might do that can usually be safely avoided.

Or is Griffin implying that masses of faculty—all Jewish professors, say, or all liberals—would recognize and collectively retaliate against a specific student?  That’s highly unlikely, in my experience.  But if the whole college is indeed out to get you, then you really are making a mark!

(3)  Create an explicitly alt-right student group or club.  Though I wouldn’t call it “centrist,” I agree that a pro-White movement is not intrinsically left or right on the political spectrum.  As I noted, many liberals hold some conservative views, and many conservatives (even alt-righters) have some traditionally liberal opinions.  If it’s true that many academics avoid self-labeling these days as liberal or left, that doesn’t mean that they are centrists; rather, they are crypto-leftists, which is worse.  Griffin seems to want students to be crypto-rightists.  In fact, he says as much later on, with his recommendation to be like the French underground in WW2, and his call for “secret meetings,” “pseudonyms,” “codes,” and so on.  Certainly this is always an option, but it probably is not the preferred approach.  Alt-right (or dissident right) students should be free—are free—to self-identify as such.  And without penalty.  That should not require defense in an alt-right forum like TOO, but apparently it does.

(4)  Don’t make it a guy’s club.  Dr. Griffin suggests that my brief manifesto would alienate young women.  Sorry about that, but that’s the reality of the situation.  I’m not generally in the business of reworking my philosophical views to please a particular gender or age-group.  I try to tell the truth, straight-up, and I would hope that every thinking person, of all ages and both genders, would accept it as such.  MLK’s ideas and values are not much help for us; nor are the Jewish-inspired techniques of emotional manipulation and pity-mongering.  But here again, Griffin’s sensitivity training comes to the fore; his endorsement of “tugging at our heartstrings,” “making us feel sad,” and “getting us to emphasize” (sic erat scriptum—I presume he means ‘empathize’) are to no avail for the alt-right.  But I agree with his other points here:  yes, be patient about getting out your message; yes, focus on that which is unfair and hurtful to Whites.

(5)  Stay agnostic on religion.  Now we’re getting down to brass tacks.  Based on a quick survey of his writing, I’m guessing that Griffin is a committed Christian.  Unsurprisingly, he objects to my sidelining, and mild disparagement, of his religion.  One might speculate that this, in fact, is at the root of his entire critique of my essay.  This is unfortunate—but serves to prove my point.

I’ll say more about Christianity in a moment, but first I want to address two points he raises here.  He suggests that the anti-Christian crowd is also the anti-White crowd, thereby implying that we Whites can’t trust—and certainly shouldn’t side with—any anti-Christians.  The truth is this:  Part of the anti-Christian crowd are Jews, of both orthodox and secular persuasion.  There’s a lot to unpack here, but in short, the orthodox Jews oppose Christians on a theological basis, and the secular Jews on the basis of scientific materialism and rationalism.  Both mock Christianity, but both are able to find some use in it as well, especially in its Zionist form.  The other main group of anti-Christians are the secular, rationalist, and naturalistic Whites.  These people, I would suggest, are among the toughest and most resolute White nationalists.  Griffin’s ploy to link ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘anti-White’ fails to hold.

His second point is that alt-right students should use Christianity to their advantage.  But he offers no concrete suggestions at all (Hey students, “see what you can come up with”).  What, indeed, could one even plausibly “come up with,” in an alt-right sense, from a Christian point of view?

Given that it’s Christmas time, let’s take a minute to examine this matter a bit more closely.  Consider this question:  What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible?  I’ll tell you:  nothing.  The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is resolutely anti-goyim.  It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover.  The New Testament was also written by and about Jews:  Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews.  The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.”  With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality.  He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews.  Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.

There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White.  In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White.  At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity.  But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all “equal before God”—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.

The bottom line:  Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right?  Really?  Time to re-read pillar number three.[2]

(6)  Name names, be specific in your critiques.  Again, I don’t know the faculty culture at Vermont, but to suggest that aggrieved Jewish professors might have you “worked over” because of your alt-right views is rather shocking!  (If so, stay away from Vermont.)  And are they really going to haunt you after graduation?  How in the world will they know which jobs you are applying for, unless they work for the Mossad?  This comes across as little more than scare tactics—ones that the Jewish Lobby would certainly view with favor.

(7)  Insults are a badge of honor.  See my reply to (2) above.  Again, if you are a delicate soul, one who is deeply wounded by name-calling, then by all means, don’t become an alt-right activist.

(8)  Learn something about the real Nazis.  Griffin overstates my point.  I never said, “Cozy up to Hitler.”  I said, learn something about him, his situation, and his movement.  There is much of value to learn from history.

(9)  Be visible.  For starters, I am puzzled by my alleged “last sentence” of this item (“And be prepared to take shots for it”).  Where did that come from?  I didn’t write it, and it’s not in my essay now.  In any case, yes, I agree, intentional visibility is optional.  Word will get around soon enough, no matter what you do.  Griffin, though, recommends the opposite—be invisible.  Perhaps this is good advice.  I leave it to each student, and each group, to chose the most appropriate strategy.  I would prefer to see a confident group working fully above-board, but that may not always be prudent.

(10)  An effective group may get shut down.  Same reply as #9.

(11)  Don’t get stuck on ideological labels.  Griffin seems to generally agree with me here, and so no need to reply.  Labels are vague and discretionary.

(12)  Don’t be ‘woke.’  Griffin apparently views Black culture, and in fact all racial minorities, favorably.  Of course, every ethnicity has a right to its own culture and values—but not here, not in this country.  I certainly want Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and so on to be happy, but in their nations of origin.  Neither they nor we can be truly happy in a multiracial, multicultural mish-mash of a nation.  Research data, evolutionary theory, and common sense all support this view.

(13)  Speak the truth.  …unless it starts to hurt, says Griffin, and then knuckle under.  Just stay quiet, keep your head down, hold it in, “get along – go along,” grin and bear it, “cover your ass.”  Or maybe, “Turn the other cheek,” as a Jew once said.  Sorry, but I can’t do that.  Millions do it, on a daily basis, but some of us have to lead.  My original piece was not intended for the masses; it was meant for those few who are the future leaders of their generation.  A medium-sized college campus may only have five or 10 such individuals.  We need to reach them, and help them become strong, confident leaders.

In sum, Griffin offers as much commentary and elaboration as real criticism of my essay.  In contrast to my piece, his scattered suggestions seem to boil down to (a) stay low key, (b) welcome and even use Christianity, and (c) don’t ruffle too many feathers, either with Jews or other minorities.  So be it.  Perhaps some will follow his advice, and others will take the more assertive approach that I recommend.  God knows (so to speak), we need all the help we can get.


Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2015), Hitler on the Jews (2019), Goebbels on the Jews (2019), and numerous other books on Jews, Germany, and the Holocaust.  See his website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

[1] For sake of brevity, I am summarizing the 13 points from my original wording.

[2] It’s clear that simply being a Christian does not exclude one from being anti-Jewish—Martin Luther being a prime example.  See my newly edited version of his important book, On the Jews and Their Lies (Creative Fire Press, 2020).  Obviously there is more to be said on the relationship between Christianity and the alt-right.  If the TOO editor is willing, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

A Rejoinder to “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students” by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

I read with interest Professor Thomas Dalton’s article posted here on December 8th, 2019, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students.”  As has Professor Dalton, I have spent many years on American university campuses (I recently retired)—in my case, 42 years as a professor, plus an additional five years at the instructor rank early in my career.  And as has Professor Dalton, I have written extensively on white racial matters.  My experiences and analyses have led me to different conclusions and proposals than Professor Dalton expresses in his article, however.  Different doesn’t necessarily mean better—readers will make that judgment.  I hope what I set out here in response to Professor Dalton’s article will prompt reasoned dialogue and debate.

