Albion is a poetic name for Britain. I think it sounds better on the tongue and sits better in the mind. Why does it sit better? Because it’s related to the Latin word albus, meaning “white,” and refers to the White Cliffs of Dover. Albion therefore means the White Land. And you can read that in two senses: as referring both to the White Cliffs that guard Britain and to the White folk who built Britain.
Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)
So the name Albion is poetically perfect. It sonorously proclaims that Britain is either White or nothing. The corrupt and malevolent elite that currently rules Britain have opted for the latter. They want Britain to be nothing, which is why they have unleashed a flood of mud on Albion. Mud is brown or black, not white. Mud clogs and chokes, smothering life and wrecking machinery. That’s why “flood of mud” is a perfect metaphor for the Brown and Black folk who are pouring across Britain’s borders and abolishing Albion. If the flood isn’t stopped and reversed, Britain will become Mudzone, not Albion. And the same will apply across the West. America and France, Germany and Italy, will become crime-and-corruption-crippled Mudzones, not peaceful, prosperous and productive White nations.
Working for Mudzone
But why is this happening? Like Albion, all the other countries I’ve mentioned are supposed to be democracies governed by the will of the people. Decade after decade, the people have willed that Third-World immigration end and even be reversed. But the politicians who are supposed to enact the will of the people have ignored them and the flood of mud has not merely continued but massively increased. One of those politicians has openly boasted of his betrayal. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?”
His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”
“Above all people on earth”
By mainstream standards, Hattersley was a staunch democrat in the Labour Party. Yet he spent all his time in politics ignoring the will of the people and attacking the interests of the working-class. However, his behavior wasn’t as Orwellian as it might appear. Yes, the Labour Party is now really the Big-Business Party, but Hattersley is in fact a genuine democrat, someone who believes wholeheartedly in the kratia of the demos, the rule of the people. It’s just that the people in question aren’t the White natives of Britain. No, they’re the people described in this famous verse of the Bible:
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)
The Chosen People are of course the Jews. It is not a coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current Labour prime minister. In Greek, “chosen people” can be translated as ἐκλεκτός δῆμος, elektos dēmos. In the modern West, democracy is really eclectocracy, rule of the Chosen People. That’s why the so-called Conservative Party in Britain promised voters again and again to reduce migration, but raised migration to unprecedented heights. And so Rajeev Syal, the so-called “home affairs editor” of the Guardian, has just reported that “Net migration to the UK hit a record high in 2023 of 906,000 in a period covering Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s premierships, revised estimates show.”
Meet Grandfather Sholem
The part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the fully Indian Rishi Sunak were eclectocrats, not democrats. They enacted the will of the Chosen People, not the will of the people. And if you want to know the will of the Chosen People, just read a fascinating article in the Jewish Chronicle from January 2020. The title of the article was “Jewniversity: Sarah Fine” and the subheading ran like this: “Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity.” Can you guess Sarah Fine’s line on “national identity”? Of course you can. She wants to destroy the national identity of Britain and turn Albion into a Mudzone. As you read David Edmonds’ summary of her ideas, remember that the Talmudic re-definition and inversion are meant strictly for Britain and other White nations. They emphatically do not apply to Jewish Israel:
I usually ask the subjects of this column — “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response. But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved [to this] country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely? Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (“Jewniversity: Sarah Fine,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd January 2020)
The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)
Ah yes, that famous xenophilia from the Jewish Bible or Torah, which Jews so often trot out to explain their enthusiasm for open borders. But this enthusiasm is strangely selective. As I described in “Trashing the Torah,” it doesn’t exist in Israel, which rigorously excludes “the stranger” with high-tech fences. And Israel is currently oppressing millions of “strangers” in Gaza with high explosive and high-velocity bullets. Consider some hypothetical goyim who want to move to Israel. Is protecting the Israeli way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Iqbal’s and grandfather Mbongo’s desire to move there?
Israel showing compassion for the stranger: bomb-devastation in Gaza City, 2023 (image from Wikipedia)
Of course it does! The non-White migration that’s mandatory for Britain is forbidden in Israel. But that apparent double standard is really a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Sarah Fine is “culturally Jewish” but retains the arrogance and ethnocentrism of the religiously Jewish idea that Jews are the Chosen People, “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” The Jew David Edmonds obviously shares her arrogance and ethnocentrism. In summarizing Fine’s work, he talks about “democracy” and the right of the demos in Britain to control migration.
He then asks us to consider a hypothetical Jew in Eastern Europe: “[I]s it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.” Well, yes, by any sane and natural standard, it is obvious that “the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored.” As his very name proclaims, he isn’t British. He’s a foreigner, born and bred in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language and following a foreign religion and culture. The voice of “grandfather Sholem” has absolutely no right to be heard in Britain. Not by any sane and natural standard. Sholem’s interests are not the same as a native Brit, as is obvious from reading Fine and Edmonds.
Jews judge, goyim grovel
But the Jews Sarah Fine and David Edmonds aren’t applying sane and natural standards. They don’t merely want the voice of grandfather Sholem to be “heard” in Britain. They want it to prevail over the voices of the White British. As Edmonds asks: “[I]s protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?” His answer for Britain is no, it doesn’t: if grandfather Sholem wants to move here, he must be allowed to do so. In other words, the White British have no right to exclude anyone from anywhere on earth from entering Britain.
All that matters is a stranger’s “desire to move here.” Whether it’s grandfather Sholem or grandfather Iqbal or grandfather Mbongo, the White British have no right to keep anyone out. That’s what Jews think. And because Jews control politics in Britain, that’s why Albion is being flooded with mud. The current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew. His party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. The current Conservative leader is Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian who performed the goy-grovel at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity. Like Starmer’s Labour, her party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. In the modern West, democracy means eclectocracy, rule by the Chosen People.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2024-12-02 06:33:412024-12-03 02:11:39Abolishing Albion: How True Democracy Mandates a Flood of Mud for Britain
Dugin explores the importance of Trump’s re-election as signaling a turning point in Western history.
The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. …
Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.
Liberalism did indeed win the battle with a particular example of nationalism in 1945—an explicitly stated racial nationalism. But racial nationalism lives on in many countries, at least implicitly, and often with an ideology that the territory belongs to a particular people. Hungary’s Viktor Orban:
A recent speech outside Parliament epitomised his approach. On March 15th [2018]—a national holiday commemorating the failed 1848 uprising against the Habsburgs who ruled Hungary for centuries—Mr Orban … issued a rousing battle-cry to defend the Magyar homeland from waves of migrants; militant Islam; plans in Brussels for enforced migrant quotas; and a United States of Europe. In today’s Europe, thundered Mr Orban, “it is forbidden to speak the truth”: that immigration brings crime and terrorism and “endangers our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions”.
Indeed, I would argue that racial nationalism, at least implicit racial nationalism, is the rule around the world except for the West, with its individualist tradition and beset as it is with a substantially Jewish elite that is hostile to the people and culture they rule.
[In his Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s ImmigrationCrisis, Otis] Graham notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community was thus unique and differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins’ provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws; such a view entailed changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. (Quoted here, p. 37)
Nevertheless, I think Dugin is right: the non-Western peoples and cultures that are invading the West are ultimately incompatible with the West, as we are seeing throughout the West as the attempt to integrate different races and religions into Western countries is widely acknowledged to be a complete failure, leading to the rise of “far right” parties, political hyperpolarization, increased crime, no-go zones, and increasing hatred toward and marginalization of the founding White populations. I propose that the “deep civilizational identities” referred to by Dugin ultimately come down to different evolutionary trajectories. The idea that one ideology will ultimately fit all of humanity — much beloved by globalists — is a non-starter to an evolutionist. For example, Muslim peoples and cultures from the Middle East will never assimilate into Western societies in any meaningful sense any more than Jews as a group have assimilated to the West over the last two millennia (as indicated, among other things, by the simple fact that the United States and really the rest of the West are now client states of Israel as a result of Jewish activism on behalf of Israel). Instead, while maintaining their own brand of genocidal, ethnic cleansing ethnonationalism in Israel, Jews have assumed an adversarial stance toward the West and its traditional Christian culture, as indicated by their outsize role in promoting multiculturalism and non-European, non-Christian immigration to the West. Some Jews, Muslims and Africans can indeed assimilate to the West and truly identify with its founding people and its traditional culture and values, but that is simply not the case for the great majority. And, taking the example of Jews,
These civilizational fissures are deep and unbridgeable; ultimately they are based on very different genetic substrates. Despite the current elite hostility to the idea that genetics has anything to do with the proclivities and talents of different peoples, the West is finally waking up to that reality.
The idea that Trump with his considerably multiethnic coalition — which is absolutely necessary in the American political context where the traditional White majority is too splintered to win a national electoral majority — could be a pivotal figure in this transformation is problematic but not completely without any basis. He has often expressed the right ideas (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”) and some of his top officials are certainly willing to move things in the right direction (mass deportation would be a great start). But we are a very long way from a Reconquista.
The collapse of the liberal-globalist ideal seems inevitable. And when it happens, a racially and culturally divided and hyperpolarized West will look out at other more genetically homogeneous civilizations and find that are more unified and free of strife. The West would then realize that multiethnic multiculturalism — the ideology promoted by our hostile, Jewish-dominated elite since the 1960s — must be replaced. Then things will get truly interesting. As noted previously, it is conceivable that a non-Jewish elite is forming around Trump. The money is there. The only question is whether enough wealthy, politically based non-Jews will get on board.
The very possibility of applying the term “moment” to the era of the global triumph of capitalism, even from within the Western intellectual sphere (as Krauthammer did), opens up a unique perspective that has yet to be fully explored and understood. Could the current, evident collapse of Western leadership and the inability of the West to serve as a universal arbiter of legitimate authority also carry an ideological dimension? Could the end of unipolarity and Western hegemony signal the end of liberalism itself?
This idea is supported by a critical political event: the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for two terms. Trump’s presidency represented a striking repudiation of globalism and liberalism, reflecting the emergence of a critical mass of dissatisfaction with the ideological and geopolitical direction of the liberal elites, even at the heart of unipolarity. Moreover, Trump’s chosen Vice President for his second term, JD Vance, openly identifies as a proponent of “post-liberal conservatism.” During Trump’s campaigns, liberalism was consistently invoked as a negative term, specifically targeting the “left-wing liberalism” of the Democratic Party. However, among broader circles of Trump supporters, liberalism became a byword for degeneration, decay, and the moral corruption of the ruling elite.
For the second time in recent history, a political figure overtly critical of liberalism triumphed in the very citadel of liberal ideology, the United States. Among Trump’s supporters, liberalism has come to be demonized outright, reflecting its association with moral and political decline. Thus, it is increasingly plausible to speak of the end of the “liberal moment.” Liberalism, once thought to be the ultimate victor in historical progression, now appears as merely one stage in the broader course of history, a phase with a beginning and an end, constrained by its geographic and historical context.
The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. Along with it, the “unipolar moment” described by Krauthammer and the broader cycle of singular Western colonial domination over the globe, which began with the age of great geographical discoveries, has also ended.
The Post-Liberal Era
Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.
