Free Speech

Jailed for Putting Up Legal and Truthful Stickers on Lamp Posts 

/9 Comments/in , /by

For American readers what I am about to write about the mother country may sound unbelievable, but, incredibly, it is true. In 2024, a young signpost maker and father of one called Sam Melia was jailed for putting perfectly legal stickers on lamp posts.

The leader of the Hundred Hands campaign and activist in a group called Patriotic Alternative, the then 34-year-old had designed a series of anti-immigration stickers to call attention to the fact that the English will soon be a minority in their own country and that Pakistanis have a tendency to groom and rape English girls. It was determined that the stickers were perfectly legal, if “extreme,” an assertion which makes you wonder if England is genuinely governed by the rule of law.

However, Melia had a jokey Hitler poster in a garage which he used as a gym during Covid, and his wife owned a copy of a book by Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Accordingly, it was decided that Melia must be motivated by a desire to “stir up racial hatred.” He was found guilty by a partially non-White jury and the judge made it clear that he would make an example of him.

One of the results of this Soviet-like show trial and imprisonment has been Melia’s poignant, fascinating and inspiring prison memoir Legal, Truthful, Guilty: Diary of a Political Prisoner. Beginning with the details of the “crimes” and the trial, Melia takes into the frankly jaw-dropping world of the English prison system. The first thing we realise is just how corrupt it is. The “screws,” though there are some good ones who are sympathetic to Melia’s plight (away from his pregnant wife and young daughter), seem to be, in effect, rather lazy people. They are perfectly content to permit the prisoners to run the prison, to develop their own hierarchy and even to sell drugs, as long as the situation doesn’t get too violent.

Socially skilled, and probably more intelligent than most of the prisoners on his wing, Melia is quite adept at climbing this hierarchy – in which the new currency is “vapes” – but, alas, they keep moving him to different wings or different prisons, so he has to start the process all over again. We also discover that almost everybody on the sex offender wing is Muslim but non-Muslims can, and do, sign up for special Eid feasts.

As a political prisoner, and one hoping for early release, Melia is subject to regular Maoist struggle sessions with a male social worker who is so deeply indoctrinated with Woke and so lacking in the ability to think that he and his type are concerned that Melia “thinks Black people aren’t White Britons.” The preceding, stresses Melia, is a genuine quote and he proves this by publishing the correspondence. Their aim is to “re-align Mr Melia’s mindset.” The chap from the anti-terrorist group “Prevent” concludes that Sam is no threat to anybody, but the torture of struggle sessions – in which Sam is logical and the man with power insanely tries to make Sam accept that black is white – must continue. At one point, the authorities are so cruel that they declare – though eventually change their minds – that his children cannot visit Melia in jail as his anti-Woke ideas might somehow lead a toddler and a baby into terrorism.

Melia’s story made me realise, more clearly than ever, how prison turns men into children. Having almost no agency, the slightest bit of power becomes extremely precious to your sense of self-worth and the smallest things matter hugely. Melia occupies his time making match-stick models and takes a massive amount of pride in them. Prisoners try to brag about their worldly success by displaying expensive tracksuits in their cells, just as children would show off their expensive and sought-after toys. You have to be careful, though, because some people in prison, like angry children, will destroy “anything nice.” The prison’s “mob” tends to control the canteen and uses this power to steal food for its members, such that ordinary prisoners are told that the hamburgers to which they are entitled have mysteriously already run out.

Melia muses that the problem with the British is that they are “coddled, fat, pacified and outwardly happy”, and the British are unlikely to seriously fight to get their country back until that is no longer the case. However, his memoir attests to just how self-defeating the system is. Melia is now regarded by many on the nationalist right as a political hero. He has been subjected to terrible psychological suffering – including a year on licence in which he was banned from all political activity and had to tell the authorities with whom he socialised as he was barred from meeting or contacting “far right” people – but the result is that he is more galvanized and prominent than ever.

Having read his book, I was left with many questions: How can they be so cruel? How can they be so unreasonable? My conclusion was that these people – so heavily invested in the regime – probably feel a bit like Eastern European government workers in the 1980s. On some level they know that something is about to change and it must not be allowed to change because, as happened in East Germany, the people will not easily forgive them for being the cowardly agents of a decadent tyranny.

My interview with Sam Melia can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me6vvWoUzL4&t=1s

How a Desire for Peace May Label Tucker Carlson a Foreign Agent

/15 Comments/in , /by
Joseph McGraw of the Free Expression Foundation

Introduction

The dormant capabilities and vulnerabilities of the First Amendment face their greatest test in wartime. Recently, Tucker Carlson revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency intends to refer him to the Department of Justice to be charged for failing to register in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In a number of his latest broadcasts, the pundit warned that free speech may soon become a casualty of the war with Iran. According to Carlson, the threatened criminal referral arises out of his contact with a number of Iranian nationals in the leadup to the present conflict. While the exact nature of his contact is unknown, the government may allege that he acted on the request of these foreign principals to advocate against the war. The action, in all likelihood, serves as a pretense for quashing his criticism and threatening other commentators to stay in line.

In close parallel, Laura Loomer, prominent Carlson detractor and close advisor to President Donald Trump, alleges that the pundit took money from a variety of Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In any case, Loomer has been pushing for his criminal investigation since at least February 1, a full month before the strikes. On March 14 she bragged, “If Tucker Qatarlson (sic) gets charged for violating FARA…I’m taking credit,” and “You have no idea how relentless I have been in speaking to GOP reps and even reporting Tucker to law enforcement and the DoJ.”

At long last, it appears her badgering of administration officials manifested into concrete action to silence speech amid the worsening war with Iran. While the criminal referral is a shot across Carlson’s bow regarding his anti-war speech, the government retains several pathways to materialize the threat. His legal footing hinges on three questions: 1) Is mere contact with citizens of another country with whom the United States is contemplating war enough to trigger mandatory registration under the FARA? 2) Did Carlson act on the request of a foreign principal to lobby for peace with Iran? or 3) If Loomer’s allegations are true, would taking money from foreign governments trigger mandatory registration?

The Statute

Signed into law in 1938, the FARA originated under the auspices of curtailing the influence of National Socialist Germany among American citizens. In its present form, the law requires that individuals falling into the category of “foreign agent” make a registration statement pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612 and disclose their activities. Foreign agents are defined in § 611(c)(1) of the statute as:

1) Any person who acts as an agent, employee, or under the control of a foreign principal and 2) advocates in some way in the interests of the foreign principal. Alternatively, one who holds himself out to be a foreign agent need not actually engage in advocacy to require registration. In both categories, an express contractual relationship between the individual and the foreign principal is not required to trigger the FARA. A foreign principal can include the government of another country, a “person outside the United States,” or an organization established under the laws of a foreign country. Notably, the FARA does not prohibit the advancement of foreign interests. In this way, the government argues free speech is not infringed though a chilling effect may result. Rather, the law requires that one disclose the agency behind the advocacy. To fulfill the advocacy requirement, one need only engage in political activity, act as a public relations agent, solicit donations, or represent the interests of the foreign principal to the U.S. government.