I’ve decided that the best way to get across my take on things is to comment on the last section of Professor Dalton’s article, which he entitles How to Organize.  In this section, he addresses his university student audience (“I now shift my focus to you, the student reader, and your efforts to make a positive impact on this troubled world.”).

I’ll begin this rejoinder with a quote from my writings that gives a sense of my concept of what white university students are like:

I spent my working life around white university students, and of course I’m generalizing here, but based on my experience with them, their most central motivating impulse is to be characterized, by others and themselves, as decent and fair and just—which, by the way, is why the idea of social justice, prevalent in today’s universities, resonates so well with them.  They don’t want to be great, they want to be good.  And they don’t want to be on one end or the other of a social/political spectrum.  Rather, they want to be secure and accepted and respected in the middle of wherever they are, in the dorm or in the community. They very much want to belong; they fear being marginalized.  In sum, they want to be seen, and to see themselves, as OK people. Political correctness in universities—at least as it is pitched to them, as the way to be OK—is very attractive to them.1  

If you are going to attempt to win over the hearts and minds of white university students, you had best take their basic posture, what they are really like, into account.  Those on the left who have gotten themselves center stage in universities have done that extremely well.  White advocates and activists could learn much from how they went about it.

Now to my comments on quotes (in italics) from the section of Professor Dalton’s article, How to Organize:

You have more power than you think.  In a university, you are the paying customer. 

It’s important to distinguish between collective and individual power.  True, collectively students have power as paying customers, to use that term.  But students don’t live their lives collectively; rather, they live their lives one at a time, as separate individuals.  They live inside and direct the being that looks back at them in the mirror.

From the perspective of an individual student—let’s call her Mary Smith—she’s not a paying customer.  Mary’s application was accepted by the university and she feels really good about that, and her parents are proud of her for getting admitted; they drove her to campus just before classes started and helped her move things into her dorm room, and they met her roommate, who seemed very nice.  Being in the university setting is a big adventure for Mary, and it is a test to see if she can make a go of it on her own for the first time.

Yes, Mary could quit school and take her (or her parents’) tuition money with her.  To the university, the loss of a single tuition wouldn’t matter; it would simply admit somebody on the waiting list, no problem.  But to Mary, dropping out of school and perhaps transferring to another university would be a disruptive and, very possibly, upsetting, experience.   It’s no small matter for her to move out of her dorm room or apartment, say goodbye to her friends, break off her connections with her favorite professors and courses, and to end her school activities.  And what will this mean to her parents?  They’ve been telling all the relatives how well Mary is doing in the university, and now she’s checking out.  Will Mary see herself as letting her parents down?  Will she look upon herself as a failure?  You see where I’m going with this: it’s a more complicated matter than students being paying customers who can take their money elsewhere, and if we are going to do well by students, and by universities as a whole, we need to take that complexity into account. Read more

Ethnos Needs Logos (and Genos)

Dr. E. Michael Jones is a prolific and pugnacious Catholic author. He is a great crusader for Truth and I admire his work tremendously. A man who can spin off a thousand pages on the “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” is clearly a man with important things to say. He makes unexpected and illuminating connections like few others and has a way of reducing complex cultural or social phenomena down into a single blast furnace of a sentence. Oftentimes the result is breathtaking, as in, “modernity is rationalized sexual misbehavior.” Jones began his career by getting fired from St. Mary’s College in South Bend for being against abortion. (Listen to him tell the story.) A bit nonplussed at being considered too Catholic for a Catholic college, he launched his own magazine, now entitled Culture Wars, and almost forty years and a dozen incisive volumes later, shows no sign of slowing down. Anyone who wishes to understand the hidden forces that shape the modern world will find a trove of insights in his large body of work.

In this short essay, however, I venture to take issue with the great Dr. Jones. The “issue” arises from the fact that he insists that race is not an important focus of identity. Being a militant Catholic (in the best sense), Jones maintains that if everyone just converted to Catholicism most modern ills would take care of themselves. In this, I happen to agree with him. Imagine if the Catholic hierarchy actually converted to Catholicism! Not to mention the Jews and Muslims and the LGBT crowd! A lot of problems would vanish instantly. But alas, that’s not happening anytime soon, and meanwhile, we—the men of the West—have a fight on our hands. In short, I believe that race is much more important than Jones is willing to concede, both as a component of individual humans and as a factor in history and culture.

Aware of his stance on race, I recently bought his two booklets Ethnos Needs Logos and Benedict’s Rule. Idly flipping through the first one, I came across the sentence, “Without the Catholic Church, Europe would resemble Somalia.” Now, I like to think I’m a good son of Holy Mother Church, but that statement made me slightly sick to my stomach (see also Kevin MacDonald’s recent comment on the role of the Church in European history). I decided to read the books carefully and work out exactly where I stand in relation to Jones’ ideas.

The genesis of Ethnos Needs Logos was a conference on national identity conducted in Guadalajara, Mexico, during which Jones privately debated David Duke and Mark Weber (of the Institute for Historical Review) over whether race or religion is more responsible for the creation of nations. Jones vigorously expounds the idea that “Logos,” the rational and divine order of the universe as personified in Christ and now embodied in the Catholic Church, is the only force that can raise ethnic groups to the highest level of human culture. Drawing on Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Jones describes how this process culminates in nationhood and the Christian state. The end of human progress, which involves the progressive understanding and social implementation of the true idea of “freedom,” is thus the Catholic West. In making his point, Jones ridicules the idea that race, mere matter as he calls it, plays a role in the moral development of mankind.

In Benedict’s Rule, published in 2017, a year before Ethnos Needs Logos, Jones discusses how imperial overreach emptied Roman identity of its meaning. (It also emptied Rome of its founding people: Appendix to Chapter 2 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition—a good example of how changing the people also changes the culture.)

Jones goes on to claim that the void after the fall of the Empire was filled by religion and the growth of ethnic groups (“ethnogenesis”). He describes how the ensuing reign of chaotic tribalism was eventually tamed and civilized by the monastic Order of St. Benedict and the Catholic Church. He then switches to modern times to describe how the Church in America “controlled” ethnogenesis by creating cohesive ethnic parishes in northern cities. Jones holds that the Church constituted a powerful “ethnic group” defined by religion. Jones is an adherent of the “triple melting pot” theory, which claims that, in America, religion replaced national origin as the main bond of unity, in consequence of which there were three “ethnic groups” in America: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. Unfortunately, the Church fell into the trap of joining the “civil rights” movement (and defining justice in racial terms) instead of defending the integrity of its ethnic parishes, and, coincidentally, its own power. Interestingly, Jones says the Catholic parishes in the northern cities should have resisted being broken up by the influx of Blacks into their neighborhoods, although elsewhere he states that “any race-based defense was either illicit or ineffectual.” (Ethnos, 40) The collapse of Catholic power in the 1960s and 1970s permitted the conservative movement to organize disaffected White Catholics, who resented the liberal turn of their Church, into a new “ethnic group.” Jones ends by predicting that globalism will soon usher in a new era of rampant tribalism, and that Islam will be the big winner if the Catholic Church does not return to its traditions.

Jones does not define “ethnic group,” but he uses the term to denote any effective social group, including tribes, religious groups, nations, and even political parties.

