A Dissident’s Guide to Cryptocurrency

With various tech and financial companies cracking down on dissident voices, it is becoming more important than ever to support the leaders and organizations who are working to save our people. They are making the necessary personal sacrifices that the rest of us cannot afford to make. They need our financial support.

Although there are many ways to donate, many of them face privacy hurdles, which is an important concern if you have a job and family to support. Thankfully, such giving does not require you to give up your anonymity. In this guide, I will explain one way to do so safely—by using cryptocurrency.

Alternative Ways of Giving

Before discussing cryptocurrency, it is worth mentioning other, simpler ways to give. The most obvious is to write a check and send it via regular mail or to use the bill paying feature from your bank. The downside is that this is not entirely anonymous, which is an important concern for many people.

Some old-school alternatives that can protect anonymity include money orders and cashier’s checks, which you can purchase with cash at a bank or the post office. Click here to learn more about the difference between the two. It is also legal to send cash through the mail, although that is risky. Patreon and Paypal are additional options, but both are hostile to Dissident Right organizations and leaders. Neither is recommended.

Obtaining Cryptocurrency

How do you use cryptocurrency? For most people, the first step is to create an account at an established cryptocurrency exchange. There are hundreds of exchanges to choose from, but since you will be sharing personal and bank information with them, you will want to use one that is established and trusted (here is a review of some of that are well known).

The largest exchange is Coinbase. Other established exchanges include Gemini, Kraken, and Coinmama.  I do not recommend Coinbase because they have a track record of blocking Dissident Right organizations (including TOO). Those blocking efforts are easy to avoid, which I explain below, but why give your personal and banking information to a hostile organization?

Exchanges must comply with a variety of regulatory requirements intended to minimize the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering and terrorism purposes. That means they will collect information on your real identity (often confirmed by taking a photo of your ID with your mobile phone) and a phone number. They will also collect bank information to purchase cryptocurrency. It does not take long to provide this information, but it may take a few days for them to review and approve your account and any bank deposits. Like foreign currency exchanges, they will take a small percentage when you convert money from cash to crypto.

There are other, more anonymous ways to buy cryptocurrency than using an exchange. These include using Bitcoin ATMs and prepaid credit cards that you can purchase at a convenience store. Lean more about those options here and here.

Bitcoin (ticker BTC or XBT) is the most widely used cryptocurrency, but there are others. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a widely used alternative that reportedly has lower fees (don’t confuse it with bitcoin itself). Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies include Monero, Dash, and Zcash. I recommend these privacy-oriented alternatives over bitcoin for reasons that are discussed below.

If you want to use an alternative currency, first check the “Donate” page of the organization you want to give to so you can be sure that they take it. If you do not see your preferred cryptocurrency, try emailing them to see if they can accommodate you. Often they can.


Once you have purchased bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, you are free to transfer it to others. If you use an exchange, you could make donations directly from there, but I advise against doing this. In some cases (like Coinbase), they have blocked certain Dissident Right bitcoin addresses. Moreover, if you give money directly from the exchange, you will be doing so in an environment where they already have your personal and banking information, which is hardly an ideal choice if you value privacy and anonymity.

Fortunately, it is easy to get around these privacy concerns by setting up a “wallet” off site. Wallets are a mechanism for storing cryptocurrency and they come in various forms, including online platforms that can be accessed via the web or your mobile phone. Here is a review of some that are widely used.

I prefer desktop wallets because they allow you to avoid going through a third-party web site, which might track your activity. One of the most widely used for bitcoin is Electrum. I prefer Exodus because it has a nicer interface and can handle multiple currencies, including privacy coins. Both are free and easy to use. Here is a review of some desktop alternatives.

Control over your wallet is maintained with a secret code called a private key.  All wallets will give you this information and ask you to write it down somewhere. This is only a worry if you plan to keep money in your wallet for any length of time, which I advise against.  Do not transfer crypto from the exchange to your wallet until you are ready to make the donation. Send the donation from the wallet to your intended recipient the same day. If you somehow lose your private key and lose access to your wallet, it will matter less if there is no money in it.

Before you send money to anyone else, try sending a tiny amount of crypto back and forth between the exchange and your wallet to get the hang of it. As you will see, transfers take several minutes to be confirmed and there is a small financial charge. You cannot reverse these transactions, so double check the address before you send anything.

Once you feel comfortable and are ready to send a real donation, you can find the relevant cryptocurrency address by going to the web site of the recipient organization and checking their “Donate” or “Cryptocurrency” page. There will be a different address listed for each cryptocurrency, so make sure you choose the correct address for the currency you are using.

Privacy Coins

Up to this point, this guide has focused primarily on bitcoin, which is the most common form of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin has some important limitations, however, the most important of which is that it is not entirely anonymous. Although bitcoin transactions are not tied to any particular individual identity (they are just numbers), they are transparent and can be easily viewed by anyone who knows how to use a blockchain explorer. For example, look here to see the bitcoin donations to the TOR privacy browser project. Organizations like the SPLC have been known to monitor the bitcoin addresses of Dissident Right organizations.

In theory, if you are careful to never tie your real world identity to a given cryptocurrency address, bitcoin’s anonymity is probably still safe enough. This includes never posting your cryptocurrency address on the Internet or using it to purchase goods or services, where you give your real name or real-world address to some vendor. You can further reduce the danger by using a privacy-oriented wallet like Wasabi (here is a review).

Fortunately, there are safer alternatives, called privacy coins, that go a step further and conceal such transaction information (here is a primer). These include Monero (XMR), Dash (DASH), and Zcash (ZEC). Monero is the most commonly used. It can be purchased from a variety of vendors, including the Kraken exchange (here is a how-to guide). After you purchase Monero, you can then transfer it offsite to a Monero-enabled wallet (Exodus is one; here are others) and make donations from there. As always, check first to make sure the recipient organization takes your chosen currency.

Donation Acknowledgments

When I make a donation, I usually finish by asking for a confirmation of receipt from the recipient organization by email. For larger donations, I often start with a smaller donation of perhaps $20 and wait for a confirmation before sending the rest. (If you don’t have an anonymous email address, you should create one. I recommend Protonmail over services like Google’s Gmail, which has been overrun by SJWs.)

Asking for a confirmation may create a minor administrative headache at the other end, but: (a) it ensures that your donation got through to the intended recipient; and (b) it gives them a way to stay in touch with you via anonymous email. It may also give you access to member-only benefits, like a newsletter or access to private portions of a web site.

Tax exempt organizations may offer to give you a receipt, which allows you to write off a donation on your taxes. This may affect your anonymity, however. Since I do not itemize my taxes, I never ask for a receipt.

Unfortunately, Dissident Right organizations are not always good at responding to confirmation requests, even when you are making a significant financial donation. I understand that they are busy, but good donor relations should be one of their top priorities. If they will not confirm receipt of a donation within a few days after you have asked politely, send your money to someone else.

Do Your Part

Undoubtedly, there will be some readers who have additional advice. Please share those thoughts in the comments below.

For the rest of you, don’t let complacency get in the way of donating to your favorite leaders or organizations. Start today by setting up an account at one of the exchanges. If you can afford it, you should consider giving at least one percent of your income every year to dissident organizations (something that I try to do).

We all have a duty to do our part. Don’t forget to do yours.