Does the FARA Violate the First Amendment?

While the Act does not explicitly limit speech, others have argued that the FARA chills First Amendment liberties by attaching negative labelling. In Meese v. Keene, the Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing for three reasons: First, Justice John Paul Stevens opined that the labels set up by congress in the FARA are meant to enhance truthful discourse by ensuring an informed public. Second, he contended that the labels in the Act have been law for so long that negative misinterpretation by the public should be a rare occurrence. Third, Stevens noted that the Court owes a level of respect to Congress in deciding to use terms like “political propaganda” as defined in the FARA. Consequently, the majority in Meese declined to find a chilling effect on free speech because the Act does not directly intervene in protected expression. Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent, however, argued that the FARA’s labels are far from neutral. He elaborated, “The Court’s error on neutrality leads it to ignore the practical effects of the classification, which create an indirect burden on expression.” While the existing precedent holds that the FARA does not infringe on free speech, an enterprising advocate could petition the Supreme Court to overturn the holding in Meese.

Is Mere Contact with a Foreign Principal Enough?

Without more facts as to the relationship Carlson had with the Iranian nationals in question, one can only tentatively conclude he had some kind of communication with them. As defined in the Act, these individuals meet the definition of a foreign principal because they are persons outside the United States. The agency requirement of the FARA, however, is a much higher standard than mere contact. While an express contract is not required, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. German-American Vocational League, Inc. that there must be mutual consent between the two parties as explained in the Restatement (1st) of Agency § 1. In other words, the agent must agree to act on behalf of and be subject to control by the foreign principal, and the foreign principal must agree that the agent so act. The FARA’s agency requirement, however, need not meet the Restatement (2d) of Agency’s more strict focus on control.

In Carlson’s case, the limited known facts do not lend themselves to his categorization as a foreign agent by contact alone. Surely the DoJ does not expect a journalist of national and international affairs to avoid speaking to citizens of another country for fear of triggering a FARA designation. Unless Carlson’s intercepted text messages contain some manifestation of consent to enter into an agency arrangement, the DoJ will have an extraordinarily uphill battle proving Carlson’s categorization under the Act. Even if these Iranian contacts were officials inside the Iranian government or members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the foreign principal’s proximity to state power does not lower the requirement that agency be established by mutual consent.

What If Iranian Nationals Requested that Carlson Lobby for Peace?

Some commentators like Loomer allege that Carlson, at the request of these Iranian nationals, lobbied the President to avoid war with Iran. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Irish Northern Aid Committee explained that FARA triggering requests must be analyzed according to the following factors: 1) If the request specifically named the would-be agent, 2) and the specificity of the action requested. Without more facts, Carlson’s agency under these allegations is unknown. Assuming the allegation’s truth, the DoJ may have a better case than using only Carlson’s contact with Iranian nationals. If one such Iranian individual, a foreign principal, requested that Carlson utilize his connections to gain audience with the President and lobby against the war, his actions may have been enough to establish agency under the Irish Northern Aid Committee standard. If the requester only asked Carlson to think about options to avoid war, agency may fail for lack of specificity. Without knowing the exact facts of the situation, it is difficult to predict where his actions fall on this spectrum.

Perhaps Carlson could argue that peace is in the interest of all nations, not just Iran. Nevertheless, the Act does not require that the interest in question be exclusive to the foreign principal. The statute explains that if one “represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States,” he fulfills the advocacy requirement. If it can be shown that Carlson acted on a specific request to lobby the President by his Iranian contact, the DoJ may successfully argue that he represented the interests of Iran to the government. This is irrespective if that interest is shared by other countries or even the United States itself.

Does Taking Money from a Foreign Principal Make One a Foreign Agent?

Independent of the allegations of having contact with Iranian nationals, Loomer contends Carlson took money from various Middle Eastern governments.  The simple act of receiving funds from a foreign government, however, is not enough to establish agency. In the 1966 amended text of the statute, the drafters noted, “mere receipt of a bona fide subsidy not subjecting the recipient to the direction or control of the donor does not require the recipient of the subsidy to register as an agent of the donor.” Illustratively, the court in Attorney General of the United States v. Irish People, Inc. agreed that even significant and repeated donations by a foreign principal do not decisively create agency unless there is an aspect of control. Loomer claims Carlson received funds to compensate him for his team’s travels. Unless this payment came with conditions that he report a certain way or shift his coverage on behalf of the interests of the subsidizing state, agency is not established.

The Defense of Selective Prosecution

Given the present American mediascape and scarce examples of enforcement of the FARA, Carlson could contend that the DoJ is selectively cracking down on those critical of the Iran War. The defense originates in the equal protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. In Carlson’s case, he must show that the decision to prosecute arose out of “the desire to penalize the exercise of constitutional rights.” The constitutional right in this case would be his protected free speech. He must also show that the DoJ declined to prosecute similarly situated individuals on the other side of the issue.

But courts are likely to be hesitant to accept a selective prosecution defense because Carlson’s First Amendment rights may not actually be infringed. As the Irish People court elucidated, enforcement of the FARA does not criminalize the speech in question. The D.C. Court of Appeals explained that the government’s motive in that case was only “insuring that the people of the United States may appraise their statements in light of their source.” This is likely to be the same rebuttal the DoJ will take with regards to Carlson if he raises the defense of selective prosecution. They will argue that they do not seek to quash his protected speech, but only to apprise the American people  of his concealed motivations.

Conclusion

If the DoJ finds that Carlson should have registered under the FARA, the most likely vector would be the Irish Northern Aid Commission request standard. They will attempt to establish that the pundit’s lobbying against the war was in response to a foreign principal’s request. The consequences of registration for an individual who makes his living on communication could be devastating. The DoJ could seek an injunction against any further broadcasting or video content until Carlson registers. If he complies with their demands, his content would likely need to carry disclaimers detailing his foreign alignment. The result would likely be a loss of credibility and reputation with his audience, a disastrous blow for an independent media figure. Moreover, using the FARA to chill constitutionally protected speech amid a new war would set a dangerous precedent for American political discourse. While the true facts of Carlson’s case are unknown, one may surmise that the government’s version of events paints a highly unfavorable view of his communications with foreign nationals. As the Iran conflagration spreads out of control, the appetite for harassing dissenters at home like Carlson is likely to grow in direct proportion.