All in all, two very interesting booklets that support each other’s arguments with a wealth of trenchant analysis. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it, and was pleasantly intrigued half a dozen times. There is much I would like to discuss—perhaps at a later time—but at present I will confine myself to just two of Dr. Jones’ ideas.

The first statement that caught my attention is that Whites in America embrace White identity only because they are deracinated; they have lost the more important communal bonds of ethnicity and religion and have seized upon an ersatz identity:

The term “white” or “European,” . . . is the infallible sign that we are dealing with advanced deracination. White people are people who lack an identity, and so the only identity they can come up with is a negative one, namely, the opposite of black. (Ethnos, 40)

In fact, White identity in America is as old as the nation itself, especially in the South, given that the racial division between Blacks and Whites has existed since before the founding. Moreover, during the period of ethnic defense culminating in the 1924 immigration law, it was common for White Americans to have a sense racial identity and to feel threatened by immigration, especially immigration of Eastern European Jews. Such ideas, often influenced by Darwinism, were published in prominent media and by publishing houses with excellent establishment reputations. (See Chapter 6 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.)

I agree that many White Americans are deracinated in the current situation, but this is after the rise of a new (fundamentally Jewish) elite and decades of propaganda from the mainstream media, activist organizations, and academia fostering White guilt and the idea that White racial identity (and only White racial identity) is a psychopathology and has no scientific basis—the latter an idea that Jones evidently approves.

The same is true of other identities. Christianity has gone by the wayside; so has identity based on national origins, and even old-style patriotism has been ridiculed and outlawed. Whites are desperately looking for community. (I firmly believe that this loss of identity is the real cause of the high White suicide rate.) Some are looking back to the White heritage of “the West” and trying to develop a focus of attachment and action based on that. If these people can mobilize others to defend White people and Western Culture, then I support their efforts. Along with Dr. Jones, I hope that the West returns to the old Faith, but the question of bare survival is now looming, and I prefer the survival of pagan White culture to the death of all White culture.

Jones denigrates racial identity as materialist and artificial—not simply a lesser choice among various possibilities, but one completely in error. However, the enemies of Western Man and Christianity have grouped heritage Americans into the category of “White,” and are waging war on them—us—on that basis. If we are not interested in seeing ourselves as White, our enemies are. Even more urgently, the demographic situation in America is grinding inexorably onward, precisely against Whites as Whites. Therefore, it seems we will have little choice but to fight under that flag. The longer the enemy wages war against “Whites,” the more defenders will take up the banner thrust into their hands.

I certainly do not regard White identity as negative or artificial. However, if one takes it as a catch-all term, then, yes, it is a very thin concept, because it encompasses so many groups across the world that differ on all points except race. What unites all those Whites in the various nations? Precious little. On what basis could they be united for common action? It is White identity within the various nations that could provide some traction, for there it could draw upon common history and traditions. That is the key: race by itself probably cannot provide a basis for unity and action, but fused with religion, national feeling, and anything else that helps bond society together, it could give rise to a powerful ethnos. Therefore, Whites should seek to reactivate their traditional identities based on religion, nation, or region, as well as on race.

The next fifty years is going to be a riveting lesson in the dynamics of imperial disintegration and ethnogenesis. Seeking solidarity in Whiteness, if it does nothing more than facilitate strong bonds between groups of Whites caught in a civil war fought along racial lines, will have served a vital purpose.

The second point that demands explication is Jones’ denial that race is anything more than mere matter, without importance in relation to the faculties of the soul, human behavior, or society at large. He cuts the ground away completely from any attempt to invest race with meaning for individuals or society:

Race . . . is a creation of the biological materialism which found its most prominent spokesman in Charles Darwin. Materialism is based on the primacy of matter, and matter, as everyone trained in Thomistic philosophy knows, is the principle of differentiation. Matter, therefore, cannot lead to unity.” (Ethnos, 12)

He insists that men are inclined to race pride “because we are all by fallen nature carnal and are always ready to choose material goods over spiritual goods.” (Ethnos, 22)

But why should unity be an overriding goal? This pre-judges the question of whether race exists and whether race a primary dividing line in the contemporary world, resulting in a situation where anti-White hatred is increasingly prominent in the mainstream media and on social media. This utopian ideal of a harmonious humanity united by spiritual ideals ignores the reality of what is happening all around us.

Moreover, the good doctor, it seems to me, is denying heredity and race any role in the mental and moral make-up of men. First, heredity influences human behavior. Genes or other biological factors don’t determine human behavior, because every normal human possesses free will in his actions. However, there is a cascade of modern research that shows how genetic factors predispose people to this behavior or that. Ignoring these data results in a philosophical idealism dedicated to the spiritual unity of mankind in which the mind is completely separate from the body. Jones is quite aware of Jewish influence on the culture of West, but does anyone seriously believe that a philosophical idealism based on the unity of mankind will ever appeal to Jews? Will it ever appeal to the (now virtually hegemonic) cultural left and its addiction to the racial and gender identity politics of division?

Genes can make some people more inclined to alcoholism and violence, among other behaviors. I should stress that no gene or complex of genes can make a person an alcoholic. That would represent the destruction of free will and reduce men to genetic robots. A person repeatedly chooses to drink—that makes an alcoholic. The genes nudge a person in that direction, or incline a person to that behavior, but only the will, seated in the soul, directly pulls the trigger on the action. Thus, genetic factors may sway the will, but do not impel it.

In addition to genetic influence on behavior, there appears in Catholic teaching the idea that heredity contributes to the moral make-up of man.

First, some background. In Catholic teaching, the human is a perfect union of two distinct elements, the body and the soul. The human soul is both the animating principle of the body, and an immortal spirit. (The souls of animals are not spirits and go out of existence with the death of the animal.) The souls of men have spiritual faculties or powers called the intellect and the will. The intellect has its seat in the soul, but it is dependent upon the senses to provide it with material for its operations. How and to what extent the intellect is dependent upon the physical brain is a problem that has long fascinated not only me but also centuries of Catholic theologians and psychologists. As to why intelligence is so variable in humans, there are two possibilities. The first is the idea that the physical quality of the brain, if excellent, permits greater reach and power to the operations of the intellect; however, if it is inferior, it can limit mental performance. The second possibility is that God fashions the soul and its intellect according to the constitution of the body and the brain. Both of these cases permit the conclusion that the material body has an impact on the soul and its capabilities.

The idea of heredity is surprisingly prominent in Catholic teaching. It was with intense interest that I recently read the following passages from the pen of the great German-born Thomist, Abbot Vonier, in his classic 1913 work The Human Soul:

There seems to be no contradiction in supposing that spiritual souls may differ widely in qualities, God forming them according to the differences of hereditary dispositions. . . . Saint Thomas Aquinas distinctly inclines towards the view that Almighty God fashions the soul He creates according to the body into which He infuses it. As long as the soul’s spirituality is safeguarded, there is no reason why the body, with its qualities, should not be to God the occasion for creating a soul with corresponding qualities. (Vonier, 45-46)

[Man’s physical make-up] has its qualities and its defects, which the soul cannot change

. . . the soul’s office is . . . to tune all the strings of nature to the highest pitch; but all the tuning in the world will never change the make of the instrument. (Vonier, 47)

These are explosive ideas. They support the proposition that humans have varying capacities (including moral capacities) that follow the dispositions of heredity. Similar statements appear in the work of other theologians. The Jesuit Ernest R. Hull, in The Formation of Character, says