Interview with Nikolai Nehring at Erkenbrand Conference, The Netherlands, November 12, 2019


The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII (Finale): Get Woke, Shoah Invoke

It’s a sad state of affairs when charity becomes weaponized, but here we are. It certainly wasn’t always this way—it was once an integral part of the old WASP establishment’s noblesse oblige to those less fortunate than they. As Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni write:

Throughout the 20th century, large US institutional foundations such as the multiple Carnegie foundations, the Ford Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation played an outsize role in philanthropy. By virtue of their large share of the philanthropic marketplace, these institutions were able to shape the thinking of policymakers, attract social innovators, and exert influence to bring together the private sector, government, and civil society. As a result, they played a vital role in underwriting social change: They helped to eradicate polio in the United States and then across most of the world; they provided 96 percent of Americans with easy access to free libraries; they helped to reduce smoking in the United States by more than 60 percent; and they promoted a “green revolution” that dramatically increased agricultural production.[1]

Certainly these magnates were not without fault by any stretch of the imagination, and a strong executive such as Teddy Roosevelt proved necessary to rein them in. There’s a lesson in that, an essential one, in that strong and responsible governance on behalf of the people and the environment is an essential counter-point to the all-consuming profit motive.

Our current government hasn’t the spine to curtail the cravenness and grotesque gluttony, the likes of which would’ve made the robber barons blush—for they are bought and sold, for one, and the true power brokers are not of the same Anglo-Saxon stock, for another. We have a government run by financial institutions and corporations for financial institutions and corporations; when it no longer serves its purpose, it will be discarded along with the country itself. As it stands, we have watched America become little more than an economic zone, a gigantic market, its founding stock the target of ultimate erasure through a mixture of malice and greed.

In Revolution from Above, Kerry Bolton extensively documents the bankrolling of feminism, “civil rights,” and other causes that have proven corrosive to the moral foundations of this country by foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. As with virtually all of the philanthropic charities established by America’s old financial and industrial magnates, once the original benefactor had died, the foundation was co-opted to be re-fashioned in order to undermine the communities and society it was ostensibly there to help. These foundations are becoming obsolete in the 21st century, however, with the predominance of private equity and the private equity model.

The private equity model has actually been adopted by philanthropies to some degree, but what is far more prevalent is the treatment of philanthropic organizations as investments. Lobbying is such a dirty business and has such negative PR, but charity and philanthropy…well, that’s another story. That’s how big business can couch the importation of a new labor force in humanitarian terms. That’s how big capital and multi-nationals can super-charge their efforts to knock down borders, socially re-engineer entire populations, and even ethnically cleanse those populations proving to be reluctant or troublesome.

The rise of the private equity model is one way in which Jewish capital was able to effectively corral the old WASP establishment; the growth potential of private equity and its relative complexity could rapidly out-strip the resources of the extant American ruling class and first enfold and then subsume them into the burgeoning neo-liberal system. Not that the WASPs were entirely hoodwinked—they had plenty of willing collaborators to do their dirty work in the World Wars, transformative immigration, the erosion of civil liberties, et cetera. In terms of adapting to the new model, Jeffrey C. Walker catalogues:

Over time, larger, more professional private equity businesses emerged, with whom the wealthy families couldn’t compete. Instead, those families began to invest through the new PE funds. The PE industry then began offering funds specializing in particular industries (such as health care, tech, media, industrial, or consumer), geographies (including the United States, Europe, China, and Latin America), and deal sizes. Focused on pursuing higher rates of investment return, these specialized PE funds enjoyed [a] competitive advantage.[2]

Now here’s where things get interesting; returning to Walker:

Like PE funds, these philanthropic funds are focused on specific objectives—for example, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations. Like PE funds, they are managed by experienced, knowledgeable leaders who can apply the most current knowledge of impactful program design to their investment decisions. And like PE funds, they allow wealthy families to channel their funds to a larger number of organizations than they could reach if they tried to seek out one well-run, effective nonprofit organization at a time.[3]

This is almost surely the primary reason that “social change” has accelerated so rapidly. Speaking at the 2017 Global Steering Group for Impact Investment Summit, Sir Ronald Cohen, an “impact investing innovator and advocate,” believes that the field’s rapid growth will reach a tipping point and “spark a chain reaction in impact creation,” touching investors, big business, foundations, and social organizations.[4] We are witnessing that already. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle concur: “Many of today’s emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to…audacious successes… Steady, linear progress isn’t enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change—and in short order.” Recalling a number of sentiments discussed in the previous installment, from Bank of New York Mellon Wealth Management’s paper “From Philanthropy to Social Investment” (2018):

Demographic shifts are poised to bring about significant changes in the philanthropic market, and this evolution is being accelerated by the emergence of newer, more dynamic models for giving and changes to the U.S. tax code. It’s imperative for both institutions and the individuals they serve to recognize how these changes will affect their philanthropic endeavors and learn how to navigate them in the most efficient manner possible…The continued evolution of the philanthropic market…will have a profound effect on how we view giving—less as charity, and more as a social investment…As philanthropists come to think of themselves as social investors, non-profits must also redefine themselves as “for-purpose” institutions. This must be more than a rebranding. An effective for-purpose institution must…aid in identifying opportunities across the investment spectrum…A “social investor” will endeavor to compile a portfolio of solutions that draws from both the non- and for-profit worlds…According to the Global Impact Investing Network, measurable investments in impact vehicles reached $228 billion in 2016, equal to 55% of the traditional philanthropic market. These vehicles, which fall under the umbrella of “social finance,” do more than just pursue a positive societal or environmental impact; they also seek to offer a satisfactory financial return…To [younger givers], environmental, social and governance issues are intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.

To some degree, this last point may be a “life imitating art or art imitating life” question, but most likely these “younger givers” have been conditioned to hold this view and are simply reflecting the neo-liberal architecture back at itself. In any case, the ruling class has indeed made “environmental, social, and governance issues…intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.” This is precisely the problem, and it goes way beyond “Woke-washing” brands with the rainbow. It is social and political engineering on a global scale. The ability to “seed” money/investments globally has allowed for a synergistic effect which, provided the present architecture remains unchanged or worse is built upon and expanded, can only amplify the stated aims of globalization. Though Walker obviously believes this is a good thing, look past his glowing language to identify the strategy at play here, a strategy I’ve provided countless examples of regarding Maine in particular over previous pieces:

There are now philanthropic funds that focus on supporting great new ideas from top social and system entrepreneurs. This has been a core strategy of groups such as New Profit, Draper Richards KaplanAshoka, and Echoing Green. New Profit, in particular, has been investing in social change for 20 years, and has supported the growth of nonprofits like Teach for AmericaKipp Schools, and City Year. Much like venture capital funds, philanthropic funds like New Profit install staff members on the boards of the organizations they support, where they spend three to five years adding value through the counsel, management insights, and useful connections they provide.[5]

This is the essential framework of philanthropic capitalism. The vast network of organizations are linked by personnel, history, ideology, and financial aims and ties. The various charities and philanthropies do not view their works as good for its own sake—there is always an ulterior motive, and it always involves an economic component. Creating social disharmony among whites is also good, too. Regarding the former point, consider the Rise Fund’s calculations on social investment; their charity is filtered through an economic lens of GDP and return on investment: “In the malaria world…organizations can measure the return on dollars invested in mosquito bed nets against lowering health costs and increasing a country’s 10-year GDP. The result has been a 15-to-1 payback.” Saving lives is a nice by-product, but those lives translate into more workers and more consumers. As Chris Addy, Maya Chorengel, Mariah Collins, and Michael Etzel explicate:

The partnership between Rise Fund and Bridgespan Group has produced a forward-looking methodology to estimate…whether corporations or institutions can evaluate the projected return on an opportunity. We call our new metric the impact multiple of money (IMM). Once they have identified the target outcomes, social impact investors need to find an “anchor study” that robustly translates those outcomes into economic terms.[6]

As I discussed with Nestlé and SwissContact, this is not about “empowering women” or “marginalized communities,” it’s about training a semi-educated and compliant workforce who will readily buy from the company store. It really is that simple. The role of capital in this process is essential; Capital Impact Partners provides an illustrative example, in their own words (emphases are mine):