Footnotes/Citations

  1. Loomer, Laura (@LauraLoomer). “Tucker Carlson needs to be investigated for possible FARA violations. Take a look at this video.” X (formerly Twitter), Feb. 1, 2026, https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/2018054665099719041
  2. Loomer, Laura (@LauraLoomer). “If Tucker Qatarlson gets charged for violating FARA and or leaking information to Russia, …” X (formerly Twitter), March 14, 2026, 1:23 p.m., https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/2032976193461633048
  3. U.S. Congress, Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Nazi and Other Propaganda, 74th Cong., 1st sess., February 15, H.Rept. 153 (Washington: GPO, 1935), p. 2.
  4. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(2).
  5. Id.
  6. Id. § 611(b).
  7. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).
  8. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 479 (1987).
  9. Id. at 480.
  10. Id. at 483.
  11. Id. at 484.
  12. Id. at 486.
  13. Id. at 490.
  14. United States v. German‑Am. Vocational League, Inc., 153 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1946).
  15. Attorney Gen. of the U.S. v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 668 F.2d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 1982).
  16. Id.
  17. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).
  18. H.R. Rep. No. 1470, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 5-6 (1966)
  19. Attorney Gen. of the U.S. v. Irish People, Inc. 796 F.2d 520, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
  20. United States v. Swanson, 509 F.2d 1205, 1208 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974).
  21. Irish People, Inc. 796 F.2d 520, 525.
  22. Id. at 526.

Will Hate Speech Laws Claim a New Victim in Brazil?

/14 Comments/in , /by

In early February 2026, as newly released documents detailed Jeffrey Epstein’s network of influence, Brazilian sociologist Jessé Souza posted an Instagram video making explosive claims. Epstein, he said, was “the most perfect product of Jewish Zionism” and “was not only funded by the Jewish lobby.” The pedophilia network “only existed to later serve as blackmail to Israel regarding billionaire politicians, especially Americans, to have support for Israel’s murderous practices.” He claimed the “Jewish Holocaust was pimped out by Zionism, with the help of Hollywood and all the world media, dominated by the Jewish lobby.”

Within hours, the video was deleted. Within days, a criminal complaint had been filed under Brazil’s strict hate speech laws. Within weeks, Souza faced potential imprisonment.

The Confederação Israelita do Brasil, Brazil’s umbrella Jewish organization, issued a statement calling it “regrettable that Prof. Souza uses his academic standing as a platform to spread hatred against Jews.”

Souza’s apology satisfied no one. According to CNN Brasil, he maintained that “Epstein is a product of Zionism as a racist and murderous ideology.” He acknowledged erring by failing to distinguish between the “Zionist lobby” and the “Jewish lobby,” and said he had “several non-Zionist Jewish friends.” In his statement to CNN Brasil, he claimed he “did not accuse individuals or collectivities, but a ‘structure of power.'” He also criticized “two years of absolute silence in the face of the genocide of the Palestinian people.”

On February 11, 2026, state deputy Guto Zacarias and Renato Battista filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, arguing Souza’s remarks violated Article 20 of Law 7,716 of 1989, which criminalizes inciting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The penalty is one to three years imprisonment plus a fine.

Hate speech laws are often associated with Europe, but such laws have made their ways to the tropics over the past century. Brazil’s hate speech framework emerged from a 1950 incident when African American dancer Katherine Dunham was refused rooms at São Paulo’s Hotel Esplanada because she was Black. The incident gained wide media attention. Congressman Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco proposed Law 1,390 of 1951, making racial discrimination in public places, education, and employment a contravenção penal (misdemeanor) punishable by fines and short jail terms.

The law was largely symbolic. Brazil’s Black movement denounced it for decades as ineffective. No one was ever convicted. In 1979, the Movimento Negro Unificado held a symbolic burial of the Act to protest its futility. The critical transformation came during Brazil’s re-democratization. The National Constituent Assembly of 1987 to 1988 brought together social movements suppressed during military dictatorship. The Brazilian Black movement drove anti racism provisions into the new Constitution.

Carlos Alberto Caó, a Black lawyer, journalist, and federal deputy imprisoned under military dictatorship, was the single most important legislator. A Democratic Labour Party member and student movement veteran, Caó successfully inserted Article 5, Section XLII into the 1988 Constitution, declaring racism a non bailable crime with no statute of limitations, an extraordinarily severe classification in Brazilian law.

Following ratification, Caó proposed Law 7,716 of January 5, 1989, the Lei Caó, criminalizing preventing or hindering access to employment, commercial establishments, education, restaurants, transportation, housing, or armed forces based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Penalties ranged from one to five years imprisonment.

The framework expanded multiple times. In 1997, Senator Paulo Paim, a Black steelworker turned politician, authored Law 9,459, broadening scope to explicitly cover religion and national origin alongside race, introducing the crime of racial disparagement. The law also criminalized manufacturing, selling, or displaying Nazi symbols including swastikas for purposes of promoting Nazism, with penalties of two to five years imprisonment.

The connection to Holocaust revisionism crystallized through Siegfried Ellwanger, a Brazilian of German descent who founded Editora Revisão and published Holocaust revisionist books from Porto Alegre. His most notorious work was “Holocausto: Judeu ou Alemão?” published in 1987.

The Movimento Popular Antirracista, a coalition uniting Jewish, Black, and human rights movements, filed criminal denunciations. The CONIB, along with the Federação Israelita do Estado de São Paulo and Federação Israelita do Rio Grande do Sul, filed complaints and supported prosecution under the Caó Law.

The Supreme Court upheld Ellwanger’s conviction in September 2003 by an 8 to 3 vote, ruling that antisemitism constitutes racism under Brazilian law. The Court declared that “the division of human beings into races results from a process of merely political social content” and that Ellwanger’s Holocaust revisionism constituted the crime of practicing racism. This became one of the most important free speech and hate crime rulings in Brazilian legal history. The Ellwanger precedent established that Jewish identity is a racial category for criminal law purposes. This is the legal foundation on which the complaint against Souza rests.

The Black-Jewish alliance that prosecuted Ellwanger emerged in late 1992, when both communities formed an unprecedented coalition against racial hatred, described as the first time in Brazilian history that Blacks and Jews united politically around a common struggle. In November 2022, Jewish representatives participated in São Paulo’s March of Black Consciousness under the banner “Jews Against Racism,” declaring that “Blacks and Jews are the many stories rich in discrimination processes and our tradition impels us to resist the fight against racism.”