Humanity is overcoming liberalism not through a socialist, materialist, or technological phase but by reviving cultural and civilizational layers that Western modernity deemed obsolete and eradicated. This return to the pre-modern, rather than a continuation of the postmodern trajectory rooted in Western modernity, defines the essence of post-liberalism. Contrary to the expectations of left-wing progressive thought, post-liberalism is emerging as a rejection of the universal claims of the Western modern order. Instead, it views the modern era as a temporary phenomenon, an episode driven by one specific culture’s reliance on brute force and aggressive technological exploitation.
The post-liberal world envisions not a continuation of Western hegemony but a return to civilizational diversity, akin to the era before the West’s sharp rise. Liberalism, as the last form of Western global imperialism, absorbed all the key principles of European modernity and pushed them to their logical extremes: gender politics, woke culture, cancel culture, critical race theory, transhumanism, and postmodernist frameworks. The end of the liberal moment marks not only the collapse of liberalism but also the conclusion of the West’s singular dominance in world history. It is the end of the West.
The Liberal Moment in Hegel
The concept of the “end of history” has surfaced repeatedly in this discussion. It is now necessary to revisit the theory itself. The term originated with Hegel, and its meaning is rooted in Hegel’s philosophy. Both Marx and Fukuyama adopted this concept (via the Russo-French Hegelian Alexander Kojève), but they stripped it of its theological and metaphysical foundations.
In Hegel’s model, the end of history is inseparable from its beginning. At history’s start lies God, hidden within Himself. Through self-negation, God transitions into Nature. In Nature, God’s presence is latent but active, and this latent presence drives the emergence of history. History, in turn, represents the unfolding of the Spirit. Societies of different types emerge over time: traditional monarchies, democracies, and civil societies. Finally, history culminates in the great Empire of Spirit, where God becomes most fully manifest in the State — not just any state, but a philosophical state guided by Spirit.
In this framework, liberalism is but a moment. It follows the dissolution of older states and precedes the establishment of a new, true state that marks the culmination of history. Both Marxists and liberals, rejecting Hegel’s theological basis, reduced his theory to materialist terms. They began with Nature, disregarding Hegel’s conception of God, and ended with civil society — liberalism — as the culmination of history. For liberals like Fukuyama, history ends when all of humanity becomes a global civil society. Marxists, meanwhile, envisioned history ending with a classless communist society, although it remained within the framework of civil society.
By restoring Hegel’s full philosophical model, it becomes evident that liberalism is only a transitional phase — what Hegel would term a “moment.” Its conclusion paves the way for the ultimate realization of Spirit, which Hegel envisioned as an Empire of Spirit.
Postmodernism and Monarchy
In this context, the idea of monarchy acquires renewed significance — not as a relic of the past but as a potential model for the future. The global era of liberal democracy and republicanism has exhausted itself. Efforts to establish a global republic have failed. By January 2025, this failure will be definitively acknowledged.
What comes next? The parameters of the post-liberal epoch remain undefined. Yet the recognition that all of European modernity — its science, culture, politics, technology, society, and values — was merely an episode, culminating in a dismal and inglorious conclusion, suggests that the post-liberal future will be radically unexpected.
Hegel offers a clue: the post-liberal era will be an era of monarchies. Contemporary Russia, while still formally a liberal democracy, already exhibits the characteristics of a monarchy: a popular leader, the permanence of supreme authority, and an emphasis on spiritual values, identity, and tradition. These are the foundations for a monarchical transition — not in form, but in essence.
Other civilizations are moving in a similar direction. India under Narendra Modi increasingly reflects the archetype of a sacred monarch, a chakravartin, akin to the tenth avatar Kalkin, who ushers in the end of a dark age. China under Xi Jinping demonstrates the traits of a Confucian Empire, with Xi embodying the archetype of the Yellow Emperor. Even the Islamic world may find integration through a modernized Caliphate.
In this post-liberal world, even the United States could see a monarchical turn. Influential thinkers like Curtis Yarvin have long advocated monarchy in America. Figures like Donald Trump, with his dynastic connections, might symbolize this shift.
An Open Future
The term “liberal moment” holds revolutionary implications for political thought. What was once considered an inevitable destiny is revealed as merely a fleeting pattern in history’s broader tapestry. This realization opens the door to boundless political imagination. The post-liberal world is one of infinite possibility — where past, future, and even forgotten traditions may be rediscovered or reimagined.
Thus, the deterministic dictates of history are overturned, heralding an era of plural timeframes. Beyond the liberal moment lies a new freedom, with diverse civilizations charting their paths toward the unknown horizons of a post-liberal future.
(Translated from the Russian)
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2024-11-30 09:06:062024-11-30 17:03:14Comments on Alexandr Dugin’s “The Liberal Moment”
This comment originally appeared on Unz Review. I can’t say that I entirely agree with it — I tend to be more hopeful that something positive can be worked out, that a new, non-Jewish, politically based elite can arise, but it certainly deserves wider circulation. [I added the link to Horus’s article on The Focus, the group organized by Jews that lobbied for war with the Germans in prior to World War II.]
What “ails” America is Jews. Not “right-wing” Jews or “left-wing” Jews. Not Republican Jews or Democrat Jews. Not “globalist” Jews or “nationalist” Jews. Not Zionist Jews or Communist Jews. Not religious Jews or atheist Jews. Not George Soros/MSNBC/NYTimes/big-media-monopolizing Jews nor Gad Saad/David Sacks Jews. Just Jews. Jews are the problem. Jews are what ail us.
And it’s been this way in literally every nation they’ve ever resided in — in every time and place in history. Their own bad behavior has served as the root cause of their expulsion from some 109 countries some 1030(+) times, but Jews (with zero sense irony or self-awareness) tell us that this is because everyone else is bigoted and hateful and jealous of their superior intellect, morality and status as G-d’s Chosen.
(Unfortunately, the gentiles buy this argument with apparently little thought or reflection. Why? Because the Jews control the media and therefore their minds? Yes … but also because questioning the Jews’ self-serving narratives will destroy your career. Thus many choose to stay quiet — or just not ponder such thoughtcrimes: I.e., their crimestop instinct kicks in. “Who are you going to believe, Goy? What we Jews tell you about your wicked ancestors or what your wicked ancestors tell you about us Jews?”)
There’s a phenomenon — a classic blunder — where some people (such as, apparently, Elon Musk) mistakenly believe that there are “good Jews” and “bad Jews” and that by allying oneself with the “good Jews” (the Zionist/”right-wing” Jews to whom Elon ingratiates himself) one can defeat the bad Jews (like Soros) and thereby save the West. History and experience, however, show that this doesn’t work.[1]
You cannot “wield” Jews. Jews wield you. Jews are like the One Ring in Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings. It’s tempting to think that you can “ally” with them and use them for your own purposes, but you really can’t — not, at least, for long and certainly not against themselves. (The One Ring itself is an apt metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and bribery.[2])
In the books, the One Ring is ultimately one with Sauron. You cannot wield it against him. And so too are “right-wing” Jews one in spirit and will with “left-wing” Jews (Soros/Sauron). They’re all one Jewish collective — though they will often pretend otherwise: “We’re not some hivemind goy! As we Jews like to say: Two Jews, three opinions on how best to fleece the Goyim! — Wait. Hehe. I meant, just, ‘three opinions.’ Not that ‘fleece the Goyim’ part. Hehe. Oops.”
Allying with Jews to further authentic right-wing, nativist nationalist ends has been tried and it’s always failed. Churchill tried it. Rupert Murdoch tried it. Trump’s tried it. It doesn’t work. Trying to separate Jewish factions and play one against the other (the “right” against the “left” or the “left” against the “right”) doesn’t work. It’s a classic trap, akin to … invading Russia.
Give the “right-wing Zionist” Jews everything in the world that they want — more money for Israel, the West Bank, more endless wars (against Germany or Iraq or Assad or Gaddafi), total support at the UN., total fealty at their wailing wall, etc. — it will never be enough. And they will never reciprocate
Jews always endeavor to control both sides. This is why explicitly anti-Jewish movements are the only kind that have shown any success against them and their agendas. It’s why movements which don’t see Jews as Jews, but as supposedly belonging to the separate camps or categories which they invent or infiltrate and pretend to belong to (and to which their allegiances are secondary or tactical anyways) always fail. Jews are Jews regardless of what they call themselves or dress up as. Every movement which buys into their wolf-in-sheepskin lies ends up inevitably being subverted by and destroyed by them.
Of course, being explicitly anti-Jewish isn’t sufficient and it doesn’t guarantee success. After all, Hitler didn’t ultimately prevail despite his initial successes due to the Jews arraying a coalition of useful idiots (the “Allies) against him — but it’s the only approach that has ever worked (109 expulsions).
If you try to wield “right-wing” Jews against “left-wing” Jews, or, conversely, “left-wing” Jews against “right-wing” Jews, you will find that you get very little utility out of your Jewish “allies” whereas they get tremendous utility out of you.
They spy on you — as does the One Ring. They influence you — as does the One Ring. They promise you powers and riches which they will never ultimately grant — as does the One Ring. And, in the end, whatever power or riches you may acquire you still end up a slave to them — a ringwraith — as did the kings of Middle Earth.
What did Britain’s — or Churchill’s — alliance with Jews in WWII (see: The Focus) do for Britain? Sure, they defeated Germany — in a largely unnecessary war which the British establishment (under Jewish influence) themselves provoked — and then what? What happened post-War? What happened to the British Empire? What’s happened to their country since? Did the Jews show their gratitude by helping ensure that Britain retained strong borders and the demographic integrity of its isles (as the Jews jealously guard Israel’s demographic integrity)? Or have the Jews worked, at every turn, to undermine the ethnic integrity and demographic continuity of Britain? Or, have the Jews worked to undermine the sense of ethnic pride of the British people? Much of Britain is unrecognizable today. London is minority White British. By virtually every conceivable metric Britain would be vastly better off if the Germans had won, even if (as the fever dream hysterics claim) “we’d all be speaking German today.” So? At least Britain would still be White and British. What would Churchill think if he could see Britain today? What would the men who stormed Normandy beach think? Unfortunately, Churchill, in the end, let himself become a ringwraith for ZOG.
(To illustrate Churchill’s thinking, he, in 1920, wrote an article called Zionism versus Bolshevism,[3] where he argued that there were two groups of Jews. The “good” Zionist Jews and the “bad” Bolshevik Jews. Churchill then goes on to argue that “good” Zionist Jews should enter into an alliance with the British against the “bad” Bolsheviks. Well … how’d that all work out in retrospect? The Zionists got basically everything they ever wanted (and so did the Bolsheviks for a time) and where are the British today?)
What did Roosevelt’s alliance with the Jews (through his heavily Jewish cabinet) do for his nation — America? What does it look like today? Demographically, it shares the fate of Britain and it looks like, increasingly, its empire is going the same way, and in large part due to interminable Middle East wars which serve just one interest: Israel. In Roosevelt, again, we find a ringwraith: a man who sold out his soul (and his nation) for power … or perhaps a Denethor-like character who was under the control of Wormtongue Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White.