Capital Impact Partners has continued to invest in shared prosperity, equity, and inclusion for its communities nationwide. With income inequality, mass incarceration, wealth stripping, and other forms of structural discrimination continuing unabated, breaking barriers to success for underinvested communities has become ever more important. Capital Impact announced…financing and investment efforts…to serve more than 14,500 beneficiaries and create more than 515 permanent and construction-related jobs…Transforming marginalized communities into places of opportunity comes from disrupting structural racism and discrimination in order to expand economic and social justice…Capital Impact also took a leadership role in exploring how financial institutions can be more inclusive of individuals with criminal records…Capital Impact’s…financing…create[s] new educational opportunities and…safe spaces for immigrants to live in communities across the United States.[7]

Specific examples include:

  • In Bridgeport, CT, Great Oaks Charter School is bringing high-quality education to a census tract with a 71 percent poverty rate. Eighty-six percent of the students who will attend the school qualify for free and reduced-price lunch…Capital Impact supported the construction of a 70,000 sq. ft. facility that will become the permanent home of Great Oaks Charter School…The school will scale up from serving 400 students in grades 6-9 to 750 students in grades 6-12, 15 percent of whom are English language learners and 20 percent of whom have disabilities. Great Oaks has…a focus on professional development for local students.
  • Brooklyn Laboratory Charter Schools is creating a high school in Dumbo…The majority of the students are expected to be African American, 85 percent of whom will be eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent of the student population are going to receive special education at the school. Because of its proximity to technology companies in Dumbo, the school curriculum focuses heavily on technology. 
  • Creating schools that intentionally reflect the socioeconomic, racial, and cultural diversity of the communities in which they operate—diverse by design—is a promising practice within education that is showing results. Citizens of the World Charter Schools (CWC) is the first national school network to follow a diverse by design model, creating an environment in which all students thrive no matter their background, precisely because they are integrated. Diversity is a cornerstone of school leadership as well, with minorities making up 60 percent of the leadership team and 40 percent of the board.
  • Tacoma Community House (TCH) in Tacoma, Washington…has seen an increasing number of farmworkers and refugees, resulting in a significant need for social and legal services…TCH is the only center providing comprehensive services to immigrants and refugees in the region. TCH serves immigrants from 105 countries – approximately 4,000 individuals each year. The majority of their clients are of Latino and Asian descent, with the remainder hailing from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Through partnerships with regional community colleges, businesses, housing providers, local health centers, and government offices, the center provides access to education programs for children and adults and job placement, internships, and training for job seekers. TCH also offers immigration services and advocacy.

Dovetailing with capital and “social justice” are the supports for the architecture of philanthropic capitalism, from the advocacy groups to the law firms. Add to the multitudinous alphabet soup of advocacy organizations the Alliance for Justice (AFJ); Edward Labaton, co-founder and President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP—introduced in Volume V), was honored by the AFJ as its 2015 Champion of Justice; what said “justice” looks like is the usual sentimentalized dreck readers will no doubt be well-familiar with at this point:

Immigration is baked into our DNA as a country. People from all over the world seek refuge and opportunity in America, and how we treat those who are new to our country says a lot about us as humans.

In conjunction with AFJ, a number of organizations co-signed a 2018 letter protesting several judicial appointments of judges who believe a non-Israeli country should have the right to police its borders. Included on the list of co-signing organizations were: the NAACP, Bend the Arc Jewish Action,, CAIR, Rwandese Community Association of Maine, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP), Maine Business Immigration Coalition, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), whose mission is:

To protect and promote the rights and opportunities of low income immigrants and their family members.  NILC staff specialize in immigration law, and the employment and public benefits rights of immigrants. The Center conducts policy analysis and impact litigation and provides publications, technical advice, and trainings to a broad constituency of legal aid agencies, community groups, and pro bono attorneys.

All of this is designed to ensure that the influx of foreigners is not impeded; among their many uses to the neo-liberal order, Third World immigrants are a huge investment opportunity. Mission Investors Exchange says as much: “Venture capitalist investors, philanthropists, and businesses are looking at immigrants and refugees as opportunities for investment.” They then list some of the major players:

  • Nuveen: Nuveen is a private investment manager that recently made an investment in an online-based remittance provider that focuses on channels in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The goal is to invest in technology to lower the cost of remittance for migrant populations.
  • NeedsList: NeedsList addresses the need for massive innovation in the humanitarian sector with a marketplace connecting local NGOs with individual and corporate donors.
  • Refugee Investment Network (RIN): The RIN moves private capital from commitment to active investment by sourcing, structuring, and supporting the financing of projects and companies that benefit refugees and host communities. They are creating an investor-centered knowledge hub targeting business opportunities that support refugee self-reliance; building a pipeline of deals that will speed and scale private investment in communities of displaced people; and articulating investor needs to funders, governments, and the development community.
  • Tent Foundation, or The Tent Partnership for Refugees: This foundation was established by Hamdi Ulukaya, founder and CEO of Chobani. The initiative, a partnership of over 80 businesses in over 30 countries, grew out of the Obama Administration’s appeal for the business community to engage more deeply with global refugee crises. In addition to sparking a $500 million investment commitment from George Soros, the appeal built a coalition of businesses expressing measurable commitments. 
  • George Soros and Open Society Foundations: Open Society Foundations founder and chair George Soros announced a pledge to invest up to $500 million in startups, established companies, and other businesses founded by migrants and refugees. The assets will be managed by Open Society Foundation and is in addition to its existing grant and program-related investments of the Foundations.
  • Community Enterprise Development Services (CEDS): A nonprofit lender that provides business startup training and micro loans to immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs, as well as entrepreneurs who face barriers accessing traditional sources of capital.
  • OpenInvest: This financial analysis and investing platform developed an investment screen allowing its customers to invest in the companies helping refugees. The company’s #WithRefugees Impact Investment Screen identified 21 public American companies making significant contributions to refugee survival and welfare.[8]

Mission Investors Exchange is a massive network of community foundations, public charities, private foundations, “impact investors,” law firms, investment advisors, asset managers, consultants, and community development financial institutions (CDFIs). Their aim is “to build an infrastructure that assures the sustainability of impact investing and expands [its] ecosystem.” Partnering or affiliate organizations include: the Boston Foundation, AARP Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Deutsche Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the John T. Gorman Foundation, MetLife Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the Prudential Foundation, Nutter McClennan & Fish LLP, Community Development and Investment Group at Northern Trust, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, US Trust—Bank of America Private Wealth Management, Graystone Consulting, the Climate Trust, Bank of the West BNP Paribas Wealth Management, TD Bank, Solomon Hess Capital Management, Maycomb Capital, National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), Cornerstone Capital, and the Omidyar Network.

The name Cornerstone Capital should ring a bell from Volume VI. Self-described “Jewish lesbian” founder and CEO Erika Karp penned an op-ed for Forbes in 2012 where she explicitly ties capitalism, globalism, “social justice,” and her ventures to Judaism, opening with a quote from Hillel and using it as a through-line, along with her Jewish identity—two themes which are echoed in another article by Karp from 2016, this time featured on Cornerstone’s own website. She states:

As we once again approach the Jewish High Holidays — “The Days of Awe” — we return to a theme we have touched upon before: the importance of amplifying the voices of progress…“The Days of Awe” could bring lessons to leverage the power of capitalism towards its best and highest purpose…In reflecting on the future of capitalism, we draw from wisdom of the great scholar Hillel…“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, then when?” These questions posed at around 50 BC are incredibly timely in the context of today’s struggling global economy and threats to our system of capitalism…All the pieces are in place to move forward and leverage the extraordinary power of capitalism on behalf of the entire world. We have everything we need across the broad realms of technology, science, academia, economics, government and finance…There are one thousand asset management firms representing $30 trillion in assets…These firms [are] all signatories of the Principles for Responsible Investment.[9]

The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) was set in motion by then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.[10] It is an official UN-supported network of global capital, “based on the notion that environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, such as climate change and human rights, can affect the performance of investment portfolios and should therefore be considered alongside more traditional financial factors if investors are to properly fulfill their fiduciary duty. The six Principles provide a global framework for mainstream investors to consider these ESG issues.”[11] Just two years after Karp’s second piece, the PRI had swollen to almost $90 trillion in assets under management and rising.[12] For perspective, the annual global gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to be approximately $80 trillion, and the collective global wealth is about $300 trillion. In other words, closing in on one-third of the entire planet’s wealth is under the control of this particular international network of neo-liberal capitalists who are facilitating resource consolidation and speculation, mass migration into and erasure of white nations, moral and environmental degradation, and Jewish supremacy.