The legacy of this alliance appears in unexpected forms. Guto Zacarias, who filed the complaint, is a 27-year-old state legislator from São Paulo, the youngest ever elected in 2022. His great grandfather was José Benedito Correia Leite, a historic Black activist. Despite his Black heritage, Zacarias has established a pattern of acting as legal advocate for Jewish organizations, particularly CONIB. In January 2024, when former Workers’ Party president José Genoíno suggested boycotting “certain Jewish companies,” Zacarias promptly filed a criminal complaint for racism.

Zacarias did not act alone. He was joined by Renato Battista, the national coordinator of the Movimento Brasil Livre and one of MBL’s most prominent political operatives. Like Zacarias, Battista has cultivated a visible pro-Israel persona. On October 7, 2025, the second anniversary of the Hamas attack, Battista posted a photo of himself at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. “Just as this Wall has withstood centuries of wars and destruction, Israel and its people remain standing, reminding the world that faith is stronger than terror,” he wrote. An earlier post from January 2025 showed him at the same site “giving thanks for having arrived this far.”

This pro-Israel activism by Brazilian right-wing figures mirrors the institutional posture of CONIB itself. CONIB was founded May 30, 1948, weeks after Israel’s independence. It gathers 14 state Jewish federations and explicitly identifies as pro-Israel and Zionist. Following October 7, 2023, CONIB documented a 961% increase in antisemitic reports.

CONIB has pushed for adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which Rio de Janeiro adopted in November 2023. The definition controversially includes examples relating to Israel criticism, such as claiming Israel’s existence is “a racist endeavor” or comparing Israeli policy to Nazism. When President Lula compared Gaza to the Holocaust in February 2024, CONIB condemned it as “a perverse distortion of reality,” triggering a major diplomatic crisis.

Far from being confined to the Euro-American space, the long arm of Judah now imperils tropical realms like Brazil. It’s part of organized Jewry’s global campaign to bend every Gentile—be they leftist radicals, right-wing stalwarts, Whites, Blacks, or other racial pairings—to its inexorable will. Souza’s fate illuminates the pivot: Jewish machinations spare no ally on the Left who dares challenge the Sanhedrin’s power. Only when Gentiles shatter the polarization vortex engineered by Jewish machinations can the authentic struggle—Jew vs. Gentile—unfold, correcting the multitude of errors committed during the 20th century and restoring ethnic hierarchies to their rightful order.

Victory for the First Amendment in the Third Circuit

/5 Comments/in , /by

This article first appeared on the website of the Free Expression Foundation.

… a female professor – and of course, it would be a female professor because, as Orwell noted, “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”– handed NJIT’s Provost an essay from Jorjani’s personal (non-university) website entitled, “Against Perennial Philosophy.” His sin here was mentioning a genetic link between race and intelligence, which really set the faculty frothing. Entire departments took to the school newspaper to denounce Jorjani – though none dared debate him.

On September 8, 2025 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals did something remarkable: it protected a proponent of race realist speech against depredation by a state university. The case is Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025) and it bears watching.

Jason Jorjani was a lecturer at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (or NJIT) in Newark, New Jersey. (A lecturer is a kind of junior professor, a role many universities have embraced as a means of exploiting the large number of Ph.Ds on the market). He had taught for several years at NJIT in Newark, earning very strong reviews from his students, especially the minorities. His publishing record, too, was very strong. But then Jorjani found himself the subject of a doxxing attack published in the New York Times on September 19, 2017 (viz. “Undercover with the Alt Right” by Jesse Singal). It transpired that in the summer of 2017, while school was not in session, Jorjani was secretly recorded without his consent during an off-campus conversation in a pub in New York City. His interlocutor in that conversation, which had gone on for hours and covered various controversial topics, turned out to be an undercover left-wing operative.

None of Jorjani’s remarks were directed to anyone at NJIT, nor did they mention anyone at NJIT.

The premise that the left-wing operative used to secure Jorjani’s confidence was that the operative was a right wing graduate student who wanted to discuss how the left persecutes the right in the modern academy. Immune to all irony, one of the first things the left wing organization that had set the sting did upon publication was to post a Facebook petition demanding that Jorjani be fired for his comments in the New York City pub.

The left-wing operatives would soon have their way.

Instead of defending Jorjani’s right to speak, the day after the NYT Op-Ed was published the President of NJIT, along with the Dean, responded with the release of a Mass Email that went to all faculty and staff at NJIT (approximately 200 people) before Jorjani had even been heard from. The Mass Email specifically condemned Jorjani for his speech as revealed in the NYT Op-Ed and then announced that he was being treated to an investigation because of his speech. Five days later, those sanctions were given added teeth when the NJIT administration suspended Jorjani from teaching while they conducted an “investigation” prompted by his speech.

NJIT’s administration inspired something like a feeding frenzy in the rest of the faculty. With the NJIT administration having chummed the waters by indicating that Jorjani could and would be targeted because of his extra-mural speech, the sharks began to circle. The administrative attack on Jorjani induced people within NJIT to scrutinize other extra-mural speech by Jorjani and bring such speech to the attention of the NJIT administration. Thus, shortly after the Mass Email, a female professor – and of course, it would be a female professor because, as Orwell noted, “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”– handed NJIT’s Provost an essay from Jorjani’s personal (non-university) website entitled, “Against Perennial Philosophy.” His sin here was mentioning a genetic link between race and intelligence, which really set the faculty frothing. Entire departments took to the school newspaper to denounce Jorjani – though none dared debate him.

Jorjani’s “Against Perennial Philosophy” essay was again an instance of extra-mural speech on various topics of public concern, including geo-political matters in modern Iran, brutal periods in Persian history (including an apparent historical genocide perpetrated by invading Turkic peoples against the prior Aryan peoples of Persia), and the prospect of eugenics. It was composed from remarks Jorjani had originally delivered to a Persian think tank he had been involved with. Again, Jorjani had never directed “Against Perennial Philosophy” to anyone at NJIT, nor did the essay even mention anyone at NJIT.

Suffice to say that no one at NJIT was interested in past genocides, let alone of white people. Rather, what excited their attention was the very small part of the essay which dealt with racial differences in intelligence.

Needless to say, Jorjani’s suspension was never reinstated; instead, the school simply refused to renew his appointment. Incredibly, the state university contended that Jorjani’s extramural speech in both the NYC pub and in his essay, which they conceded met the test under the law for “speech on a matter of public concern,” was simply too “disruptive” in itself to permit his continued employment. (Again and again NJIT came back to this notion of “disruption,” ultimately derived from the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)).  If one wants to know what kind of men find their way in the modern academy and hold rein there, we offer the following exchange from the deposition with Jorjani’s Dean:

Q: Students and faculty were so distracted by a conversation that had been secretly recorded off campus months before, they could not effectively concentrate on their studies and on their teaching at NJIT; is that right?