What of Rupert Murdoch and his business empire? Steve Sailer has related a story wherein an acquaintance of his mentioned Murdoch saying privately that in order to do business in America (paraphrasing) “one needn’t befriend all the Jews, but one must befriend at least one of two factions of Jews.” Meaning, essentially, one must either submit to the Zionist “right-wing” faction or the anti-white/anti-American “left-wing” faction (which controls most of the balance of traditional that Murdoch doesn’t). Clearly, Rupert chose to ally with the “right-wing” Zionist faction. And what has that done for the American right? In what way has the “right” in the U.S. actually been served by Fox? All it does is lose on every domestic social issue year after year. It’s in constant retreat.
Thanks to Fox News, all of the healthy, natural, nativist, ethnocentric and patriotic energy of an authentic right-wing which might actually serve core white Christian America is being parasitically channeled away from protecting its own borders and demographic majority to protecting Israel’s borders and … not just their demographic majority … but their project of erecting a supremacist expansionist land-hungry apartheid state.
White Christian America has gotten nothing from Fox News — or any “right-wing” media, be it Breitbart or The Daily Wire, etc. (all of which are just Zionist fronts), but Israel, on the other hand, has gotten everything it could ever dream of.
Murdoch has become another ringwraith. A king reduced to a ghostly Zionist pawn.
What of Donald Trump? Did he actually close the border and build the wall in his first term as he promised in every campaign rally he’d do for eighteen months straight? No. Did he deport illegals in appreciable numbers? No. Actually, he carried out very little in his populist agenda to serve the interests of the core demographic which voted for him. Instead he basically carried out Jared Kushner’s agenda which served primarily to benefit Israel — oh, and he pardoned a bunch of Jewish fraudsters and black felons.
Trump was, and probably still is, just another ringwraith pawn of the Jews.
Now what about Elon? Is he another ringwraith? Destined to become one? Judging by virtually everything he’s written (and retweeted) on X since he had his little oopsie last year and told the truth about the malign influence of Jews on Whites, and then had to be led around Auschwitz like a dog and go kiss Bibi’s ring, Elon now shows all the signs of someone who’s turning into yet another ringwraith. Elon also presumably believes (falsely) that by “allying” (or bowing) to one group of Jews (“right-wing” Zionist Jews) he can fight against and defeat the other group of Jews who are destroying the West. He’s wrong. At least that’s what all precedent says. You can’t wield “right-wing” Jews any more than you can wield the One Ring. It wields you, and it will turn you into its slave just as it has done to so many others. The only solution is to destroy the Ring — to destroy Jewish power. That’s how you save the West.
I still hold out hope that Elon will change his mind on this or that he, in some sense, secretly already knows or understands what I’ve written here and what a problem Jews are and that, perhaps, he’s just playing the long-game — perhaps hoping to “out-Jew the Jew” or something, but even that being the case, there are only so many time one can put the Ring on before it fundamentally compromises and corrupts you and you end up just another slave to ZOG.
[1] One also sees this with the “anti-Zionist Jews” like Finkelstein and Blumenthal. Their true function — whether conscious or unconscious — is to subordinate and lead the “anti-Zionist” movement thereby neutering it. See, for example, how in Finkelstein’s case, he attacks Zionism’s most effective critics, like John Mearsheimer, as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who propounds Protocols-like conspiracy theories of Jewish subversion of the American political system through the “Israel Lobby.”
(There’s various names for when Jews employ false dialectics where they seem, superficially, to oppose each other, but they’re actually furtively on the same side: E.g., The Kosher Sandwich, or the Esau Gambit, etc.)
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Anonymoushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngAnonymous2024-11-30 07:34:262024-11-30 08:45:56Comment from Unz Review on Jewish Power
Much of right-wing thought (e.g. politics, literature, arguments, etc.) is rooted in pessimism. To be more precise, most of modern right-wing thought can be philosophically diagnosed as slave morality. In other words, it’s a reactionary rebellion to the status quo with the acknowledgment that the position is powerless. As the Left has successfully demonstrated, slave morality (within the dynamics of Western Civilization, where the moral high ground swings the pendulum of power) can be revolutionary if its adherents are of the revolutionary personality type (right-wingers typically aren’t). Due to the success the Left has had subverting power via victimhood (i.e., slave morality), the Right has essentially morphed into late-90s liberalism (e.g. “democrats are the real racists who invented the KKK,” “anyone can come in as long as they do it legally,” “happy holidays,” “undocumented migrants,” “diversity is our strength”) as a way of trying to stay politically competitive.
The defining component of slave morality (which I like to call the “hate-me blame game”) is ressentiment, or hostility directed at those deemed oppressive and therefore the source of their frustration. The intent here isn’t to critique the power structure in order to justify who can harness the power of slave morality, rather the intent is to incite self-reflection and pose the following question: Are you a master or a slave?
The antithesis of slave morality is obviously master morality. The essence of master morality is nobility. Common behavioral traits for those who exhibit master morality are strong will, courage, trustworthiness, high self-esteem, physical and mental health, masculinity, and unconcerned to receive validation for their feelings. They lead by example, and set their own rules. Ultimately, they are the arbitrators of morality and have an innate understanding of right and wrong.
Contrarily, the essence of slave morality is utility. The common traits of people afflicted with slave morality are pessimism, cynicism, physical and mental ill health, femininity, deceptiveness, fearfulness, low self-esteem; perhaps most importantly, they seek validation for their feelings above all else. Their morality is based on their feelings, and they view most things as a malleable social construct. They are followers who have no desires to become masters, but instead want everyone to become a slave.
A simple societal observation reveals the power of slave morality when implemented effectively. The emphasis is placed on “implemented,” as slave morality is an irrelevant mindset in and of itself. However, this mindset becomes relevant once it comes under the perview of social engineers with an agenda. Nonetheless, the path to power has become who can claim to be the biggest slave (victim). Consequently, the Right have become slaves to slave morality.
The refutation to the master/slave morality dichotomy is to reclaim one’s individual will. Liberation of the will isn’t a choice between the binary options of bad or worse; it’s emotional indifference and rejection of anything that isn’t representative of your values. Don’t compromise your integrity. Instead, focus all of your energy on you (and your loved ones) and on being the best version of yourself that you can be. Let the slaves grovel for the title of most oppressed while you influence others by radiating good moral character. And how do you do that?
Be positive: The first thing one must do is to stop being pessimistic and approach life from a positive perspective in all things you do. Leave the whining to the slaves. Become a master of your emotions and thoughts. Wake up every day grateful that you’re alive. Every morning ask yourself how you can be a better person, and enact it. Do a daily good deed. Create a life you can’t wait to wake up to. Never take life for granted, or underestimate how short it is (on the topic of time, the cosmic calendar – the chronological scaling of 13.8 billion years of the universe to a single year – puts modern history at December 31, 11:59:59.
Establish good habits: habits are the driving force behind many of our daily actions. In fact, 40% of what we do is habit. Understanding the rule of habits (cue, routine, reward) and its ability to shape our behavior can have a dramatic impact on our self-improvement. One of the favorable things about the digital age is the amount of information we have at our disposal. There is a plethora of information on the study of habit modification. One of the better books I’ve read recently is a book titled, The Power of Habit. If you’re looking for a book that can be influential in the improvement of your routine, I highly recommend it.
Reject modernity: When liars control the information systems, you’re going to be lied to. Western societies have devolved into a low-trust cesspool of misinformation. Nothing exacerbated this phenomenon more than the Covid pandemic. There is no reason to expose yourself to lies and manipulation. The information systems aren’t just deceptive, they’re explicitly anti-White (they don’t even try to hide it anymore). Why would any White person get their information from a source that hates them? Turn the TV off.
Embrace struggle: One of the main reasons we find ourselves in the situation we are in is the desire for struggle. Throughout all of humanity, the struggle to overcome and survive has been what has defined us. Although we have overcome the struggle to survive, we have not overcome the desire to struggle. We are victims of our own success. White supremacy gave us Western Civilization, which in turn begot the epidemic of problems-of-luxury that have temporarily solved the existential crisis for the slave. Make no mistake about it, slave morality is a byproduct of White supremacy. The “onward and upward” innovative drive of the White consciousness is the conundrum that creates the very chaos it seeks to conquer. Such is the ebb and flow of struggle.
There are several ways in which we can embrace struggle on an individual level that doesn’t result in collective White saviorism (e.g. curing world hunger, climate change, open borders for White nations, etc.). In other words, create your own struggle by making yourself uncomfortable on a daily basis, as opposed to trying to save the planet. This alone will stimulate personal growth. Some of these things are:
Digital minimalism – minimize or eliminate screen time. Studies have shown that our brains are just not evolved to handle the amount of information we overload it with. The average person spends 5 hours per day staring at a screen. That’s almost half the time you are awake. Not too mention, there are a ton of negative side effects that come with excessive screen time. Long term this might not seem like struggle, but initially digital withdrawal will be tough.
Cold showers – take a cold shower every morning. This is something I can’t recommend enough. To force yourself to take a cold shower first thing in the morning not only has a lot of health benefits, but it provides a sense of accomplishment to start the day. It’s make your bed everyday with an exhilarating endorphin rush and spike of testosterone.
Nature resets – implement the 20-5-3 rule for spending time in nature. Nothing gets us closer to our primitive state like spending time in nature. And considering the average American spends 97% of their time inside, this is a no-brainer. The 20-5-3 rule was formulated by Dr Hopman when he studied the neurological changes after people spent multiple days in nature. The 20 is for 20 minutes of green space 3 times per week. This has shown to lower cortisol levels, boost cognition and improve mental health. To ramp up those benefits, you should spend 5 hours in semi-wild nature once a month. And perhaps most importantly, the 3 is the actual nature reset, where one spends 3 days isolated in nature at least once a year. On day 3, studies have shown that brainwaves mimic that of a meditative state and creativity is boosted by as much as 50%.
Fasting – Until recently, if one word were to be used to describe the human condition, hunger could very well be that word. Nowadays, only about 30% of the time we eat is because of hunger, the rest is from routine, boredom or gluttony. Fasting puts us in touch with the struggles hardwired in our genetic memory. There are several health benefits of fasting, including autophagy (your body recycling damaged cells as food) and the generation of new stem cells. A simple way to incorporate fasting into your daily routine is via intermittent fasting (12-16 hours without food). This would be my recommended method, as 8 of those hours can be spent sleeping. Plus, once the body enters into a state of ketosis (24-48 hours) it can suck pretty bad. Furthermore, starvation isn’t fun. Just putting yourself into a situation in which you are voluntarily struggling with hunger is a sign of mastering self-discipline. It should be noted, that while starvation is most certainly in your DNA, obesity is not. If you’re overweight, you’re not a master, you’re a slave. Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
Misogi – a misogi is the concept of doing something so hard one day out of the year that the other 364 days seem easy. It can help overcome fear and redefine what’s possible. While anything can technically be a misogi, it should be something that you only have a 50/50 chance of accomplishing. There are only 2 rules for misogi: 1) it has to be really, really hard, 2) you can’t die. Even if you don’t do a misogi, you should always challenge yourself in some way. Always have goals. Eliminate the word “can’t” from your vocabulary. Nothing rewarding in life is going to come easy.