Karp has also been involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation “strengthened by a strategic partnership framework agreement with the United Nations.” David Wallace-Wells describes its annual summit as “an orgy of plutocratic comity.” Comprised of NGOs, supra-governmental organizations, venture capital firms, multi-national companies and banks, diplomats, academic institutions, and media figures, WEF is essentially the last word in neo-liberal globalism. Partner and affiliated organizations include: Nestlé, Soros Fund Management, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Hess, Walmart, Visa, Verizon, Hewlett Packard, Deloitte, ING, Western Union, Tyson Foods, TD Bank, the Rise Fund, Toshiba, Coca-Cola, Silver Lake Partners, Pepsi, Prudential, Pfizer, S&P Global, Nasdaq, Nielsen, the New York Times, Polo Ralph Lauren, Procter & Gamble, NBC, the New York Stock Exchange, Novo Nordisk, Morgan Stanley, Nokia, MasterCard, Allianz, AIG, Alibaba, AT&T, Microsoft, Marriott International, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Adobe, Advantage Partners, African Rainbow Minerals, Merck, Lloyds Banking Group, Kaiser Permanente, Liberty Global, State Grid Corporation of China, Saudi Telecom Group, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan, LinkedIn, Hyundai, IBM, Infosys, Guggenheim Partners, Gulf International Bank, Hydro Quebec, Huawei Technologies, HSBC, Google, Facebook, Heineken, General Electric, Hitachi, London-Heathrow Airport, Humana, HP, Ericsson, eBay, Dow, Humana, Emirates Group, Deutsche Bank, European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Dell, Discovery, Chevron, BP, BBVA, Citi, Cisco, Barclays, Bayer, the American Heart Association, Amazon, Bank of America, BlackRock, the Blackstone Group, Santander, Boeing,, Credit Suisse, McKinsey, LUKOIL, PayPal, Thomson Reuters, UPS, Unilever, Anglo American, Investment Corporation of Dubai, Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, Bloomberg, the LEGO Company, Volvo, Anheuser-Busch, Volkswagen, Airbus Defense and Space, AARP, African Development Bank Group, Bain & Company, Expedia, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Iron Mountain, Investec, Ingka Group (includes IKEA), Levi Strauss, the Mayo Clinic, Scotiabank, Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Bank of Scotland, Stanley Black & Decker, Swarovski, African Export-Import Bank, Banco do Brasil, Prudential, Discovery, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, the State Bank of India, and Quest Diagnostics.

The future these entities are planning for us in what WEF calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution / Globalization 4.0 is one of unlimited mobility—ie, the mass movements of cheap labor/consumers and goods in the service of the neo-liberal economy. Ultimately, WEF and its affiliates such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) desire to “maximize…foreign direct investment on the economy, society and the environment” and increase “global economic interdependence.” These are central planks of its E15 Initiative, a partnership between WEF, ICTSD, WTO, UN, OECD, the Center for International Development at Harvard University, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Evian Group, Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory (BRUEGEL), Chatham House, Climate Strategies, the Global Governance Programme, the European University Institute, the Graduate Institute of Geneva Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, the World Trade Institute, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (named after the first president of Germany’s Weimar Republic),[13] the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Peking University National School of Development, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Institute for Management Development (IMD) International Business School, Kommerskollegium National Board of Trade (a government agency in Sweden that answers to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs), Southern Voice (a network of over fifty think tanks from the Global South that actively supports the UN’s Agenda 2030), and the governments of Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Canada, and Switzerland. Major features of the E15 Initiative include:

  • An emphasis on multi-lateral trade agreements styled after the Trans-Pacific Partnership that undermine national sovereignty and enforce a kind of “trade egalitarianism”
  • An international appeals process to undermine existing bilateral trade agreements
  • The removal of all tariffs by “developed countries” for imports from the Third World; near-removal of all other tariffs
  • “Scale technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund or multilateral development banks to LDC sovereign debt issuers”
  • Increase foreign aid from “developed countries” to the Third World
  • “Mandate within the WTO the disclosure and phased prohibition of fossil fuel subsidies, according special and differential treatment to poorer developing countries”
  • Create a system of global food stamps
  • Emphasize blended finance or hybrid-model capitalism as the preferred method of development
  • “Streamline processes and procedures related to visas and work permits and establish a plurilateral but open ‘innovation zone’…within which skilled researchers and technical personnel would be able to migrate freely for up to ten years”
  • “Establish an Advisory Centre on International Investment Law to level the playing field for developing country governments that lack the legal expertise to defend themselves adequately in disputes, based on the model of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law” (read: standardize all economic systems to neo-liberalism)
  • “Enhance local capacity to conform to global standards”
  • “Develop norms for making regional and plurilateral agreements more inclusive”
  • “Combining improvements in infrastructure, investment climate institutions and workforce skills with openness to foreign direct investment…Emphasize the facilitation rather than restriction of imports and inward foreign investment”
  • Establish a global supply chain
  • Mandate compliance with the Paris Climate Accord
  • Institute export restrictions[14]

Despite using the usual wet cardboard euphemisms such as “sustainability” and “equity,” Karp’s brand of “social impact investing” is not predicated on making a positive impact or anything of the sort—it is about crippling the West and countries like Japan, exploiting the Third World, enforcing globalism, and putting a rainbow paintjob on the contemporary vehicle of Jewish supremacy while generating previously-unfathomable profits for a small coterie of oligarchs. Amy Bennett relates Karp’s rough outline of the Shape of Globalization to Come:

Far from simply catering to progressive individuals looking to “invest their values,” environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors provide critical insight into a company’s viability and long-term economic performance. It’s not ancillary analysis, it’s critical fundamentals. This realization…was a pivotal moment for Erika Karp and a key to success in developing a truly integrated research framework…“Economics is a wonderful way to think about, and put a framework around, social constructs,” says Erika…[Karp] established relationships in different areas of the capital markets—including corporations, non-governmental organizations, regulatory agencies, exchanges, wealth asset managers, investment banks, accountants and others (including the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative)… It all involves having a macro capital markets view. Erika notes it’s not about moving millions or even billions, but trillions of dollars towards impact, especially when considering ESG imperatives like climate change, women’s economic empowerment, animal welfare, education, ocean pollution, potable water and increasing broadband access. “To give you a sense, in 2017 maybe $400 billion of venture money was moved towards alternative energy. We need to move $1.5 trillion a year if we’re going to achieve anything like the COP 21 [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] objectives. And that’s just for alternative energy. If you can’t get the capital markets working and having money flow towards progress, we won’t be able to do it…We don’t think of ESG or impact investing as an asset class. We think it should be completely integral to the investing process.”…Donor advised funds and similar philanthropy-focused investment vehicles are critically important “portals” for wealth management clients to access impact investing, Karp adds. “We are seeing a transformation of traditional philanthropy strategies towards impact investing.”[15]

This transformation is all-encompassing and signals a full integration of disparate modes of investment with philanthropic endeavors and different modes of lobbying. Essentially, traditional notions of public versus private are out the window, with governments themselves part of the investment portfolio, so long as they serve as profitable vehicles and/or useful intermediaries. As it is, funneling huge funds through various philanthropic loopholes pads profits through tax exemptions and amplifies the ability of investors and big capital to influence the political process, as we will see below. The goal, as stated by Cornerstone Capital, is for “partnerships, integration of philanthropy into business strategies, and innovative types of investments, including impact-focused investments, [to] transform the traditional economy.”