The bodily gifts of nature are . . . unequally distributed; and hence a huge difference of quality in the composition of the brain, nerves, sensitive organs and the rest. And since all our functionings in life have to be carried on through this conjoint instrument called the body, it follows that men come into existence with an immense initial difference of mental and even moral capacity, according to the qualities of these different organs. … Hence there is no difficulty in acknowledging the fact that some people are born stupid, others clever, some weak and others strong, some sluggish . . . others vivacious and active. . . . Even in the moral order there are some who are almost literally born angels in the flesh, while others are painfully prone to anger, sloth, gluttony. (Hull, 113; emphasis added)

Further support comes from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Character is the expression of the personality of a human being. . . . A man’s character is the resultant of two distinct classes of factors: the original or inherited elements of his being, and those which he has acquired. On the one hand, every human being starts with a certain nature or disposition—a native endowment of capacities for knowledge, and feelings, and tendencies towards volitions and action—which varies with each individual. This disposition is dependent in part on the structure of the bodily organism and especially of the nervous system which he has inherited; in part, perhaps, also on his soul which has been created. . . . The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul. (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Character”)

There is nothing more central to man than his character. Character is the truest manifestation of who a man is, a direct expression of his moral temper. And, character is partly derived from heredity. It is based on temperament and formed by the habitual action of the will, which decides between courses of action. (Temperament can be thought of as the natural inclinations of a person, manifested especially in his personality, with a strong hereditary component.) Character is the “group of internal dispositions, issuing from heredity, environment, education, or deliberately formed habits, which preside over one’s habitual conduct.” (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, 96; emphasis added)

Within mainstream Catholic theology, the body becomes more than dumb “matter” when it is united to a soul. The soul does not spiritualize or divinize the body, but it does raise it to full partnership with an immortal spirit, all of whose functions are performed through and with the body and its natural endowment. The passages above show us that the physical, hereditary qualities of the body impart to the human being a not-inconsiderable part of his moral constitution.

To make the obvious connection, if heredity is important and if the races differ significantly in their genetic endowment, then race is real.

Thus, the body—heredity—race—contributes to the formation of the psychological and moral human being. Man is a union of the physical and the spiritual worlds, each with a sphere of influence over the other. Yes, the soul is much more important, but the body is more than a cipher, much more than “mere matter.”

Lastly, I would like to address the preposterous claim that “Without the Catholic Church, Europe would resemble Somalia.” Without in any way downplaying the tremendous civilizing work of the Catholic Church, I present for your meditation two numbers:

Average IQ of Europe: 100.
Average IQ of Somalia: 68.

From Human Rights Watch:

If a person scores below 70 on a properly administered and scored I.Q. test, he or she is in the bottom 2 percent of the American population and meets the first condition necessary to be defined as having mental retardation. . . . An I.Q. in the 60 to 70 range is approximately the scholastic equivalent to the third grade.

I know that Dr. Jones often resorts to hyperbole, but no White society would ever resemble Somalia.

As important as it is, the spiritual cannot provide a complete explanation for society and history, because man has a physical body and lives in a physical world. True Catholic teaching does not despise matter, but rather exalts it because it was made by God. Indeed, the highest form of matter in the universe is the human body, animated by a soul. Catholics should not despise the concept of race either, because it too was created by God. Catholic teaching is (or was) very comfortable with the idea of individual human inequality in talent and character, as well as with the idea of talent-based hierarchies in society and state. There is likewise no reason to deny the obvious differences between races, other than a misguided concern to give false charity greater importance than truth. There is no profit in that.

Whether race will ever become a powerful and effective focus of identity in the beleaguered West is an open question, but it is painfully clear that the war against “Whites” is intensifying dramatically. I say we should mobilize all the forces we can lay hold of, whether spiritual or racial, and bring them to the fight.


Attwater, Donald. A Catholic Dictionary. New York: MacMillan Company, 1943.

Hull, Ernest R., S.J. The Formation of Character. St. Louis: Herder Books, no date.

Jones, E. Michael. Benedict’s Rule: The Rise of Ethnicity and the Fall of Rome. South Bend, Indiana: Fidelity Press, 2017.

Jones, E. Michael. Ethnos Needs Logos: Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Persuade David Duke to Become a Catholic. South Bend, Indiana: Fidelity Press, 2018.

Maher, Michael. “Character.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 26 Nov. 2019 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03584b.htm>.

Vonier, Abbot. The Human Soul. Bethesda, Maryland: Zacheus Press, 2010.



The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students

Preamble:  As a long-time professor on a number of American campuses, I have seen how universities work from the inside.  And for years before that, as an undergrad and then graduate student, I have seen how student life develops and evolves, and how important it can be for shaping future views and attitudes.  Now is the time to bring together these diverse sets of experiences and offer some insight and advice for current university students who seek to get more out of college than merely a degree.

Let’s start with the politics of right and left.  There has long been a “liberal bias” on campus, but for many years it was relatively benign; it consisted primarily of an openness to new ideas, an escape from dogmatic religion, a willingness to challenge traditional power structures, and an ethical idealism—all good things.  A liberal was a forward-thinking individual, selfless and civic-minded, and a participant in the global community.  In short: an enlightened person.

But then sometime in the 1980s, things began to change.  Campuses stayed liberal while national politics went ‘conservative’—but it was a conservatism with a twist.  Beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan in 1981, American conservatives made some significant shifts in policy, as compared to their traditional views: (a) they became more militarily activist around the world, anxious to project American power and to “bring democracy” to others; (b) religion—in the form of fundamentalist Christianity—became more important to civic and social life; (c) complex ideological issues got reduced to simplistic black-and-white, “us or them” terminology; and (d) Jews supporting Reagan became increasingly prominent and influential.  These new tenets came to compose a new brand of conservatism: “neoconservatism,” or neocon, for short.

Liberal college professors and administrators were generally appalled at these developments, and reacted accordingly.  They became more liberal, and more militantly liberal.  They grew determined to tackle the problem at its roots: at the level of college-educated youth, who would henceforth become increasingly indoctrinated in the key concepts of liberalism:  intrinsic human equality, intrinsic equal rights, over-socialization, radical feminism, excessive pity for the underprivileged, and the corresponding determination to impose such values on all Americans, and indeed on the world.  Such ideas took certain concrete forms:  anti-racism; advocacy for minority and immigrant rights; an inordinate celebration of multiculturalism and multiracialism; denigration of White culture, ‘White privilege,’ and White European civilization; functionally anti-male policies; attacks on the nuclear family; gay rights; and defense of gender and sexual-orientation ‘flexibility.’  But the militant liberals had one thing in common with the hated neocons: a prominent Jewish presence.  Hence anti-Semitism began appearing on the right (mainly concerned about mass non-White immigration and socially conservative) and the left (mainly concerned about the U.S. Jewish community’s support for Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians).

Meanwhile, caught in the vice between neoconservatism and radical liberalism, traditional “old” (“paleo”) conservativism struggled for its very existence.  The most prominent advocate was probably Pat Buchanan, a former candidate for president who opposed much of the neocon agenda.  Buchanan and other paleocons argued for a strong form of nationalism, and generally opposed much of the globalist agenda of the neocons and liberals.  They also opposed military intervention around the world; argued for protectionist economic policies; defended core concepts of classic Western civilization; advocated for “states’ rights” policies (i.e., that individual states should have considerable authority to establish their own laws); supported traditional but not fundamentalist religion; and generally opposed gay and minority rights.  As a consequence, they also frequently came into conflict with Jews on both the neocon right and the liberal left; as such, they have often been slandered as anti-Semitic.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, up to the present, militant liberalism has only increased on college campuses—dramatically so, with the election of Donald Trump in late 2016.  In that election, radical liberals were convinced that “their man”—Hillary Clinton—would win.  Bill Clinton was good, Obama was better, but Hillary was going to be the best.  Feminists were elated that they were finally getting a woman president: one who was ultra-liberal, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, pro-immigration, anti-racist, pro-big-government, and more than willing to project US military power around the world to enforce these “enlightened” values.  They could scarcely contain their champagne corks.