Avoid escapism – stop numbing your way through life. Whether it’s alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling, food or whatever else it is that helps you escape the monotony of life, stop! Force yourself to face the rigors of life head on. Grab life by the proverbial horns and make it your bitch. For many, this alone might be the hardest struggle of all; just living life.
The idea here is to be positive. To present a positive message that can resonate with those who don’t need to be reminded for the thousandth time how bad it is for White people. It’s easy to obsess and become cynical over things that are not in our control. The important thing is to focus on what you do have control over. And what do you have control over? Your actions and behaviors. Keep in mind, you can do anything you want to do. If you don’t like what you’re doing, do something else. If you don’t like your life, change it. Don’t like your neighbors, move. Adopt the mindset that there’s no such thing as problems (or excuses), there’s only solutions.
As White people, our elites have failed us. But so what? You can still wake up everyday and be the best person you can possibly be. That includes having self-respect, dignity, honor, gratitude, humility, impulse control, kindness and accountability. It’s easy to be a slave; anyone can do that. But only the noble can be a master.
Are you a master or a slave?
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Hewitt E. Moorehttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngHewitt E. Moore2024-11-29 00:19:272024-12-01 12:41:34Are You a Master or a Slave?
On June 1, 1381, thousands of English rural laborers descended on the capital of London, the first martial event in what would come to be known as the Peasants Revolt. Over 650 years later, a somewhat less bloody rebellion showed itself in the same city, these latter-day peasants facing similar fiscal provocation to their 14th-century forerunners. Tens of thousands of small farmers descended on London to protest the latest in a series of government policies seemingly designed to destroy the farming industry in Britain, at least in its current form.
The rally was at Westminster, home of government, mother of all parliaments. It was snowing, which would have depleted attendance had this been a pro-Palestine march, but these people are farmers. Being outside in bad weather is what they do. Their plight has attracted a well-known celebrity to their cause — a modern sine qua non for the protesting classes — in Jeremy Clarkson, for many years the presenter of a hugely popular TV motoring show, Top Gear. Clarkson himself bought a farm, and although he acknowledges his relative financial independence compared with the average farmer, he is popular, articulate and conservative. There is a very English rebellion afoot.
As with the Peasants Revolt, the farmers are rebelling over taxation. But whereas Richard II was trying to raise money to fight France, Sir Keir Starmer wishes to wage war on his own people, the people he was elected to serve less than five months ago (albeit it with only 20% of the electorate voting for his party). The PM’s method of raising the royal revenue is much the same as Richard’s but, not having any serfs to subjugate, he is sending his tax-gatherers after the small farmer. Well, at least he will avoid the Hitler comparisons that bedevil President-elect Donald Trump. Even Hitler looked after the small farmer.
In its recent budget, the government announced that a 20 percent inheritance tax would be levied on all UK farm property worth over £1m, as of April 1, 2026. Those incurring the tax would have a decade to pay it off. Now, a million is chump change in most sectors of the UK property market, but in terms of farm land it will hit two-thirds of the total of the roughly 209,000 British farms, and it won’t be the quaint old farmhouse that pushes up the value of the property. The average UK farm is worth a little over £2m, and farm land is a treasure trove to property developers, who are financially equipped to market aggressively. Farms which have been in families for generations will now be left financially underwater, and therefore easy and rich pickings for hawkish developers.
A case can be made that farming hasn’t changed essentially since British land workers operated under the feudal system at the time of the Peasants Revolt. But while the methods of this primary, extractive industry have remained largely unchanged, the land farmed has not. “Buy land”, suggested Mark Twain. “They’ve stopped making it”. Indeed, but they haven’t stopped ascribing value to it, value which may and does change over time. To a farmer, a hundred acres is his equivalent of the fixed plant of a factory. He grows crops on the land and he sells what the cattle don’t eat. That’s farming, it’s what the land is for. But for the property consortiums even now roaming the length and breadth of the land, assessing and auditing and circling round farmsteads like vultures, a hundred acres is a big block of flats and a supermarket.
Farm land in the UK has proved a good, stable investment in the past 20 years. In 2004, it was worth £3,000 per acre, rising to £7,000 in 2014 to £9-10,000 today. But that is its value as farm land. Business consortiums will have long been planning a land-grab of British farms, with the full backing of government, and they will be in a financial position to operate outside market parameters and make a lot of farmers an offer they can’t refuse. This is a government-assisted buyers’ market for the new land barons as they buy out what remains of the old ones.
In fact, this whole legislative instrument is designed to impact farmers’ finances negatively. Supposing 10% of small farmers decide to sell up in the wake of the new tax, a scenario quite possible and even probable. Not only does the value of farm land drop concomitantly in a saturated market, but even the price of plant and other chattel assets would drop, as one in ten small British farmers all try to sell their tractors at once. A tractor costs around a quarter of a million pounds, a combine-harvester half a million. This is not selling off the office furniture in a fire sale.
It should not be suggested, however, that the current British government has no money available to invest in farming, or that it is failing to invest that money. Why, it has just signed off £536m as an aid package to help farmers grow food for consumption in the UK. It’s just that the farms happen to be in Africa, Asia, and South America, including recipients in Brazil, the world’s eleventh richest country. Some of the money is said to be going towards “carbon capture” farming, so the dispossessed, last generation of farmers in the UK have got that going for them.
The satirical image the British have of farmers is rooted in a past of class war, when the landed gentry had money. But the upper-middle class, gentleman farmer, in his new Range Rover and expensive Barbour jacket, doesn’t really exist outside of situation comedy. Farming is as tough and visceral as it ever was, and as for wealth creation, that is not what farming seems to most UK farmers. It is estimated that small farms make 1–2% of their value annually as profit, and the average farmer earns a shade under £40,000, around £5,000 more than the national average. Given the variables factored into farming, that is not much of a slush fund should one become necessary. Nor is it much of a financial reward, despite the vestigial, reflex class response of the metropolitan Leftist elite who run contemporary British politics and its provisional wing in the media.
The Left are acting as contrarily as ever over the farmers’ plight. Where once the media and the Party would have got behind the working man as a default position, the temperament of the Labour Left has changed in recent decades, led as this revolution was by the Blair government. Farmers now are subsumed under the category “white working class”, and so despised on two fronts by Labour. They are also an easy target as they represent White industrial secession. You just don’t get Black or Muslim farmers, so there is no problem with the ethnics as far as Labour and their acolytes are concerned. If there were Black or Muslim tillers of the soil in significant numbers, farming would be the best protected, most lavishly funded industry in Great Britain.
This synchronizes, as ever, with the response of the media complex. Ex-Labour spin-doctor John McTernan, a man who made a living under Tony Blair altering and manipulating facts and figures to make them fit for consumption by the public, gives a flavor of the metropolitan attitude to the plight of the farmers. He suggested Starmer do to the farmers what Thatcher did to the miners (Starmer disowned him, but that means nothing). That is, in the popular mind, decimate the industry and force men out of the pit, perhaps getting your enforcers to rough them up a bit while you’re there. He suggests that farming is an industry we can do without, but that’s not what he means. He means it’s an industry in the wrong hands.
Whose hands would be the right ones, for our globalist overlords? Veteran maverick politician George Galloway was one of many emphatically not on the political Right to suggest that the UK is due to be sold off to BlackRock, Bill Gates, and other financial super-predators. Gates has bought up a lot of American land, and allegedly has land here in Costa Rica. As Kissinger said, control the food, control the people. And if Britain really is on the market, then the British Left thoroughly approve.
Veteran Left-wing journalist Will Hutton, writing inevitably in The Guardian, does not see farmers as the stewards of the countryside they so clearly are, but is of the opinion that they “have hoarded land for too long”, as though small farmers were sick old misers gloating over a casket of jewels. In fact, farmers are fighting so that they can pass on the land, and its stewardship, to a new generation — the very opposite of miserliness. There is more than a whiff of revenge for the Brexit vote from the Left, as farmers are widely perceived to have typically voted to leave the EU.
This attack on farmers also dovetails neatly with a wider assault on the British countryside. For the past few years, regular pieces have appeared in the mainstream press claiming that “the countryside is racist”. A new piece of spurious research will show that Blacks and Muslims are under-represented o’er hill and dale, the courtier press will dutifully report it, and debates will creak into action on chat shows once again. It’s the familiar, gormless, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy it always is, they even have their own warped syllogism:
A sector of society without a sufficient number of Black people is therefore racist.
The countryside does not feature a sufficient number of Black people.
Therefore, the countryside is racist.
I discount the fact that, for the vast majority of White folk enjoying the countryside, the absence of Blacks is a much-desired feature, not a glitch. The “racist countryside” trope reveals two key aspects, two ascriptions, which feature in all these faux-exclusionist charades. Firstly, Whites are always and already guilty of this bucolic apartheid. Secondly, the absence of Blacks in the countryside can only be because of racism, and not due to the moral agency, or decision-making abilities, of Blacks. Liberals do not believe in such things. In the parched and perverted landscape of the Leftist mindset, that is the sole reason there are almost no Black farmers. It is not that Blacks are culturally unsuited to farming due to their hunter-gatherer genetic predisposition, or even that they choose not to pursue that career path. It is because Britain is irredeemably racist. It is irredeemably racist, as a matter of fact, just not in the way the Leftist believes. Anti-Whiteness is at the core of the Labour strategy to defarm Britain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is, we are constantly reminded, the first woman to hold the post. She is also alleged to have falsified her CV to get on in her chosen career, claiming that she was an economist for a major bank during a period when she was actually a teller for a lesser banking concern. This kind if deception is, it seems, an entry-level requirement for today’s political class. On the subject of inheritance tax and farms, however, she treated the viewing public to a rare and candid event. This took the form of an explanation, on camera, by a British Chancellor, of exactly why a new tax is being levied, and what will happen to the tax weal generated. The money raised from the farmers, Reeves said, as though explaining arithmetic to the problem child in a fourth-grade class, will be used to help pay for the NHS. The implication here is that farmers should be grateful for “free” healthcare, and should be made to pay for it, despite the fact that everyone already pours income tax into this fiscal black hole, farmers included.
Calculators flickered across the internet, and it was soon established that the likely revenue from inheritance tax on farms, expressed annually, would pay for 25 hours of NHS provision. The farming industry is dealt a blow that might finish it, but at least we get a day’s worth of paying diversity officers.
And what would be the ultimate fate of the land? Is it simply required for housing, with some estimating that the country needs to build a house every two minutes just to keep pace with rising demand? What else could it be used for? There are rumors. In fact, the political scene in the UK at present is positively Elizabethan — the first Elizabeth, not her recently departed successor — and the court, as they say, is awash with rumor. And the loudest whisper is that of “new towns”. These were first tried in the 1960s and 70s as a way of rationalizing the overspill from the cities, a never-expanding suburbia that was packaged rather than allowed to sprawl. But these new towns were for the White, indigenous citizens of the UK — that was an unspoken guarantee. This was long before the present day, in which everything down to and including urban planning is geared to operate in opposition to the wants and needs of native Whites. If one rumor in particular is anywhere near the truth, that farm land is required for building new estates for immigrants, then the UK’s cold civil war may be about to turn hot.