The integrative approach promises mutual support and amplified profits, in addition to the financial interests and incentives already present in each sphere. For example, the VOLAGs (refugee re-settlement agencies) have already monetized migration through per-head payouts. For perspective, the smallest of those active in the United States, the Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC), received $16.3 million from government contracts in 2014 as well as donations from the Open Society Institute, Komen Foundation, the United Way, Tides Foundation, Citi Foundation (CitiBank), and others, per the Capital Research Center. Further:

ECDC testified before Congress last year that the Unaccompanied Alien Children crisis could “lead to the demise of the refugee resettlement program as we know it.” This was primarily a funding concern…ECDC provides a wide variety of services to refugees, and is involved in other contractual services as well, for example Small Business Administration microloans for new minority businesses.[16]

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) does all of this and more, and has gone one step further in profiting off mass migration into the US—HIAS has an agreement under which it collects on loans given out by the International Office of Migration (“IOM”) to refugees. HIAS keeps 25% of the total amounts collected, and recognizes it as migrant loan processing fees and repayments revenue in the accompanying consolidated statements of activities. HIAS’s corporate partners include Airbnb, 3M, Starbucks, Marriott, and Sodexo. Surely there is no vested interest in having cheap labor by these companies. HIAS also received over $21 million from the US State Department in 2016 and over $3 million from the US Department of Health and Human Services.[17]

The VOLAGs are reinforced by the plethora of law firms, advocacy groups, and other charities that either profit directly from their services or indirectly as covert lobbying organizations, fronts or conduits for illicit financial dealings, and/or social engineering vehicles. ILEP is a perfect case-in-point (incidentally, all five of ILEP’s principal figures are Jews, including Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling donor Marc Gross). While this 501(c)(3) generally stays within the lines of symposia on class action lawsuits and the like, its innocuousness camouflages a deeply subversive agenda. Consider that in 2018, ILEP partnered with Loyola University-Chicago for a symposium on consumer protection that featured Barney Frank as its keynote speaker. Yes, that would be the nipples-protruding (very, very disrespectful) Jewish homosexual Barney Frank who:

Accept[ed] as a gift a round trip fight on a luxury jet from S. Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners, a hedge-fund manager who had previously received a $200 million federal bailout as a subsidiary of AIG. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank oversaw the dispersion of the bailout funds. Frank reported the cost of the 2009 flight from Maine to the Virgin Islands, estimated to be worth $30,000 each way, to Congress as worth only $1,500…Scandal is nothing new to Barney Frank. The Boston Globe asked him to resign in 1989 after it was revealed that he had fixed parking tickets for a male prostitute who was running a brothel out of his Dupont Circle condominium…While serving on the House Financial Services Committee, Frank consistently supported the expansion of questionable mortgage loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while his partner, Herb Moses, was an assistant director of Fannie Mae responsible for relaxing mortgage standards. This policy, of which Frank was a prime mover, led to the largest credit implosion in the history of civilization…Frank, who continued to promote dangerous credit expansionary policies throughout the Bush years, subsequently partnered with Sergio Pombo, who was an employee of the World Bank…Frank consistently reaped campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as from various banks…As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank inserted a special provision into bailout legislation to grant $12 million in TARP funds for One United Bank, a bank connected to the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters.[18]

I’ve used the adjective “incestuous” to describe the ruling class before, and clearly with good reason.

Let’s consider one example of how an earlier version of the (still evolving/metastasizing) neo-liberal hybrid model was able to manufacture consensus for “gay rights issues,” which would prove the harbinger for the recent push toward “transgender rights” and the normalization of pedophilia and other disturbing trends no healthy society would ever tolerate:

After Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003, the following year 11 states enacted amendments banning same-sex marriage, often by sweeping vote margins. Eager to put substantial funds behind the fight for marriage equality, major funders led by the Gill Foundation and the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund brought together more than two dozen LGBTQ leaders in 2005 to devise a common strategy. What emerged from this gathering became known as the “road map to victory,” which would create an electoral and public opinion infrastructure capable of winning and maintaining support for same-sex marriage, one state at a time. It identified 100 tangible battlefields that could then be pursued in sequence as part of a coordinated field operation…Funders came together as the Civil Marriage Collaborative to support the road map. The Haas, Jr. Fund itself contributed $39 million. Marriage equality was a classic example of using a big bet to wage an advocacy campaign. Here, the role of philanthropy is to take a risk that no one else will take. Such a big bet can provide the critical infrastructure required for movements: materials, people, transportation, legal services, research, and more. It can also represent a vote of confidence, especially when the odds against progress are high. When the Haas, Jr. Fund made its first contributions in support of marriage equality, momentum seemed to be going in the opposite direction, with more and more states amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Big investments in advocacy offer leaders the time they need to weather defeats and press forward to create change.[19]

The authors then go on to state that this model is being applied to “gun control,” which I have written about elsewhere (side note: this “philanthropic endeavor” is currently being spearheaded by Michael Bloomberg). Gay marriage was a sustained, coordinated, and well-funded campaign to manufacture an issue, wear the traditional institutions down, and ultimately impose an agenda through a combination of dubious legislation, judicial activism, bureaucratic machinations, executive fiat, media manipulation, academic indoctrination, mass marketing, and social pressure. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle expand on the methods used to institutionalize the objectionable:

Tim Gill and other philanthropists who support LGBTQ rights demonstrated the importance of setting milestones. In the early 2000s, at the urging of movement leaders including attorney Evan Wolfson,[20] they began devoting considerable resources to the very specific objective of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. For decades the movement had focused on the broad goal of “advancing LGBTQ rights,” and although that work continued, leaders hoped that a significant push on a concrete winnable milestone would more powerfully advance the larger cause. They further concentrated efforts on a targeted set of states in order to build momentum and lay the public and legal foundations for a national victory…The marriage equality movement struggled to connect with the general public as recently as 2008, even losing a well-funded ballot initiative in left-leaning California. In the aftermath of that and other setbacks, supportive philanthropists financed polling and focus groups to help movement leaders understand how to reframe the core message. The research revealed that many voters perceived the movement as driven primarily by same-sex couples’ desire for the government benefits and rights conferred by marriage—and they did not find that a gripping rationale. This insight was pivotal: The movement refocused its communications strategy on equality of love and commitment, arguing that “love is love”—a message that struck a chord. Victories piled up, culminating in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.[21]

These 501(c)(3)s serve a vital role in subversion under the guise of charity, among their many other functions, as we’ve seen. Additionally, many of these 501(c)(3)s such as HIAS have diverse investment portfolios that include mutual funds (HIAS also invests in the State of Israel government bonds). As Wesley B. Truitt informs, “A number of mutual funds feature investments that are socially responsible according to criteria advertised by the fund…The Timothy Plan fund avoids investing in companies whose practices are considered contrary to Judeo-Christian principles.” The 501(c)(3)s are often a valuable conduit and/or cover for major profit-making ventures. The ability of the 501(c)(3)s to then invest tax-exempt money in donor-advised funds (DAFs) is one major reason for their increasing popularity among investors. From the Ropes & Gray LLP document, “Beyond the Private Foundation” (March 2018):

With the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, private foundations were required to contend with many new regulatory requirements and restrictions…Subsequent rulings…confirmed the advantages of the DAF model. In 1987, the Internal Revenue Service lost its attempt to deny tax-exempt status to a public charity that existed almost exclusively to maintain DAFs and other donor-recommended charitable projects. Several years later, the Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exempt status to a non-profit organization established to maintain DAFs and affiliated with Fidelity Investments, namely, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. Since then, DAFs have flourished. In 2016, there were reported to be almost 285,000 DAF accounts holding assets worth nearly $85 billion.