But it didn’t turn out that way.  With Trump’s upset victory, many academic liberals ‘snapped.’  They were in shock and denial.  They simply couldn’t believe that a “misogynistic racist” could have won the presidency, especially over their beloved Hillary.  So they redoubled their efforts.  They vowed to drive out all remnants of conservative thinking; to harass any faculty that failed to demonstrate fealty to radical leftism; to hire only the most militant—preferably female, preferably of color—faculty; and to punish right-leaning students.  They created “safe spaces” for fragile egos.  They condemned “hate speech” and instituted “speech codes.”  They hired yet more “diversity officers” and promised to step up efforts to cater to any offended minorities or protected classes of individuals.  Everyone, it now seems, had their protectors and defenders—everyone except White males.

Enter the alt-right, otherwise known as the dissident right.  In one sense, it is the natural outgrowth of paleo-conservatism: a kind of return to classical ideas of nationalism and political self-sufficiency.  But it adds new angles as well:  an emphasis on biological realism, in which evolution and genetics are seen as strongly influential in determining human characteristics; an explicit defense of White interests and White European civilization; and an explicit and active critique of Jews and Judeocentric policies.  And indeed, these can be seen as the three main pillars of the alt-right:

(1) Biology is destiny,

(2) Whites and White culture deserve to be protected and defended, and

(3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests. 

(Jews, incidentally, like all Latinos, are not White—not in any relevant sense given genetic differences and, more importantly, their lack of identifying with White European civilization.)  Among the wide-ranging dissident right, we see additional points of concern and variations on these themes, but in general, we can roughly define the alt-right movement as centered on these three concepts.  The first, on biology, is proven more and more true by the day; new studies repeatedly show that, to a very large degree, biology and genetics determine what we loosely call ‘human nature,’ and that these phenomena have a corresponding effect on society and culture.  The second is straightforward and obvious:  if Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, and so on each have a right to their cultures and ethnic integrity, so do Whites.  The third becomes clear whenever one takes a look at the objective data regarding Jewish presence and Jewish influence in academia, government, media, Hollywood, and high tech.  Jews are massively over-represented in all these fields, and constitute a force in themselves; with their highly-effective ingroup strategy, they manage to reinforce their own wealth and power.  In fact, this becomes their overriding priority: an increase in Jewish wealth and power.

A Brief Manifesto.  The dissident right, then, advocates for White culture and White interests, and does so in a way that is aligned with science, history, and rationality.  When it veers into the realm of politics, it effectively becomes a form of White nationalism:  the idea that Whites should be self-governing and self-determining, and that, like all ethnicities, they have a fundamental right to do so.  As with ‘alt-right,’ there are varying definitions in the literature.  But there seems to be a broad consensus that White nationalism accords with the following ideas:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, has created the lion’s share of Western civilization, science, and technology which have benefited all peoples; the White race therefore deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
  • Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions by anti-White parties.
  • The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
  • Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human societies.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly racially homogeneous and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
  • From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out.  Such movement must therefore be stopped.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—racially homogeneous and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.
  • The above goal can only be achieved, in the present world, by confronting and undermining Jewish power.

These are eminently practical and realistic issues.  Nothing here entails violence, hatred, misogyny, or other such evils.  These are simple statements of fact; and they lay out a roadmap for any White society that hopes to survive and flourish in the long run.

How to Organize.  I now shift my focus to you, the student reader, and your efforts to make a positive impact on this troubled world.  So much of college life is pointless or trivial, but you now have an opportunity to create a truly transformative college experience.  In a very real sense, the future of our society lies in your hands.  You can act now, to make a real difference.

Here are some key points to keep mind, and some specific suggestions on how to move forward.  Readings cited here are included in the list at the end of this essay.