A: Yes.

Nor was this a momentary lapse of reason. Here are some additional outtakes from the Dean’s performance at his deposition:

Q: In the course of your nearly three decades in the academy, have you had the opportunity to consider the concept of academic freedom?

A: It — it — it’s difficult to say. I — I haven’t explicitly considered it.

*

Q: Your job [is] concerned in some respect with academic freedom; correct?

A: I’m not aware that, you know, specifically that’s in my job description.

*

Q: So my question to you, Dean ___, is: Are there some instances when there should be a pall of orthodoxy thrown over the classroom?… MR. KELLY: Let the record reflect that Dean _____ was taking some time to answer this question. Please take as much time as you need, sir.

THE WITNESS: Sure. I’ll say possibly, yes.

*

Q: So, Dean____, the question is: As part of the limited concept of academic freedom that you hold, are you aware of the need for the academy to protect controversial speech?

A: No.

*

Q: Did you have any concern in September of 2017, with protecting unpopular speech?

A: Did I have a concern about protecting unpopular speech?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: No.

Q: Have you had time to reflect upon that lack of concern since then?

A: I — I — I — no. I haven’t really thought about it.

And yet the trial court, standing all modern First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, backed the Dean and NJIT. It is as though the judge interpreted the bedrock principle to be that the Government certainly may prohibit the expression of an idea – simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

But a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit disagreed, strongly: “the disruption NJIT described does not outweigh even minimal interest in Jorjani’s speech.” Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135, 144 (3rd Cir. 2025). It not only characterized the alleged “disruption” as “minimal” but noted that it differed “little from the ordinary operation of a public university.” Id. at 142. Nowhere did the Third Circuit indicate that it was confronting a “close question.”

The case of Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025) is now etched in law as a firm reprimand against state sponsored groupthink at public university. Let us hope for a few more free speech victories.

– Frederick C. Kelly, Goshen, New York. The author records his gratitude for professional help from the FEF in reviewing his brief in Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025).

A Jewish Mayor’s Mission to Turn Miami Beach into a Haven for Jewish Supremacy

/8 Comments/in , /by

​​Steven Meiner’s tenure as Miami Beach’s Orthodox Jewish mayor reveals his mission to make South Florida a secure redoubt for organized Jewry, leveraging police visits on dissenters and public outrage over Nazi anthems to consolidate ethno-religious power. In January 2026, Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner faced two incidents that showcased his commitment to upholding Jewish interests no matter the context.

At Vendôme nightclub, right-wing influencers such as Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, and Sneako celebrated while Kanye West’s song “Heil Hitler” blared through speakers during a VIP bottle parade. Meiner, whose grandparents’ families died during World War II, sharply criticized the incident. A few days before, Miami Beach police detectives appeared at veteran Raquel Pacheco’s home, questioning her about a Facebook comment criticizing the mayor’s support for Israel.

 

What connected these incidents was the application of Jewish power at the municipal level. The woman visited by police had accused Meiner of calling for Palestinian deaths and censoring a documentary about Israeli occupation. For the Orthodox Jewish mayor who has transformed Miami Beach governance into an expression of his religious identity and Zionist convictions, these moments revealed his willingness to use state power and informal pressure mechanisms to intimidate individuals critical of Jewish endeavors.

Steven Meiner’s story begins in Brooklyn, where he was born around 1970 to Sheldon Meiner, a career IRS agent, and Dorothy Weiss Meiner, a public school teacher and guidance counselor. Raised in an Orthodox Jewish home in Brooklyn and later Staten Island, he attended the Yeshiva of Flatbush, a flagship Modern Orthodox day school that would shape his religious identity for life.

Meiner excelled academically. He graduated summa cum laude from Brooklyn College, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and majored in political science. On top of that, he earned his J.D. cum laude from Brooklyn Law School.

After law school, Meiner joined the upper echelons of New York corporate law. Between 1998 and 2002, he worked at Dewey Ballantine, focusing on complex financial litigation. From 2002 to 2007, he continued at Mayer Brown, handling large scale financial and securities disputes.

In 2007, Meiner made a pivotal move in relocating to Miami Beach and joining the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a civil enforcement attorney in its Miami office. Over roughly 17 years, he remained at the SEC while simultaneously building a profile in Miami Beach civic life.

Before holding elected office, Meiner served on Miami Beach advisory panels and was active in local charitable organizations. In 2012, he was recognized as Man of the Year by a local civic group, placing him within the city’s professional Orthodox Jewish and civic networks well before his first campaign.

In November 2019, Meiner ran for Miami Beach City Commission Group IV and won a runoff against former commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez in what local press described as an upset. Orthodox outlets highlighted that he was, by their account, the first Orthodox Jew ever to sit on the Miami Beach commission.

As commissioner from 2019 to 2023, Meiner’s brand coalesced around public safety, pushing to expand the city’s misdemeanor prosecution program and increase successful prosecutions for quality of life offenses.

When term limits forced out Mayor Dan Gelber—also of Jewish confession—in 2023, Meiner ran for mayor as a No Party Affiliation candidate, though he had been a registered Republican until switching to NPA in 2018. In a four-way race including Michael Góngora, Mike Grieco and Bill Roedy, Meiner advanced to a runoff with Góngora and won with roughly 54% of about 10,000 votes, becoming the 39th Mayor of Miami Beach.

He branded himself as tough on crime by vowing to clamp down on Spring Break chaos, jail homeless people who refused shelter, expand city prosecutor powers, and restrain overdevelopment. In 2023, he eschewed political committees, and raised $86,600 through his campaign committee, with the vast majority coming from personal checks.

Beyond tackling local issues, Meiner used his mayoral position to assert the Jewish community’s racial will to power. In early 2024, after pro-Palestinian demonstrations took place near Art Basel and at Jewish sites, Meiner sponsored and secured passage of an ordinance making it a crime to obstruct streets or sidewalks after being ordered to clear them, while requiring that an adequate and available alternative forum be offered for protests.

Meiner justified the ordinance by citing an incident in which he said pro-Palestinian protesters harassed elderly Jewish residents leaving their synagogue, drawing parallels to National Socialist Germany. At the city commission hearing, he repeatedly cut off and yelled at speakers, who criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza or mentioned Gaza in relation to the ordinance.

He told one speaker he would not allow her to “debase and lie about the Israeli government” and cut her microphone. Civil liberties advocates argued that despite formal First Amendment carve outs, the law and Meiner’s conduct signaled that pro-Palestinian speech would be policed much more harshly in Miami Beach than pro-Israel speech. For his steadfast defense of the Jewish community in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack by Hamas, the Greater Miami Jewish Federation sent a formal letter to Meiner and the city commission praising the Miami Beach Police Department for its unwavering commitment to protecting synagogues, Jewish schools, the Holocaust Memorial, and the Jewish Community Center.