This Labour Party is governing like it’s the 1970s. They don’t grasp that if the government makes announcements that are gross distortions of reality, it no longer takes a couple of intrepid gumshoe reporters burning the midnight oil to expose it six months later. The real facts and figures will be all over YouTube by noon, and this is the main reason Labour is going after big tech. Thus, when Reeves dismissed the inheritance tax as affecting only about 500 farms — and implying that these would be the richest holdings — it didn’t take long before the actual figures of farms affected was going viral. The truth is that roughly two-thirds of Britain’s farms will be crippled by this new tax, brought in just when arable food supply chains have been so adversely affected by the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Does Starmer think he can get away with this, considering he has already risked the nation’s ire by removing winter heating payments from the elderly? Yes, he does, and for a simple reason.
This has all the makings of a one-term administration. The question is simple; is it intended that way as just another globalist chess move? Tory politician Rab Butler famously said that a week is a long time in politics, but in four years and with a comfortable bilateral mandate, Labour can achieve a great deal more ruinous policy before the next general election, which might be a perfect one to lose, particularly for Starmer. The Labour Party can be real wreckers, not the ones invented by Stalin. Then they can all just walk away and write their memoirs.
Sir Keir Starmer has been compared to Stalin for reasons other than the mere similarity of their names. “Stalin” means “man of steel”, but it is difficult to see just which alloy Starmer is formed of. On the level of personality, the British PM’s lack of any discernible charisma whatsoever is fascinating in itself. There is something subtly sinister about a man who, when asked what his favorite book or poem was, looks surprised at the question and says he has neither. He answers questions as though quoting from old NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) text-books. This is Tourette’s Syndrome as government policy.
But the British farmers are not kulaks, at least not yet, and the Peasant’s Revolt 2.0 involves polling rather than pitchforks. The popularity of both the Labour Party in power and Sir Keir Starmer personally have plummeted to record depths. On November 23, a petition was started on the official UK Government website asking for a second General Election. These petitions are theoretically considered for debate in the House of Commons if they reach 100,000 signatories, although this rarely if ever happens. It is a sort of virtual democracy, like a video game rather than the real thing, there but not there, like an online Speaker’s Corner where you can get it all off your chest but affect nothing. 24 hours later, the number of signatures approached a million, and after 48 hours it had passed the two million mark and is still rising at the time of writing. This may not be the men of Kent storming the City of London in 1381 and putting heads on pikes, but these exercises are a good litmus test of national sentiment, and if the polls and the punditry continue to pile up against Starmer and his fragile-looking government, they may wake up to find, once again, that the peasants are revolting.
“Miscegenation.” The word itself is so taboo and so old-fashioned that it feels strange to even write it in 2024. But that’s the problem if you’re genuinely interested in science; you have to rise above “feelings” and “fashion” and dispassionately look at the truth. An intriguing new evolutionary psychology study, “No Signals of Outbreeding Depression on General Factors of Self-Efficacy, Phobia, and Infant Growth: Debunking “Disharmonious Combination” Theory,” has done precisely that. If they are correct, then any problems caused by “miscegenation” are not due to the process itself, but, rather, due to the kind of people who tend to practice it.
The word “miscegenation” first became widely known as part of an elaborate hoax. The pamphlet Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of Races, Applied to the White Man and Negro appeared in 1863, as part of an anti-Lincoln campaign in the run up to the following year’s presidential election. The pamphlet espoused miscegenation in glowing terms and the anti-War Democrat authors even attempted to trick Lincoln into endorsing it. By 1924, there were anti-Miscegenation laws in 29 states and mixed-race marriage only became legal in California in 1948.
In 1958, a Black-White couple were arrested in Virginia for the crime of being married while in 1963, when former president Harry Truman was asked about his thoughts of the possibility of inter-racial marriage becoming widespread, he replied: “I hope not; I don’t believe in it. Would you want your daughter to marry a Negro? She won’t love someone who isn’t her color.” These ideas were backed up by various scientists. Charles Davenport, of the Eugenics Records Office, averred that there was a hierarchy of races and race-mixing would inevitably lead to degeneration of the higher races. He further averred that it would lead to “outbreeding depression.” We’ve all heard of “inbreeding depression:” when closely related organisms breed, the offspring are more likely to inherit double doses of harmful genes, leading to problems. “Outbreeding depression” occurs because some traits, especially psychological ones, are very complex and involve thousands of genes working together, all adapted to a very specific ecology. If you introduce some gene that’s not expected to be there, you interfere with the delicate gene complexes, disrupting “harmonious” gene complexes.
There is certainly some evidence of negative psychological outcomes among mixed-race offspring but this does not prove Davenport’s theory about genetic harmony to be correct. I have summarised all the various studies — such as from Brazil, the US and Canada — in my book The Naked Classroom: The Evolutionary Psychology of Your Time at School. In essence, the products of mixed-race unions are high in mental illness (especially depression and anxiety) and violent behaviour. Indeed, a study from Canada found that though Black-White children were intermediate between Blacks and Whites on physical health, they had far worse mental health than either parent race.
There are two possible reasons for this, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is Davenport’s model of disharmony, which has been tested in the new study in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science. The researchers looked at the effect of ancestral genetic diversity (in other words racial mixing) on the levels of three variables: self-efficacy and phobias (both of which capture mental health) and general growth. Drawing on a large sample, they found no evidence — when controlling for age, income, parental education, and sex — of outbreeding depression among mixed-race people. That said, caution is required in putting the “disharmony” hypothesis to rest because, as the authors admit, their results don’t take into account the genetic distances between the races involved. Davenport’s whole point was that a large genetic distance — such as between Black and White — would cause pronounced disharmony in a way that a smaller one, such as between White and Native American, might not.
However, if the authors are correct, then the solution to differences in mixed-race psychology appears to found an alternative model, comprehensively set out last year in “Predictors of Engaging in Interracial Dating” in the journal Mankind Quarterly. In summary, as I discussed in The Naked Classroom, we all sit on a spectrum from a fast to a slow Life History. Fast Life History Strategists are evolved to an easy yet unstable ecology. They could be wiped out at any minute and need to be fit and aggressive. Accordingly, they must invest their energy in copulation and, to the extent that they are selective, they must select for those who are physically fit. Cooperation does not pay off in such an ecology — a favour may never be repaid because the person could die — so such people are, relatively, mentally unstable and psychopathic. A person who is genetically very different could carry some useful adaptation and it would make sense to trade genetic similarity for fitness, because you’re calibrated to not invest much in each child, of which you’ll have many. Risk — something unusual — will also be attractive to you.
As the ecology becomes harsh yet stable, and the species members compete with each other, you must look after the offspring and be strongly adapted to a specific ecology. Thus, you invest less energy in copulation and more in nurture, you have fewer offspring and invest more in them, and you maximise your genetic legacy by selecting for genetic similarity. This also means that your offspring are strongly adapted to the specific ecology, something heightened by a longer childhood in which they can learn how to navigate that ecology. You can only survive as part of groups, so you become pro-social, mentally stable and risk-averse, as you are only just surviving.
All of this implies that pro-social, mentally stable people would be less likely to pursue mixed-race relationships, as the Mankind Quarterly study finds. That study found that assortative mating occurs between races: when people date people of a different race, they tend to date people who are psychologically similar to themselves. And when it comes to miscegenation, the people doing it are not very psychologically healthy. Their relationships are more conflictful and they are more prone to risk-taking. Their mixed-race adolescent children are more likely than monoracial adolescents to use drugs or engage in violent behavior.
So, it appears that Davenport’s theory was wrong. Miscegenation results, according to these studies, in offspring with worse mental health because it is people with worse mental health who are more likely to be attracted to potential partners of a different race.
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society—not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard.
The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
After its first five years in operation, the British Broadcasting Company became the wholly state-controlled British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927. John Reith, the first chief executive, wrote in 1924 of his “high conception of the inherent possibilities of the service” and later asserted that “‘the brute force of monopoly’ was a necessity in British broadcasting.”1 As a preponderance of politicians and civil servants as well as the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association agreed, the grant of the BBC’s first Royal Charter in 1927 and Reith’s ascent to the position of Director-General were virtually unchallenged. The brute force would fare better than the higher conception.
The Company, originally a cartel of radio set manufacturers, had been lucrative for its directors, but the Post Office had sanctioned their privileges for questionable reasons, and after the agreed period of royalties and having established the state enforcement of the licence fee, and under a government less obliging to Marconi and GEC, the Company was reformed into a ‘public corporation’. Reith himself was the leading advocate of the novel concept which, as with David Sarnoff and RCA in the USA, happened to provide him with a personal fief of immense influence. Reith’s “higher conception” consisted in a belief in “democratic aim, not in democratic method”, not aiming to give the public what they wanted, and still less any choice, but rather what he thought best for them.2 The BBC licence fee, originally a device to compel listeners to deliver royalties to the manufacturers’ cartel, served after the BBC’s incorporation to compel them to fund the state broadcaster while all other would-be broadcasters were prohibited.
The Public Corporation
The BBC’s official history describes Reith as desiring an organisation “independent” of the market and of governments.3 This has only ever been the case in the formal sense that the corporation depends directly on the crown instead, but the powers of the crown have for centuries been exercised by the government anyway. As Tom Mills describes, “renewals of the Royal Charter, as well as the appointment of BBC governors and trustees, have formally been made by an Order of the Privy Council” using “the residential powers of the absolutist state which have never been subject to democratic controls” and which are, “in essence, absolutist decrees of the central government, signed-off by the monarch of the day.”4 The government also grants the corporation its licence fee increases.5 The BBC could be deprived of funding or closed by any government that wished to do so, but none ever has; the idea of public corporations was initially embraced by leftists, but the Conservative Party exists to consolidate the gains of their faux-opponents.6
Reith’s BBC consciously strove to present itself as a kind of conglomerated person with whom the public would identify and whom they would trust. In Asa Briggs’ words, early BBC staff wanted “to ensure that people felt—without thinking—that the BBC was theirs.”7 Announcers were soon, by some listeners, “thought of as the BBC, for it was they who mediated between the listeners and the programmes.”8 Announcers were deemed the best placed of all BBC employees “to build up in the public mind a sense of the BBC’s collective personality.” They would represent “[t]he BBC itself” and its own “policy and ideals”.9 An article in the Spectator in 1936 said that “The BBC has a personality of its own, pervasive and unmistakable, and it affects its reactions to public events, to education, to entertainment, and to the arts: it is the foundation of its policy.”10 The Corporation was and is, as with any media organisation, unavoidably biased in whom it recruits, what its editors select to report and omit and how it allocates programme time. However, it developed the ability to appear objective to many viewers while expressing approval or disapproval by the variation of announcers’, presenters’ and newsreaders’ tones of voice and, in documentaries, the use of background music and lighting.11 The more trusting or unthinking elements of the public are subliminally persuaded by such methods.