  • You have more power than you think. In a university, you are the paying customer.  Your tuition money pays a large share of your professors’ and administrators’ salaries.  Let them know that.  You are the future, they are the status quo.  You have ethics and high principles; they are just trying to keep their jobs.  Even a very small group, intelligently run, can have a huge impact.
  • Know your rights. You have the right to speak up and make yourself heard.  As long as you stay within the broad rules of the university, they can’t punish you.  Don’t let faculty or staff intimidate you.  It’s like dealing with a spider or mouse:  they are more afraid of you than you should be of them.  Be assertive but not obnoxious.
  • Organize. Create a student group or club that explicitly advocates for alt-right views.  Pick a good name.  It can be relatively innocuous, like “Campus Republicans” or “Campus Conservatives,” or it can be more confrontational: “The New Right,” “Dissident Conservatives,” “White and Right,” and so on.  Be creative.
  • Have concrete goals. Your group should, at a minimum, hold regular meetings.  Simply talking through things among yourselves and sharing ideas has value.  But you will likely want to do more:  bring in speakers; hold debates; organize panel discussions; “table” your group in a visible spot on campus; do fundraisers; write for your student newspaper.  Visibility and success breed more success.
  • Don’t let egos get in the way. This is not about who is president, or who has key roles.  It’s about the ideas and the mission:  to develop and communicate alt-right ideas on campus.  Leaders need to be self-confident, but if it becomes more about self-glorification, time to get another leader.
  • Plan for the future. There is constant turnover in student groups; some people lose interest, some graduate, some have personal issues, others just get too busy.  To sustain and build membership, you need to be constantly planning ahead.  Get to the younger students and recruit them.  They’re not “just freshman”; your group needs them, and every new class presents new opportunities.  Also, plan for post-graduation.  You need to sustain activity after you move on to your career.  This again presents new opportunities for action.  Stay in touch with fellow grads—and not just on-line.  Meet face-to-face.
  • Don’t make it a “guy’s club.” Alt-right groups tend to be heavily male.  Acknowledge this, accept it, but be welcoming to female participation.  As long as they buy into the main principles cited above, there is no reason not to welcome women.  You want members—and they represent half (actually, considerably more than half) of your student population.  Be respectful, and allow them full participation.  Listen to their ideas; they know better how to reach other women than you do as males.  They are smart and motivated.  They have as much equity in the future as you do.  Women are also good networkers, and may make connections that the guys tend to overlook. And besides, most all of us want partners in life, and this is a great chance for both genders to meet like-minded friends.
  • Have high standards. Try to avoid crude polemics, name-calling, dirty tricks.  Be mature.  You are a role model; try to act like one.  Intelligent commentary and well-organized events are much more effective than some graffiti sprayed on a dorm wall.
  • Be knowledgeable, be smart. There is much to learn about alt-right and dissident ideas.  Take the time to study, like a serious and intelligent person.  And not only online blogs, and not just Youtube videos.  Get actual books and read them.  The list below offers several good sources to start with.  And then be a good detective: follow up on interesting leads, hunt for clues.  Learn how to sift out the bullshitters and the nonsense.  There is a lot of bogus information out there, especially on the Internet; some of it is there to deliberately mislead you.  Be skeptical, and do background research.
  • Stay agnostic on religion. Conservatives tend to be more religious than average, and so you may well attract religious people.  Accept them, but don’t let theology rule the discussion.  Keep religious ideas safely to the side.  Be particularly wary of fundamentalists, who tend to be too irrational to be much good.  The same holds for so-called Christian Zionists.  Beyond this, there are good reasons to believe that Jesus, for example, is a Jewish construction, and serves Jewish purposes (read Nietzsche).  And in truth, all Christians (and all Muslims) worship the Jewish God, albeit with a different name.  In sum, best to let that dog lie.
  • Get political (1). Yours’ is a movement of major political importance.  You need to acknowledge this, and engage in political debates.  There are many local, regional, and national policy implications for the dissident right.  Engage at every level.  Make well-reasoned recommendations, and defend them against critics.
  • Get political (2). There are good reasons to think that the situation may be hopeless at the national level; the corruption may simply be too deep to be redeemed.  Rather than ‘fixing’ Washington, we may need to abandon it.  Consider a strong “states’ rights” position, even to the point of secession.  In a practical sense, White nationalism may only be realized in smaller political units than that of the monstrous, multiracial mish-mash of an American nation.  Start by reading Kohr.
  • Know your opponents. As an alt-righter, your main opponents are non-Whites, Jews, and liberal Whites (among both students and faculty).  Even some mainstream Republicans may oppose you.  Learn how they think, and what their ‘hot button’ issues are.  A calculated incitement of your opponent can be very useful.  Non-Whites, for example, typically get excited by talk of limiting immigration or of mass deportations of illegal aliens.  Jews get excited by talk of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel.  They also hate when prominent Jews are outed.  And they hate when someone questions the highly-dubious Holocaust story—see sources below.  Don’t be afraid to use these issues to your advantage.
  • Name names (1). In other words, be specific and detailed in your critiques.  Use facts, and check your facts.  Instead of saying “the Jews in the Sociology department are complaining about us…” say “Jewish faculty like Bob Greenberg and Joel Baumgarten in Sociology are complaining…”  Instead of railing against “media Jews,” rail against “Jewish media execs like Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC.”  Specificity shows that you know what you are talking about.
  • Name names (2). Here’s an interesting project:  Conduct your own ‘faculty diversity survey,’ to determine rough numbers of Whites, non-Whites, and Jews.  They are certainly pro-diversity, so they can hardly object.  Note:  you are looking for Jews as an ethnicity, not a religion (‘Jew’ can be either).  Print up a simple survey with a few specific categories:  White (non-Hispanic, non-Jewish), black, Asian, Jewish, Hispanic/Latino, mixed/other.  Responses will be very instructive.
  • Watch out for moles. Any moderately visible or successful group will very quickly attract attention, from both friends and enemies.  A well-worn tactic of the other side is to infiltrate successful groups and manipulate them from within—ideally, even take on leadership roles.  It is amazing how many Jews, for example, have taken positions of influence within nominally alt-right or dissident right groups; think of Andrew Breitbart, Larry Solov, Milo Yiannopolous, Alex Marlow, Ben Shapiro, and Joel Pollack, all associated with Breitbart News; or Stephen Miller, the alleged “White nationalist” in the Trump administration; or Michael Savage; or Matt Drudge.  Know your members, and look for signs of less-than-honest opinions. If Jews are admitted to the group, they must acknowledge the role of Jews in our current malaise.
  • Watch out for spies. In line with above, successful groups often attract quiet members who are just “taking notes”—and perhaps reporting out.  There’s not much you can do about this, but be aware that someone in your group may be looking for dirt.  Keep things above-board, and don’t give them anything to report.
  • Don’t demonize the masses. In general, it’s not good strategy to refer to your fellow students as idiots, morons, dupes, etc.  For the most part, you need them.  You are trying to win them over—even if they are idiots or dupes.  Educate them.  Be patient.  Be tolerant.  Figure out what is stopping them from accepting the truth, and slowly bring them around.
  • Insults are a badge of honor. Don’t take it personally when your enemies start calling you names.  In fact, welcome it; it’s a sign that you are succeeding.  And have no doubt, they will call you every name in the book: Nazi, racist, bigot, fascist, anti-Semite, Klansman, White supremacist, and so on.  Show poise; just let it roll off your back.  Point out that they don’t really know what they are talking about; most of them cannot even define ‘Nazi’, or ‘bigot,’ or ‘fascism,’ etc.  Be smarter than them, and use your knowledge to upstage them.  Show them to be the fools that they are.
  • Learn about the real Nazis. Since it’s inevitable that you will be called this, you might as well learn something.  ‘Nazi’ is short for National Socialist, and there is nothing inherently evil about either nationalism or socialism.  Adolf Hitler was arguably the first major alt-righter of the twentieth century.  He spent his youth in a social environment not so different from our own.  As a young man, he faced many of the same problems that we do.  His story is instructive; see the list below for some good sources.
  • Stay healthy in body and mind. Again, be a role model.  Be better than the average slacker.  Watch your weight, and stay in shape.  Work out.  Get strong.  Cut down on meat, sugar, and junk food.  Avoid recreational drugs and heavy drinking—these things can destroy your focus and motivation.  Avoid mindless Internet surfing, and stupid TV reruns, and moronic Hollywood trash.  Get the airpods out of your ears, shut off the insidious Black rap “music,” cut down on texting and Instagramming.  You have a mission in life, and you need all your faculties to succeed.  Jews and liberals would like nothing more than for you to spend nights smoking pot and binge-watching their garbage on your laptop or phone.  Don’t give in to them.
  • Don’t get sucked into the technology. Along the same line as above, be very cautious about getting sucked into technology day and night.  Excessive gaming, Internet addiction, on-line porn, too much social media…these things pose real psychological and physical risks to your wellbeing—seriously.  Keep them all to a bare minimum.  And then get informed on the many risks of high-tech (read Kaczynski, for starters).
  • Be visible. Take some time to get organized, but once you are up and running, get the word out.  Put articles or ads in the school newspaper.  Post flyers around campus, or leave them loose on desks in random classrooms.  Scribble messages on blackboards/Whiteboards.  Go on the school radio.  Talk to local media.
  • Don’t get too stuck on ideological labels. ‘Right’ and ‘left,’ like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ are vague terms, and arguably are more harmful than helpful.  In reality, they don’t allow for much subtlety of definition.  Yes, you are alt-right, but don’t hang everything on this one label.  Many liberals have some conservative opinions, and many alt-righters hold some traditionally liberal views.  This is not a major problem, and don’t be pushing ideological purity tests on anyone.  Views shift over time, especially for college students.  Any student who thinks he has it all figured out has a lot to learn.  It’s not a weakness to change your opinions—it’s a sign of growth.
  • Don’t be “woke.” ‘Woke’ is one of those truly stupid labels that you should avoid.  It comes from Black slang (appropriately), and refers to a heighted sensitivity to racism, black interests, oppressed minorities—in other words, all those traditional leftist views.  It represents political-correctness run amok.  What you do want is people to “awake”—wake up to the false and distorted reality they have been living in.  But that’s entirely different.
  • Be persistent, take notes, follow up. This is just good organizational technique.  Write things down, because everyone forgets.  Get people to commit to tasks, and hold them accountable.  Acknowledge and reward those who follow through and get results.  It’s a long war, and nothing of value is won overnight.  Pace yourselves.  Don’t burn out.  Be in it for the long haul.
  • Use publicity to your advantage. Universities hate two things:  money problems and bad press.  Your group is a constant threat for the latter.  This is one of your few pieces of leverage over them.  Use it appropriately.  If you are succeeding, get the word out, not only on campus but among the public at large.  If you are under attack, publicize the implicit assault on your rights of free speech and association.
  • If they disband your group, go underground. An effective group will get attention, and a really effective group will get a lot of attention.  At some point, they—the university bureaucracy—may well concoct some reason to shut you down, even if you’ve broken no rules.  If they do this, publicize how unjustified they are.  Let your fellow students know that free speech and free expression are not welcome on your campus.  Then go underground.  Most universities are public institutions, and they cannot forbid your group from meeting—they can only withhold funding and institutional support.  If that happens, so be it.  Meet in the library, in the student union, or at a local café.  They can’t stop you from posting flyers, doing stuff on-line, renting small spaces, organizing events.  This can even have its advantages; underground groups have a lot more freedom than ones reliant on university funding.  Put this to good use.
  • Stay in touch, and network. Work with other student groups and other campuses, where possible.  Build alliances where you can.
  • Document your work. Write, publish blogs or hardcopy essays.  If you’re up to it, publish a small book (we can help you).  Keep track of successes and failures.  We all can learn from each other, and we should try to avoid repeating each other’s mistakes.  You are working not just for the present, but for the future.  Those to come will benefit from your hard work.
  • Speak the truth. Sometimes these days, just saying the truth out loud is a revolutionary act, one that calls for real courage.  The truth is on your side.  Be strong, be confident, and speak the truth.