One of Meiner’s most nationally visible conflicts emerged in early 2025 over O Cinema, a non-profit art house theater leasing space in a city-owned historic building. After O Cinema scheduled screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary about Palestinian dispossession in the West Bank, Meiner sent the theater a letter demanding cancellation of the showings.

He characterized the film as a “one-sided propaganda” attack on the Jewish people that is inconsistent with the values of the city and its residents. He introduced a resolution to terminate O Cinema’s lease, revoke at least $40,000 in previously approved city grant funding, and cut off future subsidies, explicitly tying this to the decision to show No Other Land.

O Cinema initially considered canceling but reversed course within hours, asserting that compliance would betray their mission and the First Amendment. Civil liberties groups including PEN America and Artists at Risk Connection condemned Meiner’s move as “beyond the pale,” warning that terminating a lease in retaliation for film content would constitute unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

At a March 2025 commission meeting, it became clear Meiner lacked support from his colleagues. Under pressure, he withdrew the lease termination resolution and tabled a related measure urging O Cinema to screen films reflecting the perspective of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Nonetheless, he continued publicly describing No Other Land as a false attack on the Jewish people and a public safety threat.

By his 2025 re-election bid, Meiner had moved from his earlier anti-PAC posture to soliciting funds for Miami Beach First, a political committee backing his campaign. According to an investigation by The Real Deal, while Meiner touts a tough line against overdevelopment, Miami Beach First had been heavily funded by major real estate and hospitality figures of Jewish extraction.

Stuart Miller, the Jewish co-CEO of home construction company Lennar, contributed $50,000. Michael Simkins and Marc Roberts, co-owners of E11even nightclub, gave $35,000 combined. David Grutman of Groot Hospitality contributed $20,000. In addition, New York’s Naftali Group pitched in $10,000.

Backed by Jewish donors and the local Jewish community, Meiner pressed forward with his campaign to turn Miami Beach into a safe space for organized Jewry. In January 2026, Meiner’s approach to dissent drew intense national scrutiny when Miami Beach police visited Raquel Pacheco’s home over a Facebook comment she posted criticizing him. Pacheco had replied to an official mayoral Facebook post in which Meiner described Miami Beach as a sanctuary for everyone and one of the most tolerant cities in the country.

Her response accused him of consistently calling for the death of all Palestinians and trying to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings. About six days later, two detectives from the Miami Beach Police Intelligence Unit arrived at her home, showed her the comment, and questioned whether she had written it.

On video, they stated they were concerned her words could spur somebody to commit an extreme act and advised her to refrain from posting similar content. Pacheco refused to answer questions without a lawyer present.

Axios and local reports initially cited police sources saying Meiner’s office had flagged the Facebook post. The Miami Beach Police Chief later issued a statement claiming he alone ordered the visit, while affirming that the mayor had no role in directing enforcement.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called the visit an “egregious abuse of power” that suppresses protected political speech, observing that Pacheco’s post neither endorsed violence nor met the legal bar for incitement. The subsequent Vendôme nightclub further highlighted the uncomfortable nexus between Meiner’s public postures and his private financing. Videos circulating online showed right-wing influencers including media personality Nick Fuentes, Andrew and Tristan Tate, and social media provocateurs Sneako, Clavicular, and Myron Gaines, celebrating at the South Beach nightclub while Kanye West’s song “Heil Hitler” played during a VIP bottle parade.

The track, which includes repeated chants of the National Socialist salute, has been banned in Germany and restricted on major U.S. music platforms. In the song, West raps about becoming a National Socialist and includes audio of a 1935 speech by Adolf Hitler.

Meiner issued a forceful public statement condemning the incident. He declared on Twitter, “I am deeply disturbed and disgusted by these videos of twisted individuals glorifying Hitler and the murder of millions.” He added that “these ‘influencers’ who spread hate should never have been welcomed into this club or allowed to play a song with Heil Hitler lyrics.”

Vendôme issued its own apology, calling the song’s playing at the club “hate speech.” According to multiple reports, David Grutman, who owns Vendôme through his Groot Hospitality empire and has previously bankrolled Meiner’s mayoral efforts, immediately banned the influencers from all his properties.

Looking at his track record, Meiner is on a mission to make Miami Beach safe for Jewish supremacy. Meiner’s mayoralty thus stands as a stark case study in Jewish political overreach, successfully molding South Florida’s premier beachfront city into a bespoke safe space for his people, insulated from the critiques and provocations that unsettle them elsewhere.

Lists

/1 Comment/in , /by

In our wild youth, we used to say that people were “on the list” if we had a bone to pick with them. Unfortunately, we didn’t have such a list, as it would have been far too long and unwieldy. Today, I would probably keep positive lists instead. Unfortunately, that would be more manageable!

Jaques Baud – Jaques Baud LinkedIn

However, there are other lists that are far more dangerous – and which rarely attract the attention of the general public. One such list is the EU sanctions list. It recently attracted new attention when sanctions were imposed on the Swiss author, analyst, and commentator Colonel Jaques Baud. Mr. Baud is a retired colonel in the Swiss intelligence service specializing in the Warsaw Pact countries. He has also been affiliated with the UN and, as an expert on Africa, has been sent to several of the continent’s hot spots as a mediator, etc. His entire impressive career is documented on English Wikipedia. Now he has been added to the EU’s sanctions list because his analyses of the war in Ukraine do not correspond with the EU’s established policy. He is accused of allegedly spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. Have we heard these terms before? Yes, they are meaningless words in themselves, because they presuppose that there is a recognized authority that can determine exactly what is true and what is false. And, of course, no such authority exists. In the exact sciences, there are of course things that cannot be debated – for example, that there are only two sexes – but when it comes to political analysis, it is not quite so simple. That is why we have analysts – and they do not always agree, of course, and they naturally form their own opinions based on their general knowledge of the issues. Most Western politicians, including EU and NATO leaders, lie – deliberately – every time they open their mouths and talk about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. They always begin with the phrase “Putin’s unprovoked aggression,” and they always forget to mention the real root causes of the conflict. If they claim that they are not deliberately lying, it only proves that their intelligence and general knowledge leave a lot to be desired. In any case, they spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about Putin, Russia, and Ukraine. But they are not on any sanctions list for that reason. Jacques Baud’s analyses are inconvenient, however, because they expose politicians’ web of lies – or at least cast doubt on their self-assured opinions. And that is what democracy and freedom of expression are all about…

Among Baud’s crimes is that in 2016 he stated that there was no evidence that Osama bin Laden had played any role in the attacks of September 11, 2001. He did not say that bin Laden had played no role – he simply saw no evidence. And then he is blamed for quoting Oleksiy Arestovych, who was an adviser to the Ukrainian president, as saying that Ukraine provoked the Russian attack in an attempt to involve NATO. He has said that Putin is not out to conquer all of Ukraine, but to demilitarize it, which is true, but it is classified as “misinformation” because that is what the Kremlin claims, and by definition that is just propaganda. And so on. The list is long.