Grants from donor-advised funds to charities increased almost 20 percent from 2016 to 2017, with the number of individual donor-advised funds growing a whopping 60.2 percent. Charitable assets increased 27.3 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P Index) rose by 18.4 percent, or over 400 points, in 2017.[22] Scholars have found that the “strongest predictor [of individual giving] is the S&P Index…a 100 point increase in the index is associated with a $1.7 billion increase in charitable deductions.” Roughly 60 percent of the contributions to donor-advised funds are non-cash assets such as publicly traded securities, closely held stock, real estate, and personal property.[23] Donor-advised funds are fast becoming the preferred method of choice for investors, though not the only one. More capital and other assets are also flowing through a variety of linked structures, such as LLCs and 501(c)(4)s in an increasingly inter-connected fashion. Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni explain:

Living donors are also increasingly willing to forgo the tax benefit of putting funds into a foundation and are embracing alternative legal structures that enable both for-profit investing and nonprofit giving, or giving to political donations and advocacy. These structures include limited-liability companies (LLCs, which allow for greater control of funds and stocks, diversity of investment options, and more privacy than a foundation) and the 501(c)(4) structure (which allows social welfare organizations to participate in political campaigns and lobbying while maintaining their nonprofit status). For example, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Omidyar Network, and the Emerson Collective (run by Laurene Powell Jobs) have all set up LLCs to allow for advocacy or impact investing. Even a more traditional institution, the Walton Family Foundation, has set up multiple 501(c)(4)s to support its focus areas.[24]

To tie these last few strands together, we must understand that from the destruction of social cohesion in Western countries to the swollen profits, the nexus of capital and control with philanthropy has triggered the exponential acceleration of globalization and is fast becoming the primary vehicle for a negative social and demographic sea change the likes of which we have never seen. The runaway worship of capital coupled with—and enabled by—the Judaization of society has produced these conditions, and only a radical reorientation back toward productive, substantive, sustainable, and ethnocentric values—not those built on speculation and the veneration of the alien and the dysgenic—can counter-act the destruction. One need look no further than Russia in the 1990s compared to Russia today. Imperfect, yes, but vastly improved.

The Jewishness of Karp and company is not incidental, nor is this some kind of novel outlier. The modern concept of DAFs can be traced back to the late nineteenth century, when the first federated charity, the Jewish Federation, was established in Boston. By the mid-1930s, donor-advised funds began to proliferate within the Jewish community and were usually housed at local Community Foundations and Jewish Federations. As previously evidenced, this remains central to the disbursal of funds, which inevitably come with strings attached. These Jewish Community Foundations are massively profitable in their own right, as Alyssa Ochs reports:

The year 2017 was yet another record-breaking year for the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles (JCFLA) because it gave the highest dollar amount in grants in the funder’s history—$100 million. Back in 2016, the funder gave $81 million, so this was a 23 percent increase. In 2015, the foundation and its donors made $96 million in grants, a 35 percent increase over $71 million the year before…We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Jewish giving is going strong and getting even stronger by the year. At the end of 2017, the foundation’s total charitable assets under management was $1.25 billion, which is a 14 percent increase from 2016. JCFLA opened 58 new donor advised funds just last year as well. Overall, the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles manages assets for over 1,300 families…Jewish donors who work through community foundations like this often have a very global perspective and give a lot of money to Israel and Jewish outreach areas in other parts of the world…Another trend that we’ve been noticing lately among Jewish foundations is an increasing willingness to support non-Jewish groups.[25]

We know this from our early investigation of Catholic Charities. There is also the matter of not just outsourced and internalized Jewishness, but the very essence of Judaism forming the back-bone of neo-liberal capital, as evidenced by Erika Karp’s own admission. What we are witnessing is the next stage in Judeo-neo-liberalism’s evolution; from “internationalism” and communism in the first half of the twentieth century—financed primarily by Jewish capitalists such as Olof Aschberg and Jacob Schiff in its early Soviet days and supported well into the 1950s as an extension of Judaism—to Cultural Bolshevism and the dawn of neo-liberalism in its second half, this third act is far more dangerous for its pervasiveness and intrusiveness, and the fact that an induced paralysis of government and consumer at best, an active facilitation of their own destruction at worst, gives the primary drivers carte blanche to act with impunity and steamroll what little resistance they presently encounter.

That said, the neo-liberal globalist system is also incredibly fragile and is largely built on a house of cards. If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the golden gilding of the neo-liberal age is one or two hard shoves away from crashing to pieces. It requires constant maintenance, policing, and expansion to work, and may well collapse under its own weight in the absence of any powerful external force. With a firm grasp of the methods, institutions, actors, and aims in hand, though, the right entity or coalition may well be able to put the shambolic corpse down for good sooner rather than later, and construct a far more fair and natural system. To my mind, the end goal must be to allow for the self-determination of all peoples, respecting the environment and human bio-diversity so that all may have a healthy and happy homeland to call their own.



[3] Ibid.







[10] Yes, this Annan: “Annan’s real legacy was to continue the trend of morphing the secretary-general’s administrative responsibilities into a symbolic role to justify jet-setting across the globe. He continued that in his retirement, flailing hopelessly in Syria (despite his organization’s huge budget), and bankrupting his own Global Humanitarian Forum through gross mismanagement. His son Kojo first used his father’s credentials to make a quick buck, and then took corruption to a new level, as his prominent feature in the Panama Papers.”



[13] “The FES was a section of the Social Democratic Education and Culture Organisation, and was banned along with the party itself in 1933 by the Nazis. In 1946, the FES was reinstituted at the founding assembly of the Socialist German Student Federation. In 1954, the FES was restructured into a charitable organisation ‘for the advancement of democratic education.’ This established the FES as an independent, self-contained institute. In addition to education programmes, the FES has also worked in the area of development aid since the 1960s. In this effort, it has supported democracy and freedom movements, for instance in the African National Congress (ANC), and played an important role in overcoming dictatorial regimes in Greece, Spain, and Portugal.”







[20] Jewish



[23] Ibid.



Sociology as Religion, Part 1

Christian Smith, The Sacred Project of American Sociology.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

The Left’s seizure of the academy has been manifest for some time. Christian Smith’s The Sacred Project is a case study of this phenomenon in a discipline where the Left’s grip is near total, analyzed from the perspective of his specialty — the sociology of religion.

Smith, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, believes academic sociology had an auspicious beginning as a scientific, secular, and naturalistic enterprise. Over time, however, it lost much of its scholarly objectivity. Today, “American sociology is, rightly understood, actually a profoundly sacred project” (X).  The author uses the term sacred in the Durkheimian sense of something holy, revered, and beyond question.[1]

To my mind the sacred project that Smith describes in Chapter 1 bears a striking similarity to the cultural Marxist or Social Justice ideologies, though he does not use those terms.  This sacred project (thenceforth, the Project) is a spiritual quest, a secular religion that seeks to end human inequality, human hierarchies, and constraints on humans by other humans, and even by nature. Such utopian and unobtainable goals have in the past, and will in the future, lead to frustration and fanaticism.

Political ideologies can, at times, be nebulous concepts, and some dislike using the Left-Right axis. But that model is useful here for contrast. The authentic Right believes that it is noble to be bound by duty and loyalty to one’s family, community, and ethny. Rather than equality they celebrate excellence — strength, beauty, and intelligence. Inequality and hierarchy are intrinsic to the human condition, and constraint upon individuals and groups is often a positive necessity. And while the Right, if in power, would seek to end injustice, exploitation, and poverty these efforts would not be global, but focused on their own ethnic communities.