This last point bears repeating:  You have justice and truth on your side.  Your cause is just.  You have the weight of history behind you.  Many great thinkers of the past and present stand at your side, ready to help.  Don’t give up, don’t apologize, don’t surrender.

There are people around who can help with questions, problems, or advice.  The TOO editor is available (editor@occidentalobserver.com) and I can assist as well (thomasdaltonphd@yahoo.com).  We both know how to get articles and books published, if interested.  Don’t hesitate to reach out.  Good luck; we’re counting on you.

Suggested readings:

Dalton, T.  2015.  Debating the Holocaust (3rd ed.).  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2016.  The Holocaust: An Introduction.  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2019.  The Jewish Hand in the World Wars.  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2020.  Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages.  Castle Hill.

Duke, D.  1998.  My Awakening.  Free Speech Press.

Goebbels, J.  2019.  Goebbels on the Jews.  Castle Hill.

Hitler, A.  2019.  The Essential Mein Kampf.  Clemens & Blair.

Hitler, A.  2019.  Hitler on the Jews.  Castle Hill.

Johnson, G.  2018.  The White Nationalist Manifesto.  Counter-Currents.

Kaczynski, T.  2019.  Technological Slavery (vol. 1).  Fitch and Madison.

Kohr, L.  1955.  Breakdown of Nations.  Dutton.

MacDonald, K.  1994.  A People That Shall Dwell Alone.  Praeger.

MacDonald, K.  1998.  Separation and its Discontents.  Praeger.

MacDonald, K.  1998.  The Culture of Critique.  Praeger.

Nietzsche, F.  1887.  On the Genealogy of Morals.  Vintage.

Nietzsche, F.  1888.  “Antichrist.”  In The Portable Nietzsche.  Penguin.

Plato.  1997.  “Republic.”  In Plato: Complete Works.  Hackett.

Shaw, G. (ed.).  2018.  A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of its Members and Leaders.  Arktos.

Suggested websites:







The AEI, a Major Neocon Thinktank, Implicated in the Sackler Family’s Opioid Crisis

My 2017 article on the Sackler family and the unfolding opioid disaster (“Opioids and the Crisis of the White Working Class”) emphasized the corruption of the academic and medical establishment:

As in The Culture of Critique, this was a top-down movement based ultimately on fake science created at the highest levels of the academic medical establishment, motivated by payoffs to a whole host of people ranging from the highest levels of the academic-medical establishment down to sales reps and general practitioner physicians.

Now Tucker Carlson has uncovered another angle intimately tied to our new Jewish elite: the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI figured prominently in my article “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” published in 2004:

Jewish intellectual and political movements also have typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media outlets, and this is certainly true for the neocons. Most notable are the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, Basic Books (book publishing), and the media empires of Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns the Fox News Channel and the New York Post, and is the main source of funding for Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard—all major neocon outlets.

A good example illustrating these connections is Richard Perle. Perle is listed as a Resident Fellow of the AEI, and he is on the boards of directors of the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger Corporation, a media company controlled by Conrad Black. Hollinger owns major media properties in the US (Chicago Sun-Times), England (the Daily Telegraph), Israel (Jerusalem Post), and Canada (the National Post; fifty percent ownership with CanWest Global Communications, which is controlled by Israel Asper and his family; CanWest has aggressively clamped down on its journalists for any deviation from its strong pro-Israel editorial policies. Hollinger also owns dozens of smaller publications in the US, Canada, and England. All of these media outlets reflect the vigorously pro-Israel stance espoused by Perle. Perle has written op-ed columns for Hollinger newspapers as well as for the New York Times.

Neoconservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and David Frum also have a very large influence on National Review, formerly a bastion of traditional conservative thought in the US. Neocon think tanks such as the AEI have a great deal of cross-membership with Jewish activist organizations such as AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [which produces pro-Israel propaganda]. (When President George W. Bush addressed the AEI on Iraq policy, the event was fittingly held in the Albert Wohlstetter Conference Center.) A major goal of the AEI is to maintain a high profile as pundits in the mainstream media. A short list would include AEI fellow Michael Ledeen, who is extreme even among the neocons in his lust for war against all Muslim countries in the Middle East, is “resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the AEI,” writes op-ed articles for The Scripps Howard News Service and the Wall Street Journal, and appears on the Fox News Channel. Michael Rubin, visiting scholar at AEI, writes for the New Republic (controlled by staunchly pro-Israel Martin Peretz), the New York Times, and the Daily Telegraph. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the AEI and director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for a New American Century [a neocon group], writes for the Weekly Standard and the New York Times. Another prominent AEI member is David Wurmser who formerly headed the Middle East Studies Program at the AEI until assuming a major role in providing intelligence disinformation in the lead up to the war in Iraq. His position at the AEI was funded by Irving Moscowitz, a wealthy supporter of the settler movement in Israel and neocon activism in the US.[2] At the AEI Wurmser wrote op-ed pieces for the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal. His book, Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, advocated that the United States should use military force to achieve regime change in Iraq. The book was published by the AEI in 1999 with a Foreword by Richard Perle.

Given this history—and understanding the Sacklers’ modus operandi—I should not have been surprised that AEI has been involved in promoting false, Purdue-funded research that doubtless had a prominent role in creating the crisis. Here’s Tucker’s segment:

In my 2017 article I described how Purdue funded research that found that Oxycontin was not significantly addictive.

Purdue essentially created a very large community of people who benefited financially from prescribing opioids. They set up and funded organizations that lobbied for more aggressive treatment of pain by treatment with opioids. Millions were funneled into organizations like the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine and Purdue’s own advocacy group, Partners Against Pain, as well as to medical professionals willing to provide data supporting the movement. Purdue hired an army of sales reps to promote opioids to all medical personnel, from doctors to physician assistants. A consistent part of the pitch was to minimize addiction rates. Purdue claimed addiction rates were less than 1% by cherry picking studies that did not examine the effects of long-term use. Other studies often showed much higher rates, as high as 50%. This misrepresentation was at the root of the $600M judgement against Purdue obtained by the US government.

The AEI could have been included in this assessment It received $50,000/year from Purdue from 2003 “until recently”—~$800,000 total—pocket change for a family that walked away with at least $11 billion. The original “research” touting the non-addictive properties of Oxycontin and based on 38 subjects was performed by R. K. Portnoy of the Metropolitan Jewish Health System. But there were others:

Scott Fishman and Perry Fine [were] prominently associated with the American Pain Foundation which got 88% of its budget from Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies. Fine has been funded by at least a dozen drug companies and Fishman has had relationships with at least eight companies, including Purdue, for which he was a consultant, paid speaker and recipient of research support. They claim that all this financial remuneration did not affect their opinions. And if you believe that, you are an idiot.