The bottom line is that there is only one “truth,” and that is the one put forward by the relevant authorities. I have always believed that it was the job of the press and independent analysts to verify such official truths – because if not, we are back in the Soviet Union, where “the truth” could be read every day in Pravda. We must therefore forget all about a free and independent press; we can make do with the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, whose motto is “Ignorance is Strength.” Baud is accused of being paid by the Kremlin, but unlike many other commentators, Baud has deliberately refrained from appearing in the Russian press and on Russian television – but of course he cannot prevent people from quoting him.

The Wikipedia page has a long list of his “crimes.” But even if some of what he says may later turn out to be wrong, that is precisely the right you have in a democratic society. The right to be wrong. Yes, you even have the right to deliberately lie in political debate – at least, people do it diligently. But what should we do about politicians when history shows that they were wrong—or perhaps more accurately, that they deliberately lied? Their incorrect analyses have had consequences—they have impoverished us and destroyed Europe even more than it already was—and they are responsible for the deaths of a few million Ukrainians. In the worst case, they will lead us into a nuclear war. As we know, “conspiracies against peace” were a crime at the Nuremberg Trials. When the current Section 266b of the Criminal Code was introduced, there was also a proposal to make it a criminal offense to agitate for war, but the then Minister of Justice, Knud Thestrup, believed that agitating for Denmark to go to war was hardly a punishable offense… When I listen to the current war rhetoric, I am disgusted, and I beg to differ with Thestrup: They should be punished. But in 1970, it was unimaginable that politicians could be as insane as they are today, but over 50 years of dumbing down and democracy in union have left their mark.

We can summarize it by saying that today you have no freedom of speech if you don’t believe “the right thing” – because ultimately, the core of this is precisely freedom of speech. That is what this is primarily about.

But what does it mean to be on the EU’s sanctions list? Well, it’s worse than going to prison. Your assets are frozen, your bank accounts are closed, you can’t have a credit card, you can’t fly, you can’t travel across borders – in short: you can’t live! The restrictions also apply to your family (what was called Sippenhaft in Hitler’s Germany!), and third parties are prohibited from giving you money.

And Jaques Baud is not the first, he is just the most prominent. The same has previously happened to a large number of German journalists who have written the truth about Russia.

The economic death sentence is handed down by unelected bureaucrats on behalf of unelected politicians. You have no opportunity to defend yourself, there are no avenues of appeal, no opportunities to complain – nothing. Is this what we are to understand by the rule of law? Not in my view! And this is yet another reason why we must not only leave the EU – we must abolish this entire parasitic organization, which is now also shamelessly taking out loans on our behalf. And there must necessarily be a legal reckoning following the same guidelines and with the same penalties and the same legal certainty as in Nuremberg. Perhaps one should invest one’s savings in Daka shares…

However, there are also other lists, such as the US terror list, which includes all the real or non-existent terrorist organizations created by the CIA. Before writing about any organization, one should check whether it is on that list, because if so, one must be careful what one writes, so as not to inadvertently become guilty of supporting or glorifying terrorism in Denmark as well. However, this list also includes individuals, e.g., Syria’s current president, al-Julani, was on the list (reward of USD 10 million). He was accused of single-handedly beheading his opponents. This can probably be classified as terrorism. However, the list also includes Fredrik Vejdeland, the leader of Nordfront, and he is therefore also on the Swedish list. What terrorism has Vejdeland committed? Absolutely none. He has been convicted of violating the section on “incitement against ethnic groups,” which corresponds to the Danish § 266b, but this can hardly be described as terrorism, cf. al-Julani, Osama bin Laden, and other people of that caliber.

But again, there is no possibility of defense, no possibility of appeal, nothing. It is a purely bureaucratic measure. Rule of law? Forget it, it no longer exists! The consequences are largely the same as for Jacques Baud, but Vejdeland cannot have an official job either, because then you need a salary account. And even if he can get a job where he is paid with real money (i.e., under the table), you can’t use cash for much in Sweden—only in grocery stores. They haven’t been abolished, but most businesses refuse to accept them. Sweden is always ahead when it comes to the road to ruin—but we always follow. Be on your guard!

Fredrik Vejdeland (Photo: Motståndsrörelsen.se)

Vejdeland believes that the Swedish government put him on the US terror list in connection with giving the US bases in Sweden. After all, Vejdeland has had nothing whatsoever to do with the US. Something for something! Al-Julani was removed from the terror list just as easily as he was added to it. For Vejdeland, the situation is different…

Fredrik Vejdeland has a sick wife and eight (8) minor children!

It is also wrong in England. George Galloway, a long-standing member of the British Parliament and leader of the Workers Party of Britain, was detained at the airport with his wife – without being arrested, because that would have given him rights. He was subjected to cross-examination about his political views. When he was released, he left the country, knowing that he was “on the list.” Today, he lives in freedom in Moscow. Listen to him on Mother of All Talkshows (MOATS) on YouTube. If I were younger, I would not hesitate for a moment to join him.

George Galloway (Photo: Jessica Taylor, CC BY 3.0)

If you are a dissident, you might as well prepare yourself for total war with the system.

To all those who want war. Rossoschka – German section. The graves of Stalingrad. German politicians should take a trip to Stalingrad.
Travel video: https://cloud.mail.ru/stock/8mbJ99u6uB1zhcWAVxAsKQhm

Related articles:

 

 

Legal Witchcraft and Victimhood Inversion

/11 Comments/in , /by

Honoré Daumier (1808–1879), Two Lawyers Conversing

Despite the commendable efforts of President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio to alert the American public to the rising tide of free-speech suppression in the EU, Soviet-style legal practices in certain segments of the EU judiciary remain very much alive and kicking. Let us be clear: The Second World War has never really ended; it has merely entered a prolonged verbal conflict, potentially on track to assume again violent and war-like dimensions.

The latest case is that of Martin Pfeiffer, former Austrian editor of the now defunct literary magazine Die Aula, who was sentenced on December 3 of this year to four years in prison for “re-engagement in National Socialist activities” under Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz).