In contrast, The Project is ultimately self-centered individualism. It seeks “the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings as autonomous self-directing individual agents . . . [who should] live their lives as they personally so desire by constructing their own favored identities, entering and existing relationships as them choose . . .” (7-8). Though he concedes that “the Marxist tradition” adds a “revolutionary and socially utopian edge,” and “a therapeutic outlook . . . received from the Freudian tradition,” has influenced it, Smith believes the Project is, at its core, simply Western individualism within the larger Enlightenment tradition (9). This is certainly one perspective, the Project as liberalism taken to its illogical extreme.  I disagree with this assessment, and the author returns to the Project’s origins in Chapter four, so more on this later.[2]

The author is certainly not on the dissident Right, and though he does seem to hold some traditional social views he claims he is not even a conservative. I would perhaps place him as a Christian centrist on the ideological spectrum. While highly critical of the Project, he has mixed feelings about its goals. He probably faults their means more than their ends. The Project’s current agenda is simply a bridge too far. But worse, it has hijacked sociology, “the queen of the social sciences,” to serve as its vehicle, compromising the discipline’s scientific impartiality and scholarly integrity in the process.[3]

Smith characterizes the Project as “transformational,” “radical,” even “revolutionary,” not remedial or reformist. This seems to contradict his above assertion that it is rooted in an earlier tradition. The Project is elitist because, “in the end most ordinary people cannot be trusted (because they do not ‘get it’)” (13).

One of a Project’s goals is the redefinition of the family. Half measures, such as civil unions for homosexual couples, are unacceptable. Only same-sex marriage can “ensure the kind of social and moral approval, validation, appreciation, and approbation that people are believed to need to feel good about themselves” (14). The Project believes that inherited and ascribed identities such as race and sex can be reconstructed if so desired. Thus Rachel Dolezal can become a Black activist, and Elizabeth Warren a Cherokee princess – well, at least for a while. This one remains an aspirational goal.

How hegemonic is the Project within academic sociology? Smith estimates between 30 to 40 percent of sociologists are hardcore true believers. Another 50 to 60 percent are adherents, but less zealous. That leaves, at most, 20 percent who might not be on board, but go along to get along.

In Chapter two, by far the longest chapter, Smith presents his evidence of the Project’s takeover of sociology. He starts by examining the titles displayed at the book exhibit during a recent American Sociology Association (ASA) annual conference. These included: The Price of Paradise: The Cost of Inequality and a Vision for a More Equitable America; Breaking Women: Gender, Race and the New Politics of Imprisonment; The Hip-Hop Generation Fights Back: Youth Activism and Post-Civil Rights Politics; and Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys (32). Many of the books explicitly supported the Project; none explicitly opposed it.

Next the author looks at the books reviewed in a recent issue of Contemporary Sociology, an official periodical of the ASA. Only a limited number of books are selected for review, so the ASA considers these works particularly important. The titles included: Equality with a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and the Antifeminist Backlash; and Creating a New Racial Oder: How Immigration, Multiracialism, Genomics, and the Young Can Remake Race in America (38).

The Project’s reach extends to journal articles as well as books and book reviews. Smith notes that while journal articles may appear to be “more scientific” than the sociological monographs mentioned above, many of these articles also have a bias. The author looks at some recent pieces from the American Sociology Review (ASR). Like Contemporary Sociology, ASR is an official publication of the ASA, and “is commonly regarded as American sociology’s best journal” (47). One area of research is an effort to discredit work, such as by Robert Putman, that points to a “loss of social capital,” and increasing social isolation in America. This is often done by claiming research errors, sloppy data collection, etc. Another area for damage control focuses on worries about “the breakdown of stable nuclear families” and “the loss of a shared cultural language of community and responsibility” (48).  Because such concerns are associated with conservatives, and because the Project “is implicated in the sociocultural changes that can be criticized for being socially destructive” it needs to be shown that “all of the sociocultural changes since the 1960s, that critics have associated with the decline of social capital, connectivity, and community are not, in fact, really problems at all” (49).

Next, Smith notes that the Project involves not just “scholarship,” but also activism. “The ASA has organized a number of ‘activist’ conference programs for its national meetings” to promote social change and inclusion while fighting oppression and inequality (60). “[T]he ASA is explicit that American sociology is not only about conducting and sharing scientific scholarship, but also promoting social-change activism” (62).

Another category of evidence is sociology textbooks. Introduction to Sociology courses are often part of a required core curriculum for undergrad college students. So each semester thousands of impressionable 18- to 21-year-olds take these courses. I can remember little about my “Intro to Soc” taken many years ago, but today these courses sound akin to cultural Marxist indoctrination classes. According to Smith the typical undergraduate sociology course: “disabuses [students of] their common-sense view of freedom and responsibility . . . ‘empowers’ students to set out with others to change society . . . and causes students to doubt the value of their own cultural ways of life, thus paving the way for a tolerant multiculturalism” (73).   The chapter on “Sex and Sexuality” in one widely used textbook includes topics such as “homophobia, queer theory, hooking up (which has advantages and disadvantages)” as well as extramarital sex (i.e., adultery) (84).

Leaving textbooks, Smith has a section of evidence he terms “revealing anecdotes.” Here he writes that tenure can depend on a candidate having the “correct perspective” on social and political issues. It should be mentioned that obtaining tenure is usually the last hurdle in achieving a full-time academic position. First a student must be admitted to a doctoral program, complete a dissertation under the direction of a tenured faculty member, and be hired for a tenure-track position. Each of these steps acts as a filter preventing dissident academics from moving forward.  It is a closed system with little or no outside accountability. And over the years this has led to Leftist hegemony in the liberal arts and social sciences.

One result of this groupthink is falsified research that takes years to uncover and decades to refute. An egregious example is Lenore Weitzman’s study on the economic consequences of divorce. Weitzman, a radical Jewish feminist, published a study that reported a 73 percent decline in women’s standard of living after a divorce while men’s standard of living increased by 42 percent.[4] “Her study won the ASA 1986 Book Award for ‘Distinguish Contribution to Scholarship.’ It was reviewed in at least 22 social science journals and 11 law reviews. Weitzman’s findings were cited in more than 170 newspapers and magazine articles, 348 social science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 state court cases, and one US Supreme Court decision” (100).

At least one sociologist, Richard Peterson, remained highly skeptical of Weitzman’s findings and wanted to review her data which she refused to make available. After nearly 10 years of stonewalling “the National Science Foundation, which had funded Weitzman’s research, finally threatened to list her as ineligible for future research funding  if she did not release her dataset to Peterson – so she did” (98). What Peterson found was a mess of ‘inaccuracies,” “inconsistencies,” and a large amount of missing data. He replicated the study as best he could and found only a 27 percent decrease in standard of living for women and only a 10 percent increase for men. Meanwhile, another larger, better designed study found that both women and men suffered economic decline after a divorce.

Smith points out that this research on divorce was not merely an academic debate. It had real-world consequences. Weitzman’s findings were used by courts and legislatures to rewrite divorce laws, and men suffered real financial losses as a result. “In the end, the admitted huge errors in her research – which helped shape major legal and cultural changes on divorce, including some that profoundly affected divorced men – have not hurt Weitzman’s career. She is currently the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Sociology and Law at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia” (101). And here the final kicker, nearly twenty years after they were discredited, “Weitzman’s erroneous findings continue to be cited today in the best-selling Introduction to Sociology textbook on the market” (104).