Reith was chosen by the BBC’s first board of directors, but as they receded in importance, he grew, and standard histories of the corporation speak of ‘Reithianism’ as its founding ideology. This blurs the reality, but Reith was certainly a formative factor. He was a Presbyterian who served in and supported the Great War.12 His diary and memoirs show that he opposed unionisation at the BBC and in his previous job, had “no particular feelings about Communism”, privately sympathised with Adolf Hitler at times and made occasional favourable remarks about Benito Mussolini. Yet in 1939 he described himself as a “Gladstonian liberal”.13 He wrote in October 1942 that Winston Churchill was a “bloody swine” and “the greatest menace we’ve ever had” with “country and Empire sacrificed to his megalomania, to his monstrous obstinacy and wrongheadedness.”14 His insistence on formality, elocution and a privileged position for Christianity are commonly said to characterise the BBC during and long after his tenure, but his own political and cultural views do not appear to have become those of the organisation.
John Reith
Crusading
Reith appears to have concerned himself primarily with broadcasting per se; he did not attempt to control all the BBC’s output or those he began to disagree with in the 1930s—people he had also hired and had come to rely upon. As Asa Briggs says, “The BBC’s philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC’s programmes were the work of many men of extremely varied experience and outlook.”15 He describes them as “men and women who ‘believed in broadcasting’ almost as a social and cultural crusade.”16 They also, more or less frankly, saw broadcasting as a means of indoctrination and intended to use it as such. As early as 1925, the leading Fabian Beatrice Webb had written that wireless had “a stupendous influence… over the lives of the people” and “might become… a terrible engine of compulsory conformity … in opinion and culture” but asserted that the BBC’s use of its influence was “eminently right”. Hilda Matheson, after six years at the Corporation, wrote in 1933 that “Broadcasting is a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful the world has ever seen.”17 Labour politician Herbert Morrison, later Home Secretary under Winston Churchill, had from the BBC’s earliest days “demanded that broadcasting … should be publicly owned and controlled.”18 In 1946, Morrison described broadcasting as “at least as powerful a vehicle of ideas as the printing press” and acknowledged that “the body which decides what goes into a broadcasting programme has an enormous power for good and evil over the minds of the nation” and averred that “that power must not fall into the wrong hands”, out of the right ones.19
After it began to be allowed to broadcast ‘controversial’ programmes from 1927 and as it became involved in education, nearly all the department heads and editors Reith’s BBC hired ensured that the political and cultural output was routinely leftist.20 An early producer of ‘controversial’ programming, Lionel Fielden, wrote that “[w]e really believed that broadcasting could revolutionize human opinion.”21 Charles Siepmann, the second Head of Talks, was in his own words “fanatically devoted”; he believed that
“broadcasting was the greatest miracle in human history… everything that any man had ever written down on paper, every note of music that had ever been composed was now universally available. This was what you might call ‘the new age of cultural communism’. And I believed that.”
Charles Siepmann
Siepmann referred to his own “progressive outlook” and “the progressive policies that both Hilda and I were pushing very hard indeed”. He lamented that Reith agonised too earnestly over balance and didn’t share Siepmann’s “very, very sensitive social conscience”. Siepmann remarked that his own “sense of balance” was “to redress the ultra-conservatism of the culture of that time… my theory of balance ‘was subversive in the sense that it was disruptive of the old Conservative clique” and the “Conservative Mind”.22
BBC Education and Talks
The BBC founded several publications, of which Radio Times continues today. Its first and formative editor from 1927 was Eric Maschwitz, son of a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, whose career, like many BBC employees, included spells in broadcasting, the movie and music industries, the intelligence services, and wartime sabotage and terrorism under the Special Operations Executive. The Listener, founded in 1929, was an “educational periodical”, a printer of BBC Talks and a vehicle for the Corporation’s ‘cultural mission’. “By 1935 its circulation had reached 52,000, more than that of the New Statesman and the Spectator combined.”23 Richard Lambert was the first editor, having previously been, with Siepmann, the BBC’s representative on the Council for Adult Education, which the BBC funded to promote socialists including G D H Cole, John Sankey, William Temple and Harold Laski.24 Lambert employed Janet Adam Smith, later of the Fabian New Statesman, and the homosexual Joe Ackerley as assistant editors; his team’s use of The Listener to promote homosexual and communist poets like Cecil Day-Lewis, Wystan Auden, John Lehmann, Stephen Spender and Herbert Read provoked complaints from readers.25 Christopher Isherwood, another favourite poet, was a close associate of the Berlin-based pro-transgender, anti-nationalist activist Magnus Hirschfeld.26
Auden, Isherwood and Spender
Talks were originally a sub-division of BBC Education (which also included religion and early news operations), but “…in January 1927 the Control Board decided that a separate “Talks Section’ should be formed, quite distinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson in charge. She remained there until January 1932, leaving a very powerful imprint on the BBC.”27 Matheson was hired personally by Reith, first as an assistant in Education, then as the first Director of Talks in 1927. The BBC’s news operations began at the same time, initially merely repeating press agency reports. According to Kate Murphy, Matheson was “part of London’s cultural and intellectual elite” and “[her] approach to Talks reflected her liberal and progressive viewpoint.”28 She was also a feminist, a lesbian and a Soviet sympathiser who used her position to promote the views of her friends, lovers and comrades, especially members of the subversive Bloomsbury group and the socialist Fabian Society.29 Lionel Fielden was her main producer, also homosexual, anti-imperial and a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi, whom he promoted on BBC radio in India.
According to Asa Briggs, “[t]he early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers—Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman, Stephen King-Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.”30 Simon Potter adds that “Matheson invited influential and pugnacious figures from the world of politics to speak on air, including Winston Churchill and Harold Nicolson, as well as cultural figures like HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw.”31 John Hilton was “an ardent trade unionist” admired by communists including Guy Burgess with whom he later collaborated at the BBC; both were recruited into the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).32 Nicolson, King-Hall, Bartlett and Churchill were all vociferous proponents of an anti-German foreign policy.33 Socialists were consultants as well as guests. “‘I remember best the trinity of EM Forster, Desmond McCarthy and HG Wells,’ Lionel Fielden has written, ‘who all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems and possibilities of broadcasting.’” 34 Nicolson was not only a guest but the husband of Matheson’s lover, Vita Sackville-West. Beatrice and Sidney Webb were central members of the Fabian Society and apologists for the Soviet Union during its most tyrannical period. George Bernard Shaw, also a Fabian socialist and Soviet sympathiser, was a proponent of racial mixing who cursed and derided ‘anti-Semites’ with the same canards used by The Times in 1882: “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the lazy, ignorant, fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business.”35 HG Wells, another defender of the Soviets, was given BBC airtime by Matheson to advocate for a world state and the end of nations.36 Matheson’s “pugnacious figures” also included the Marxist and Zionist Harold Laski, the Soviet agent EF Wise, the ‘Red Countess’ of Warwick, the Quaker and socialist Philip Noel-Baker, Ernest Bevin, the militant feminist Viscountess Rhondda and the pro-Soviet ‘pacifist’ and Focus member Norman Angell, as well as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, EM Forster and others of the Bloomsbury circle. William Beveridge, a Liberal by party though a Fabian socialist in deed, “gave six talks on unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on the same subject.”37
Hilda Matheson
Asa Briggs writes that “[u]nder Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of ‘leftwing bias’.”38 Briggs, a pro-BBC historian, was perhaps merely re-wording Matheson’s own statement in 1933 that “[a]n impression of left-wing bias is always liable to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views. … It does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left. In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.”39 As Ronald Coase said in 1950, “The fact that the Corporation has been criticised by the Right and the Left hardly proves, as many of its supporters contend, that it is impartial; of itself it merely shows that the Corporation has not been consistently at one of the extremes.”40 The Corporation leaned strongly to the left as soon as it began to broadcast opinionated content and was merely occasionally told to cancel one talk or disinvite a particularly aggravating speaker. I find no record of any nationalist or fascist being invited to give talks, and there were not even many Tories. All figures ‘of the right’ invited to speak on the BBC appear to have been anti-German.41 Ian McIntyre refers to Churchill as one of the “mavericks of the right”, a true if understated description in the sense that Churchill’s affectations and associations were vaguely right-wing but his deeds and legacy were the opposite.42 Lord Lloyd, first head of the British Council, an anti-fascist cultural propaganda body spun out of the Foreign Office, who spent the latter half of the 1930s agitating for war against Germany, was regarded within the BBC as of the “extreme right”.43 The BBC ‘balanced’ anti-German Soviet sympathisers with anti-German Soviet collaborators. The war, or the wars, against Germany, both of which Lloyd and Churchill supported, did more than any other events in history to empower the left and socialism, as Neville Chamberlain had predicted and striven to avoid.