As Tucker notes, in 2004 the New York Times published an article by AEI writer Sally Satel, presumably Jewish, opposing jail sentences for doctors who over-prescribed opioids after running it past a Purdue lobbyist. And in 2007 the Wall Street Journal, a major neocon media outlet, published another article by Satel in which she called Oxycontin a “godsend” and lamented that it not being prescribed enough.

Satel is intimately associated with the AEI as a Resident Fellow. She is typical of our new elite and its involvement in elite institutions and media. Wiki:

Sally L. Satel(born January 9, 1956) is an American psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. She is a lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine, the W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author.

She has continued writing on the topic with, e.g., an article in Politico from 2018 in which she argues that physician-prescribed opiates are not the problem:

I have studied multiple surveys and reviews of the data, which show that only a minority of people who are prescribed opioids for pain become addicted to them, and those who do become addicted and who die from painkiller overdoses tend to obtain these medications from sources other than their own physicians. 

The two studies linked above do not actually support her conclusions. There is no reason to trust any of the conclusions of the first study. It reviewed 17 studies with “extremely heterogeneous results”—not surprising given that “all the present data derived from studies with weak designs, e.g. uncontrolled case series and cross-sectional surveys. These studies suffer from low-quality reporting, with little information on the characteristics of patients, type of opioids administered and route of administration.” One wonders how many of the studies were funded by drug companies like Purdue. This review only used studies with patients with chronic pain in supervised settings, and did not address opioid prescription in the public at large, especially for non-chronic pain. Recall that the entire focus of Purdue’s propaganda was to prescribe Oxycontin for non-chronic pain in order to widen the use of the drug. The previous practice of prescribing opioids only for serious chronic pain was labeled cruel. Hospitals were pressured to administer opioids for fear that they would have lower rankings after Purdue provided data to regulatory agencies, resulting in a “dramatic increase” in prescriptions. Moreover, neither study cited by Satel addressed the issue of people who had been prescribed opioids going to the black market for drugs like heroin after treatment.

The second concluded, contrary to her assertions, notes that

The extended prescription of opioids (>8 weeks) for the treatment of chronic pain has questionable benefits for individual patients and presents substantial public health risks. The risks of overdose and addiction from this prescribing practice — both among patients with chronic pain and the public at large — increase with higher doses (>100 MME), longer duration of prescribing, and perhaps the use of long-acting opioids. Despite these facts, a Medicaid study showed that more than 50% of opioid prescriptions were for doses higher than 90 MME and for periods of more than 6 months. Better results can be obtained by using the most contemporary guidelines for pain management.

Contemporary guidelines are much more restrictive, really a return to previous practice before Purdue began its promotional campaign. Other studies are quite clear that “Misuse or abuse of prescription drugs, including opioid-analgesic pain relievers, is responsible for much of the recent increase in drug-poisoning deaths” (here).

The entire episode is an excellent example of how our new elite works. I concluded in my paper on the opioid disaster:

The opioid phenomenon reflects aspects of Jewish activism in general. These are top-down movements that are well-funded,  they have access to the most prestigious institutions of the society, and, because of this prestige, they are able to propagate fake science. In the case of the Jewish drive to enact the 1965 immigration law, pro-immigration committees were funded, fraudulent academic studies were created on the benefits of immigration, prominent people were recruited (like JFK, recruited to put his name on a book titled A Nation of Immigrants written by Myer Feldman and published by the ADL), positive articles about immigration appeared in the media, lobbyists and politicians were paid. The main fake scientists discussed in The Culture of Critique were the Boasians with their fake race science (utilized in the debates over the immigration law of 1965), psychoanalysis with its fake sex science, and the Frankfurt School with its fake theory that ethnocentric Whites have a psychiatric disorder resulting from poor parenting. Like the fake scientists who participated in promoting the opioid epidemic, these activists had access to prestigious academic institutions and, in the case of the Frankfurt School and other activist academic research in the 1950s and 1960s, their research was funded by the organized Jewish community, such as the American Jewish Committee, and promoted by Jewish academics.

Or consider the neoconservative infrastructure, with think tanks funded, prominent spokesmen at prestigious universities, and a very large media presence. Neocons can bet that if they are forced out of a job in the Departments of State or Defense that they will have many options to fall back on. Despite promoting disastrous policies, such as the war in Iraq, and despite their obvious ethnic loyalties to Israel, they are still a very powerful component of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Jews are an incredibly successful and influential group. We can’t win unless we understand that.

In my 2004 article I included AEI as part of the neoconservative infrastructure of our new elite. Now we know that the AEI—an exemplar of Conservatism Inc.—is deeply involved in the greatest public health crisis of our time. As many have noted, Conservatism Inc. has utterly failed to conserve anything of importance. The AEI, along with the mainstream Jewish community, favors the immigration tsunami which is displacing the traditional White majority of America.  For example, I notice that an AEI writer, James Pethokoukis, takes seriously Bryan Caplan’s proposal for open borders, giving Caplan softball questions and never raising the interests of White America. Could there be a greater indictment of Conservatism Inc.?

States’ attorneys general and many other jurisdictions are suing not only Purdue Pharma, but also individual Sackler family members. The outcome, however, remains in doubt. The most recent development (November 6) is that a federal judge, Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York, has extended protection from lawsuits against Purdue. An issue was whether Richard Sackler himself was liable. The answer, of course, is a resounding yes, although his attorney claims that “was not involved in the marketing of opioid OxyContin.”

Sackler was a key figure in the development of Oxycontin being the moving force behind Purdue Pharma’s research around 1990 that pushed Oxycontin to replace MS contin that was about to have generic competition. Sackler also worked to enlist Russell Portenoy and J. David Haddox into working within the medical community to push a new narrative claiming that opioids were not highly addictive. In pushing Oxycontin through to FDA approval in 1995 Sackler managed to get the FDA to approve a claim that Oxycontin was less addictive than other pain killers, although no studies on how addictive it was or how likely it was to be abused had been conducted as part of the approval process. The addictive nature of opiates had been known for thousands of years.

Sackler became president in 1999. In 2001 he issued an email to employees of the company urging them to push a narrative that addiction to Oxycontin was caused by the “criminal” addicts who had the addiction, and not caused by anything in the drug itself. Sackler also urged pharmaceutical representatives to urge doctors to prescribe as high doses as possible to increase the company profits.

He was made co-chairman in 2003. Sackler was in charge of the research department that developed OxyContin. As president, he approved the targeted marketing schemes to promote sales of OxyContin to doctors, pharmacists, nurses, academics, and others. Shelby Sherman, an ex-Purdue sales rep, has called these marketing schemes “graft”.

In 2008, Sackler, with the apparent knowledge of Mortimer Sackler and Jonathan Sackler, made Purdue Pharma measure its “performance” in proportion to not only the number but also the strength of the doses it sold, despite allegedly knowing that sustained high doses of OxyContin risked serious side effects, including addiction. (Wiki)

The judicial system is a central part of our corrupt new elite, so I’ll be very surprised if any of the Sackler family give up much of their ill-gotten gains—much less spend the rest of their lives in prison. Even life in prison, the best that could possibly be hoped for, is far too lenient for a family that is ultimately responsible for over 200,000 deaths.