The prosecution had listed approximately 300 articles from the now-defunct magazine, which allegedly propagated, among other things, racial ideology and antisemitism. These articles were discussed individually with the jury during sometimes lengthy trial days. Pfeiffer, who was editor-in-chief at the time, was also a district politician for the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Graz and has consistently denied all charges. The prosecution alleges that he provided a platform in “Aula” for racism, master race and ethnic nationalism, a biologically racist concept of “the people,” and National Socialist racial theories.

The magazine  rarely dealt with ideological subjects, focusing instead on cultural themes and the idea of empire—topics closely associated with the conservative party in Austria, the FPÖ.

What is striking is that the laws under which Pfeiffer was indicted—particularly Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz), enacted in 1947—date from the period when Austria was still under the joint occupation of the four Allied powers: the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom, and France. Moreover, Pfeiffer was prosecuted retroactively for articles he had published between 2005 and 2018—in some cases more than fifteen years earlier. The judiciary in the city  of Graz  simply brushed aside both the statute of limitations and the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (“no crime, no punishment without prior law”). The highly abstract, almost untranslatable compound nouns of German/Austrian legal jargon—Wiederbetätigung (“re-engagement”), Volksverhetzung (“incitement to hatred of the people”), etc., defy precise rendering into English, which only adds to their opacity when viewed through the lens of an American lawyer.

Pfeiffer’s case demonstrates that any dissident author—regardless of his political persuasion or nationality—can be subjected to ex post facto prosecution if the ruling class deems him a nuisance. This tactic of selectively targeting “enemies of the people” was a standard tool of the judiciary throughout former communist Eastern Europe.

In passing, it is worth noting that Pfeiffer’s trial bears a striking resemblance to the many show trials of communist Yugoslavia. In 1984, my late father, a Catholic conservative and former attorney, was sentenced to four years in prison for “hostile propaganda” under Article 133 of the Yugoslav Criminal Code (neprijateljska propaganda, YU-KZ). He had written anonymous critical articles for the London-based Croatian émigré bi-weekly Nova Hrvatska, exposing the communist regime’s harsh repression of the Croatian Catholic Church and culture. He was subsequently adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International and championed by U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, Senator Bob Dole, and several other conservative politicians and journalists, among them Pat Buchanan.

There is a far more scarry dimension to the Pfeiffer’s story. After 1945, both the United States and the nations of Europe were compelled to adopt the model of the “proposition nation”—an abstract political community defined not by historical continuity, race or shared culture, but by universalist, immigrant-welcoming, open-entry-for-all principles. The mass influx of non-European migrants into the EU over the past decade was therefore entirely predictable: it was the logical, even deliberate, outcome of the post-war Allied strategy to suppress Europe’s historic interethnic tensions by diluting the cultural and racial homogeneity of its peoples. Likewise, the introduction of the Schengen open-border regime in 1985 (fully implemented in the 1990s) was perfectly in accordance  with the liberal-capitalist dogma of the “free movement of people and capital.”

Germany was particularly affected by these capitalist open-border policies. As the late German legal scholar Günther Maschke observed, “The German people had to adapt to the constitution, instead of the constitution being adapted to the German people.” German constitutionalism, he continued, has become a kind of “civil religion” in which multiculturalism has replaced traditional national identity with a purely legal construct—what Maschke called an imaginary “Basic Law country.” When this is combined with the quasi-sacralized, unquestionable historical narrative of the Holocaust, the result is a birth of a political entity that should be seen as a “secular theocracy.” Within this framework, the only form of patriotism still tolerated in Germany and Austria is Verfassungspatriotismus—constitutional patriotism.(1)

Victimhood Inversion

Today, core elements of the German and Austrian Criminal Code function in some ways reminiscent of former Soviet criminal law. Germany and Austria must demonstrate, daily, that they can meet their “self-re-education tasks” even more rigorously than its post-WWII mentors. Comparable dynamics exist in other EU member states, where semantic drifts have turned the charges of fascism into an all-purpose label of the ultimate cosmic evil.

Despite the phenomenal rise of right-wing parties across the EU, many judicial institutions—both in Europe and in the United States—remain largely staffed by judges and prosecutors from the post-1968 Marxist-inspired “boomer” generation, along with various former left-wing Antifa activists, modern SJWs and virtue-signalers (2). These judges and prosecutors make little effort to conceal their hatred (and fear) of Trump, while also displaying open hostility toward right-wing populist movements and parties such as the growing AfD in Germany or the FPÖ in Austria. In addition, a network of influential and wealthy non-governmental organizations across Europe, such as the CRIF and LICRA in France, the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung in Germany, and the hard-left DÖW in Austria—operate in a manner comparable to U.S. advocacy groups such as the  ADL or the SPLC. Their primary function, very similar to that of the old Soviet people’s commissariats, is to monitor academics, journalists, and public figures suspected of non-liberal ideological transgressions. German nationalists derisively label such snitching NGO outfits Gutmenschen (“do-gooders”); their French counterparts are called bien-pensants. In plain English, these so-called NGOs represent the academic thought police.

Most worrisome, however, is the climate of fear-induced self-censorship among European academics. Many believe that by remaining apolitical, silent and not rocking the boat they will best safeguard their careers and perks—a grave illusion long disproven by dissidents in the former communist countries of East Europe.  Sooner or later the thought police will show up on their doorstep regardless of how mute they were in their former political activities.

In the contemporary West, there is no need for gulags or firing squads given that more sophisticated methods of repression have become far more effective: deplatforming, debanking, or even worse, what the French call l’inversion accusatoire—the “reversal of the accusation.” Broadly speaking, this means “victimhood inversion”, a technique once common in the communist judiciary of East Europe: to cover up one’s own mega crimes, one accuses the opposing side of even greater crimes. The dynamic of mutual victimhood inversion is visible today in the conflict between the Hamas and IDF with many more to come shortly.

Many of the legal and rhetorical tactics recently deployed against President Trump were pioneered decades ago in the multi-ethnic Soviet Union and throughout the formerly communist Eastern Europe. Consequently, European prosecutors and media outlets eagerly reach for the same communist shut-up nouns—“Nazi,” “Ustasha,” “antisemite,” “white supremacist,” “racist”—in order to dehumanize political dissenters, while almost never mentioning the millions who perished under communist regimes between 1945 and 1950. President Trump is surely well aware of these legal and semantic shifts having himself endured similar “lawfare” waged and  staged by his domestic enemies. The long-term outcome of this judicial parody in both the EU and the United States is entirely predictable: growing mutual distrust, escalating interracial and interethnic conflict, institutional breakdown, and, ultimately, the collapse of the System.

Notes:

  1. Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (Wien und Leipzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997), p.74.
  2. Alain de Benoist, “Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition,” in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), p. 190–205.