Marxists and communists
Matheson’s contumacy toward Reith, especially in regard to criticism from the Daily Mail of her promotion of her comrades, resulted in her resignation. The New Statesman predictably blamed “official and orthodox pressure” which kept out “the expression of new ideas”, though “paid a tribute to the BBC as a whole” which, after all, was still a state monopoly and thus a castle to be held.44 Matheson was succeeded as Director of Talks by another leftist, the “like-minded” Charles Siepmann, of whose spell Briggs writes that “the same charges” of left-wing bias “were frequently repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek ‘rightwing speakers’ who would offset criticism.”45 The dearth of such speakers actually broadcasting suggests that the Corporation went no further than ‘finding them desirable’. Instead, the socialist JB Priestley was given space for a “personal comment”, Winston Churchill warned about the ‘threat’ of Germany, and “An excellent series called Whither Britain? … was broadcast in 1934 (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year by a series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaverbrook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas—of Social Credit fame—and Aldous Huxley).”46
Eventually Siepmann, like Matheson, was, as Kate Murphy describes, “censured for being too radical”, i.e., “transferred to the role of Director of Regional Relations” in 1935.47 Hilda Matheson objected in the Observer, seeing him as her continuation.48 In Siepmann’s new remit, the largest of the BBC’s regions was BBC North, for which the Programme Director, EAF Harding, on his appointment in 1933, had “raided the Manchester Guardian” for its journalists “and with the full co-operation of WP Crozier, the editor” had drawn upon “the services of a number of the Guardian’s leaderwriters and reporters as North Regional broadcasters.”49 The strongly left-wing Guardian is the newspaper most read at the BBC today, vastly out of proportion to its sales to the public, and the BBC long sought to recruit to the greatest extent possible from among Guardian readers. Under Siepmann, John Coatman had been “deliberately brought in” by Reith for the role of the BBC’s Chief News Editor “as ‘right wing offset’ to ‘balance’ the direction of talks and news” but “showed no sign of doing so”; Coatman “insisted on his own independence as a maker of policy”.50 Richard Maconachie, “a man of conservative views” became Head of Talks in 1936, formally senior to the Director of Talks. According to Ben Harker, “His Director of Talks, Norman Luker, was by contrast a liberal intrigued by the far left” who “was keen to create a platform for a Marxist analysis of the issue” of class and wanted to reorient talks to appeal to the same audience as the anti-fascist Picture Post, edited by Istvan Reich, a Jewish political exile from Hungary, and the Left Book Club run by the Jewish communist publisher Victor Gollancz. Luker was a long-standing friend of the Cambridge Apostle, homosexual, Soviet spy and producer at the BBC, Guy Burgess. The robustness of the “right-wing offset” was evident in the rejection of Luker’s preferred Marxist lecturer, the Cambridge communist don Maurice Dobb; instead Luker had to settle for Arthur Horner, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and a trade unionist. Dobb had, at any rate, already appeared “periodically” on the BBC earlier in the decade. Horner, in his broadcast in November 1938,
ranged freely from Marx’s theory of class struggle as the engine of history, through to an explication of the Communist Party’s line on fascism, to a description of the Spanish Civil War as militarized class struggle, and into a justification of the Moscow Trials as revolutionary justice against counter-revolution. His talk, which was published unedited in the BBC’s in-house magazine The Listener, concluded with a familiar Popular Front appeal for what he called ‘the cultural, clerical and professional classes’ – generally the assumed audience for National Programme Talks – to come over to the working class in the struggle against capital and fascism”51
BBC North
The BBC also issued Marxist propaganda via other avenues. As Ben Harker describes, communists coveted the BBC’s “growing cultural and political influence in the 1930s” which drew upon “its increasing significance in the construction of British identity, notably in its power to fashion the national narrative.”52 Fortunately for them, when the Corporation began to establish regional divisions in 1933, BBC North, the largest, became a “cauldron of Marxist and left-wing mischief” under its first Programme Director, the avowed Marxist EAF Harding.53 The producer Olive Shapley, the folk singer AL Lloyd, the thespian and director Joan Littlewood and her husband the singer and actor Ewan McColl (born Jimmie Miller) were central figures and all were members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to Shapley, Harding was also a “comrade”.54 The North producer Geoffrey Bridson was merely a close friend and a sympathiser who didn’t join the party but was introduced to Harding by the Comintern propagandist Claud Cockburn, inventor of the myth of the Cliveden Set.55 Shapley, though she left the party after university (as did Guy Burgess), continued as an agent of the cause, moved to New York in 1941, and interviewed guests like the subversive Eleanor Roosevelt and the singer Paul Robeson, later winner of the Stalin Prize, for the BBC’s Children’s Hour. According to Harker, “It was Harding’s view that all radio was propaganda: broadcasts which failed to give voice to the working class silenced it, those which failed to address structural inequalities shored up the status quo.”56 Harding broadcast propaganda without subtlety. Documentaries like May Day by Bridson simply issued a communist reading of history, one which led inexorably toward The Revolution.57 The North team produced programmes about Chartism that coaxed the listener toward the same conclusion: working Britons had not yet completed their revolution. The Classic Soil, proudly memorialised by the BBC today, was an overt vindication of the 19th-century writings of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto and Capital, read by Ernst Hoffman, an anti-fascist immigrant from Germany.58 Shapley, the producer, later described her own work as “probably the most unfair and biased programme ever put out by the BBC”.59
Olive Shapley and Eleanor Roosevelt on Children’s Hour
Soviet espionage
From its founding in 1917, the Soviet Union had engaged in ceaseless attempts to dissolve and undermine Britain and the empire, using the Comintern, espionage, front groups and the assistance of sympathisers.60 As John Costello says, referring to the late 1920s and early 1930s, “Stalin’s lust for obtaining secret intelligence endowed [the] OGPU and its “organs” with unrivaled power, and he stepped up the pressure to expand the penetration of foreign governments. The primary target was Britain—the main adversary, in Stalin’s eyes[.]”61 The OGPU was the successor of the Cheka and predecessor of the NKVD and KGB. The Soviet penetration strategy came to centre upon upper-class students at Cambridge and Oxford who were best-placed to enter the civil service; the infamous ‘Cambridge Five’ and others better concealed, were thus recruited. With some awareness of the threat, the most conservative elements at the Security Service (MI5) held meetings with the BBC in 1935 which “set in motion a system of political vetting” to cover new BBC employees which was “formalised with a written agreement in 1937.”62 The vetting was insufficient; in any case, MI5 itself had employed subversives like Hilda Matheson during the Great War and since.63 The Soviet spy Guy Burgess was appointed as a producer of BBC Talks in June 1936 and was recruited to work for MI6 during his time there.
The intelligence services contained genuine opponents of the left, but the social worlds of their agents, Foreign Office employees and other civil servants, Cambridge Apostles, overt and covert communists, the Bloomsbury group, and upper class homosexuals all appear to have blended together, as is exemplified by Burgess himself. Burgess later made Anthony Blunt, a fellow Apostle, homosexual and Soviet spy, a frequent guest on the BBC, and elevated the already-high status of the bisexual anti-fascist Harold Nicolson at the corporation. Jews were prominent in the same circles. Burgess met the philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, both later to work in MI6, at a dinner party hosted by Felix Frankfurter.64 Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild, was another Apostle; according to Victor’s sister Miriam, Burgess was one of “the many people” whom her mother Rózsika, “assisted or supported by periodic and regular payments” for unclear reasons. Another was the Comintern agent Rudolph Katz.65 Victor Rothschild joined MI5 in 1939 (or before); the following year, Anthony Blunt was recruited on Rothschild’s recommendation.66
Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild
The suitability of Cambridge University as the prime location for Soviet recruitment owed much to the concentration of homosexuals among teaching staff and students. The Apostles, who included the amoralist philosopher GE Moore and others of the Bloomsbury group, had in earlier decades become “obsessed by homosexuality”, and several members “pursued what they called ‘the higher sodomy.’”67 “Higher” referred to their disdain for romantic love as well as their general sense of superiority. The Apostles were already a secret society, and homosexuality was actively prohibited in Britain until the 1960s. Some of those who practiced it formed “extensive underground ‘old boy networks’” which “reached out like a cobweb across the pinnacles of the British Establishment, with connections in Whitehall ministries, the universities, the foreign service, the church, and the armed services”; “several of the lines of this web of homosexual influence were spun by Apostles who, by the twenties, had anchored themselves firmly in the upper reaches of Whitehall” and “offered great opportunities to any blackmailer—or spy—who gained admission.” Jack Hewit, a lover of Burgess, first met him at a homosexual party in the War Office in 1936 at which Rudolph Katz was a guest.68 Burgess was extremely promiscuous and engaged in exchanges of love letters with ‘conquests’ to use as compromising material.
John Costello identifies Edward Marsh as “the leading behind-the-scenes string-puller in the interwar years” who “ascended the senior ranks of the civil service while pursuing his avocation as one of London’s leading literary impresarios”. Marsh
was always ready to pull strings and arrange favors for eligible Cambridge men of intellect, talent, and good looks. Successive generations of Apostles, including Blunt and later Guy Burgess, discovered this to their advantage. The Marsh network included bureaucrats, publishers, parliamentarians, and prominent members of London society. Marsh was longtime personal secretary to Winston Churchill, to whom ‘dear Eddie’ would attach himself like a faithful hound whenever Churchill had a ministry.69
Edward Marsh and Winston Churchill
Much of the same was true at Oxford University, where prominent dons like Maurice Bowra, aware of their closeness to Soviet intelligence agents, referred to themselves as being in the ‘homintern’; Bowra referred to Wadham, his college, as Sodom. During the Second World War he became a frequent guest on the BBC. Marxist members of the homosexual networks based in Cambridge, Oxford and London, including Roger Fulford and Kemball Johnston, attained positions in MI5 where they were able to influence their superiors in favour of members of the Communist Party.70
Popular Front
Though some communists may have been excluded from working at the BBC by MI5’s vetting, the corporation’s programmes were already used to support an effectively pro-Soviet foreign policy long before 1937. Winston Churchill is cited as one of a few right-wing speakers who disprove that the corporation was left-wing, but he exceeded the BBC in its fervour for the anti-German cause. In November 1934, Churchill was invited by the BBC to broadcast a speech in which he forebode the “destruction of the British Empire” and “Teutonic domination” of “our people” unless Britain sought allies to achieve “[p]eace… founded upon preponderance” by “mak[ing] ourselves at least the strongest Air Power in the European world.”71 This was, not by chance, the same demand as that of the civil service faction headed by Robert Vansittart and Warren Fisher that furtively supplied Churchill with false estimates of Britain and Germany’s military strengths.
The week after Churchill’s radio speech, the British arm of Samuel Untermyer’s Anti-Nazi Council was founded, and the following October it held a large demonstration in Hyde Park; the BBC broadcast the speeches by Eleanor Rathbone, Clement Attlee, Walter Citrine, JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst, all socialists or communists. There was no BBC Talk given by Oswald Mosley to ‘balance’ Churchill and no coverage of demonstrations against communism or hostility toward Germany. The BBC covered the events of the largest such demonstrations, those of the British Union of Fascists, by spotlighting the blackshirts’ eviction of hecklers and invaders. The BUF’s Olympia rally in 1934 occurred at the same time the BBC began to be allowed to create its own news reports. The ludicrous myth of the BUF intentionally causing violent disruption of its own events has endured.
Oswald Mosley and BUF members
From 1936, BBC Television broadcast selected newsreels from Gaumont and Movietone, the latter being a subsidiary of Wilhelm Fuchs’ Fox Corporation and the former owned by Isidore Ostrer. Ostrer was, according to Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, “the most skilful and clear-minded manipulator of the propaganda potential of the newsreel”; as Gaumont also produced films and owned many cinemas, the effect of his skills was amplified greatly.72 Fuchs and Ostrer were both descended of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The British film industry and cinemas were largely Jewish-owned through the 1920s and 30s.73 Burgess, before being hired by the BBC, was recruited to work for the Soviet NKVD probably by Arnold Deutsch, a cousin of Oscar Deutsch, the founder and owner of Odeon Cinemas and a referee for Arnold’s immigration application.74
The BBC, especially the North division, effectively joined the Popular Front, a Soviet anti-fascist initiative, and thereby aligned with the aims of the international Jewish alliance agitating for regime change in Germany and with organised Jewry in Britain, whose activists secured special privileges. According to Geoffrey Alderman, “An agreement … was reached with the BBC which undertook to submit” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews “the scripts of any programme “of Jewish interest” before the programme was broadcast.” The agreement was part of the Board of Deputies’ Defence Committee’s anti-fascist strategy which also included “intelligence-gathering, media-monitoring and co-operation with the Special Branch.”75 In the spring of 1938, recalling 1881, “a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the BBC and in the British Press.”76
According to William West, “The BBC and its staff… took an essentially Communist line” at the time of the Spanish Civil War which indicates how “the more sinister activities of Burgess and his circle remained unremarked.”77 During the Sudetenland crisis of September 1938, Burgess was the producer responsible for planned anti-German speeches by Harold Nicolson which were cancelled under pressure from the Cabinet Office, which was loyal to Neville Chamberlain, and the Foreign Office under Halifax who was still for peace with Germany at the time.78 Producing ostensibly non-political programmes about the countries of the Mediterranean, Burgess also collaborated with the Marxist academic EH Carr and tried to involve Winston Churchill, of whom he was “a keen supporter” though the latter withdrew in anger at being required to moderate his belligerence.79 According to West, “the line followed by Burgess and EH Carr in the BBC’s Mediterranean series was close to [Anthony] Eden’s…”.80 Eden “had broadcast to the world his welcome” of the Soviet Union to the League of Nations in 1934 and, alongside Churchill, was the most prominent Tory supporter of an alliance with the Soviets; Eden was particularly friendly to Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister, while Churchill liaised more with Ivan Maisky, the ambassador in London to whom he had been introduced by Vansittart.81 In contrast to its pro-Soviet slant, the BBC refused to broadcast or even acknowledge the impassioned radio speech from Verdun by the Duke of Windsor, the abdicated King Edward VIII, for peace between Britain, France and Germany in May 1939.82
Guy Burgess
Propaganda and black operations
As the BBC aligned with Jewish and Soviet policy, it applied its “power to fashion the national narrative” in accordance with the propaganda bodies of the British state, staffed and governed increasingly by anti-fascists, which were used to counter Italian and German (not Soviet) propaganda. The most overt, the British Council, was an initiative of Rex Leeper, head of the Foreign Office’s News Department and payee of the Soviet-aligned Czech government; he introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council, which Churchill renamed the Focus, in April 1936. The BBC’s Empire Service and foreign language broadcasting were launched to work to the same purpose as the Council. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, but the propaganda war was underway at least two years earlier when the Focus member Lord Lloyd, another figure of the “extreme right” who sided with the extreme left in foreign policy, became chairman of the Council.83 Anti-fascism and sympathy for the Soviet Union were already embedded institutionally in Britain long before the Anschluss, ‘Munich’ or Kristallnacht.
Section D of MI6 was created in March or April of 1938 “to provide lines of communication for covert anti-Nazi propaganda in neutral countries”, to “organise and equip resistance units, support anti-Nazi groups” and enact “sabotage, covert operations, and subversive propaganda.” Guy Burgess was employed by Section D, the first of a chain of propaganda bodies established by the British state which presented Jewish emigrants from Central Europe as friends of and spokesmen for Britain. Vansittart, Claude Dansey of MI6, Churchill and the Focus had been using the same people for (often fabricated) intelligence and propaganda for some years. As Andrew Lownie describes, “Section D used a series of front organisations, such as the news agency United Correspondents, which produced innocuous but anti-Nazi articles for circulation to newspapers around the world, and Burgess worked with writers such as the Swiss journalist Eugen Lennhof and the Austrian writer Berthe Zuckerkandl-Szeps.”84 In Section D, John Costello says, “Burgess appears to have been the main fount of ideas and principal producer of clandestine programming. In compiling the careful assembly of propaganda talks, variety shows, and hit records, he was assisted by Paul Frischauer, an Austrian refugee, and his wife, who were members of an anti-Hitler group in London.”85 The “radio war” consisted initially of illegally broadcasting Chamberlain speeches into Germany on Radio Luxembourg, owned by Isidore Ostrer and run by Eva Siewert, a Jewish lesbian and Soviet sympathiser.86
The covert counterpart of the British Council and an adjunct of MI6 and the BBC was the Joint Broadcasting Committee, which operated in sufficient secrecy as to be unknown to MI5. According to Lownie, “The JBC was very much a BBC operation. It was run by Hilda Matheson… assisted by Isa Morley, the foreign director of the BBC from 1933 to 1937. Burgess was number three and represented Section D’s interests. In March 1939 Harold Nicolson joined the Board.” Angus Hambro, a Tory MP from an established Jewish banking family, was also a member. “JBC staff were authorised to use BBC studios”, and though “scripts were prepared by JBC staff, many were read by prominent exiles such as the writer Thomas Mann, or later by well-known actors such as Conrad Veidt”, both married to women of Jewish ancestry. Burgess also recruited John Bernal, a Jewish communist and a science don at Cambridge, as well as Edvard Benes, the former Czech Prime Minister and a friend and ally of Stalin, to record speeches for the JBC.87
Conclusion
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society – not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard. The weakest period for the anti-fascists was in 1938, as Chamberlain’s Cabinet Office actively subdued them; Guy Burgess resigned from the corporation in frustration. Yet after Lord Halifax joined the war party, Chamberlain was isolated in the Cabinet and Parliament and cornered into adopting anti-German policies. The ensuing war enabled Churchill to form not only a government in May 1940, but a new anti-fascist regime which has ever since imposed a false version of history via the BBC and the education system. The ‘maverick of the right’ was the best friend the left have ever had.
Horus is the pen name of a British historian. He posts his essays on Substack. Please subscribe.
The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p180-2. Reith sought to apply the “brute force of monopoly” beyond Britain, as British law alone could not prevent commercial stations broadcasting into Britain from transmitters abroad, which they did through the 1930s. The BBC lobbied via the International Broadcasting Union for the greatest possible restrictions on Radio Luxembourg, Radio Normandie and others, and did so with the support of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but Radio Luxembourg exceeded the BBC’s listening figures at times and only ceased operations when its facilities were effectively nationalised after Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939. Under Reith, the BBC had only broadcast for a few hours on Sundays and the content was mostly religious while Radio Luxembourg played more dance music. See The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p92, 360.
McIntyre, p99, 217, 250. ‘The Trumpet of the Night’: Interwar Communists on BBC Radio, Ben Harker, History Workshop Journal, Volume 75, Issue 1, Spring 2013, p82
Briggs, Golden Age, p13. One early element of the “social and cultural crusade” was to expose the public to subversive artists, writers and musicians. In music, as Asa Briggs describes, the BBC chose “the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the British listener Schönberg and Webern as well as Bartok and Stravinsky. In music it was always among the avant-garde…” Briggs, Golden Age, p171-2
Briggs, Golden Age, p124. “The place of adult education in the BBC’s central organization was never secure. In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department and became a separate department under the direction of Siepmann; in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branch when Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks; in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch, losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties about what exactly was the relationship between Talks and organized adult education.” Briggs, Golden Age, p222
Harold Nicolson was the son of Arthur Nicolson, a diplomatic protégé of King Edward VII. Stephen King-Hall was a future Labour MP and publisher of the anti-German London Newsletter which shared an audience with publications of the Focus and the Comintern; he was “a frequent broadcaster”. Briggs, BBC, p119
Bernard Shaw, Michael Holroyd, 1998, chapter 2, 3. Shaw “was to define fascism as ‘State financed private enterprise’ or ‘Socialism for the benefit of exploiters’. From the 1930s onwards Shaw chose to call himself a communist: ‘that is, I advocate national control of land, capital, and industry for the benefit of us all. Fascists advocate it equally for the benefit of the landlords, capitalists and industrialists.’”
Briggs, Golden Age, p126-7. Wells speaking on BBC radio. The Listener praised Wells as a man “who can see the future”; presumably the producers who chose him were prescient too.
Briggs, Golden Age, p43. Matheson continued: “How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled with the spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable from all education, from any search after truth?’”
Interview with Olive Shapley, 1984, p3-4 and Broadcasting a Life, Olive Shapley, 1996, p37. From the latter, referring to her first meeting with Harding where he asked her to stay behind: “‘When the room was empty apart from the two of us, he extended his hand and said, ‘Welcome, comrade.’ I was never a very devout communist, but I could tell that I was among friends.’”
Though they had small resources and were about to engage in war on several fronts, the Bolsheviks commenced espionage against Britain immediately after the coup. Chapter 5, ‘Exporting the Revolution’, of John Costello’s book The Mask of Treachery gives a summary. See also chapters 1-5 of Giles Udy, Labour and the Gulag.
Mills, p42. “The practice was maintained for fifty years, abandoned only in 1985 after being exposed by a team of investigative journalists. Much of what is known about political vetting, stems from the revelations at that time and the declassified BBC files that have become available since.”
Costello, p299-300. Costello suggests that Burgess worked for the Rothschilds’ own intelligence network as well as MI6 and the NKVD:
“Since private intelligence was an essential element of the Rothschild business operation, what better cover could they give their latest recruit in 1935 than to characterize Burgess as an investment counselor and dispatch him as their private spy to monitor the Anglo-German Fellowship? Information about threats to the House of Rothschild resulting from secret deals between British sympathizers and the Third Reich would more than justify the hundred guineas a month paid to Guy Burgess.
Victor Rothschild had implicit faith in his Cambridge friend because he, like Blunt, knew of Burgess’s true loyalties. But Burgess’s volatile enthusiasms would help persuade his right-wing friends that he had recanted his earlier Marxism. His homosexual appetite would prove an exploitable talent when it came to sharing the bed of a pro-German Tory well placed to pull strings and advance an ambitious young man’s career. Nor should it be forgotten that Rudolph Katz, with his own extensive network of homosexual and Comintern contacts, also contributed to Rothschild’s private intelligence network that, at the time, shared with Stalin a common enemy: Hitler.” Costello, p303-5
Winston Churchill – the Greatest Briton, Parliament Archives. Churchill – “After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War series there were complaints that he had delivered a ‘gratuitous attack on Germany’, and one writer said that it was ‘in need of far more censorship than Professor Haldane’s’, a talk on the extreme left.’” Briggs, Golden Age, p146
Truth Betrayed, WJ West, 1989, p40. Burgess’ friend Kim Philby, who worked for MI6 and the NKVD simultaneously, was The Times’ correspondent during the civil war and MI6’s head of undercover operations in Spain and Portugal during the world war. Burgess and Philby both worked for MI6’s propaganda-focused Section D and, like Eric Maschwitz, the sabotage-focused Special Operations Executive in 1939 and 1940. In 1934 Philby had married Litzi Friedmann, a communist from Vienna and an associate of the Soviet spy Edith Tudor-Hart. By 1941, when Burgess rejoined BBC Talks, the corporation was under the control of Churchill’s government and hired Burgess precisely because he was pro-Soviet.
In November 1938, according to the ambassador to Italy, Eric Drummond, the 7th Earl of Perth, BBC presenters used tone of voice to mock Chamberlain and praise Anthony Eden. West also says that “There had been a number of concerted attacks on Chamberlain by the BBC, usually in the form of selective reporting of speeches and debates.” See West, p166, including note 101.
Alderman, New Directions, p165. See also West, p111. Reith had been the leading advocate of the International Broadcasting Union, in the violation of which the BBC now collaborated.
Lownie, chapter 13. The JBC had a “strong focus” on “securing British propaganda broadcasts on the American networks.” American networks also had their own plans. “The covert side, where Burgess largely worked, produced programmes for distribution in enemy countries, working with Electra House. Burgess was responsible for a variety of programmes that were recorded on large shellac discs and then smuggled in the diplomatic bag or by agents into Sweden, Liechtenstein and Germany, and broadcast as if they were part of regular transmissions from the German stations themselves.” The ‘Chaos of the Ether’ had gone from a myth to a tactic. About the JBC, see also Murphy, Behind the Wireless, chapter on Hilda Matheson, and West p118, 140.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Horushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngHorus2024-11-25 07:12:052024-11-25 08:11:47The Engine of Compulsory Conformity: The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)
The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)
Keir Starmer performs the goy-grovel at Labour Friends of Israel (image from LFI)