The Weitzman scandal is a stark example of confirmation bias, and the double standard used to evaluate social science research. Often if the research reaches correct conclusions—i.e., if it supports the Project’s agenda, such as Weitzman’s startling report regarding divorce, it is accepted at face value. On the other hand, if research findings are at variance with the Project there are inevitably serious flaws in the study’s design and analysis. No amount of evidence is efficient to establish a conclusion.  Such scholarship can be dismissed (in that favorite Leftist term) as pseudo-science. This laudatory praise versus over-the-top criticism is an effective method for guiding future research.

In Chapter Three Smith shows how closely the practices of academic sociologists resemble those of a priesthood of the spiritual enlightened.  First, there is the requirement of “a long apprenticeship of demanding training in graduate school to learn the right ways of seeing the ultimate truth about reality [and to] learn to transcend ordinary understanding of lay men and women” (115). Once one has obtained priesthood there is the need to “recruit new convert neophytes to the sacred project from among the most promising young students, identifying those who are truly called” (116). Finally, the chosen must be “alert and ever vigilant against false sheep, heretics, and traitors within the fold who threaten to betray the project.” (118).

Go to Part 2.

[1] Taken from the French Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912).

[2] I agree with the dissident Canadian scholar Ricardo Duchesne that we should not blame the Enlightenment for cultural Marxism. See: Gregoire Canlorbe, “A Conservation with Ricardo Duchesne,” The Occidental Quarterly, 19 no. 2 (Summer 2019) 32-35.

[3] In a footnote on page nine Smith approvingly quotes Gordon Marshall: “Sociology is sometimes seen (at least by sociologists) as a queen of the social sciences, bring together and extending the knowledge and insights of all the (conceptually more restricted) adjacent disciplines.”

[4] Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (New York: The Free Press, 1985).

TOQLive: Thursday, Sept. 12, 2:00 Eastern with Guillaume Durocher

We called it off for this week/last week because of technical issue. We’ll do/did it again on Thursday, Sept. 12, at 2:00 PM Eastern. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Here it is today, when you have the correct file showing from Youtube, it will be the full 1:25:30 in length.

Scandza Forum: Oslo, November 2

On 2 November 2019, the Scandza Forum returns to Oslo, Norway, with an impressive list of speakers:

Edward Dutton, PhD, is a British academic and writer based in northern in Finland. Editor-in-Chief on the scientific journal Mankind Quarterly, Dr Dutton is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and many scholarly books, most recently: At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers, and Churchill’s Headmaster: The ‘Sadist’ Who Nearly Saved the British Empire. Dr Dutton burst onto the vlogging scene in January 2019 with his growing YouTube channel, The Jolly Heretic. This will be his first appearance on the Scandza Forum stage.

Kevin MacDonald, Professor Emeritus at CSU-Long Beach. He is the author of more than 100 scholarly papers and reviews, and he is the author of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (1988), A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). He has also edited three books, Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (1988), Parent-Child Play: Descriptions and Implications (1994), and Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development (2004). Cultural Insurrections, a collection of essays, appeared in 2008. In April 2015, professor MacDonald spoke in Stockholm on the psychological mechanisms of pathological altruism, at an event organized by Fróði Midjord and Logik Förlag, and in the spring of 2017 he gave a speech at the first ever Scandza Forum.

Helmuth Nyborg, Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Aarhus. Among other things, professor Nyborg has done research on the genetic heredity of intelligence and behaviour and he has written on “collective fraud” regarding the nature/nurture debate in academia. One of his debate articles in Danish mainstream media, from 2016, is titled “Danishness – culture or biology?”. Professor Nyborg has previously spoken at AmRen and he appeared on an interview with Stephan Molyneux on the topic “Race, Genetics, and Intelligence.” This will be his second appearance at the Scandza Forum.

Greg Johnson, PhD in philosophy, founder and editor of Counter-Currents/North American New Right, former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, and author of numerous articles as well as ten books, including The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018). Dr. Johnson is one of the leading intellectuals of  White Nationalism and the Alternative Right, and he has spoken at every Scandza Forum.

Fróði Midjord, founder of the Scandza Forum, host of the Guide to Kulchur podcast and Youtube channel, regular participant on Counter-Currents Radio, and an internationally appreciated conference speaker. Last year, Mr. Midjord spoke at seven conferences in five different countries.


Our theme for this event is Human Biodiversity, the suggestion that the diversity found among and between human individuals and populations has a significant basis in biology. Although the theory of evolution is well established throughout the West, it has for decades been taboo to apply evolutionary/biological explanations to human behaviour, and especially to differences between human populations and races. Popular culture and the political mainstream today has implicitly assumed the “blank slate” theory as an axiom for what can be discussed in polite society.

One famous example of this is James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine 1962 for groundbreaking research on DNA. In 2007 he told a newspaper that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really,” which would be an uncontroversial statement for anyone who is actually familiar with the research on the subject. However, the statement ignited a mass media witch hunt which resulted in Watson selling his gold medal in 2014, because he had been ostracised from the scientific community.

During this event, we will break those taboos, speak freely on the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate and discuss human diversity from an evolutionary perspective.


If you want to know more about our events, please watch any of my several appearances on podcasts and live streams where I have been interviewed about the Scandza Forum, including:


If you want to attend, please send us an email for information on how to proceed with the registration:

Since we have two conferences coming up, remember to let us know which one you want to attend (you are also welcome to register for both events, of course).

Because we care about your safety, we have a vetting procedure to make sure that everyone attends with honest intentions. There are three ways you can get admission to the event, so remember to include the necessary information when you contact us:

  1. If you have attended one of our events previously. Make sure to make a note of this when you send us an email.
  2. Get a trusted person to vouch for you (i.e., vouch that you want to attend with honest intentions and that you will follow our security procedure). If you know someone who has attended a previous event, or otherwise knows us, let us know in your email. Remember to also ask that person to send me confirmation that he/she can vouch for you.
  3. Send us photo ID and some personal details (e.g., address/phone nr/social media) that will allow us to verify your identity, so that we can make an evaluation. No anonymous registration is accepted.

This will be an unforgettable event – so make sure to register now!

Finally, I want to thank our supporters and donors – you know who you are. It is with their help that the previous Scandza Forums have been made possible, and that we now are able to move forward!

I am looking forward to seeing you all in Oslo on 2 November.

Frodi M


A Government of Grovelling Goys: Boris Johnson, Friends of Israel and the Second Coming of Cummings

Why aren’t the British Left celebrating? The “one-man melting-pot” Boris Johnson has become the new prime minister. He has Turkish, Jewish, French and English ancestry. Johnson has appointed two politicians of colour to the most important posts in his cabinet: the Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid is now chancellor and the Indian Hindu Priti Patel is now home secretary. And there are other politicians of colour in other posts, making this cabinet the most “ethnically diverse” in British history.

Boris Johnson gets his priorities right

However, the Left aren’t celebrating. Instead, they’re once again condemning Johnson and his party for racism. They’ve got the so-called Conservatives exactly where they want them: endlessly and fruitlessly chasing the approval of non-Whites. Although the Tories are, like the Republicans in America, completely dependent on White votes to win elections, they never try to advance the interests of Whites or to defend Whites against incessant accusations of racism, bigotry and selfishness. Instead, they embrace the profoundly unconservative and deeply stupid concept of the “proposition nation.” According to the Tories and the Republicans, anyone on Earth can become British or American if they embrace the right “values” and believe in the right ideas.

Serving the Tribe

Meanwhile, the Left harness the primal and potent forces of tribalism as they pursue the only thing that really matters to them: power. But tribalism is actually on plain display in the new Johnson government too. Or rather, it’s Tribalism, with a capital “T.” Johnson, Javid, Patel and Company are all dedicated servants of the world’s oldest, most selfish and most successful tribe: the Jews. However, no mainstream commentator will dare to label this a kosher cabinet. Nevertheless, that is exactly what it is. The dominant lobby-group Conservative Friends of Israel has praised Boris Johnson for his “long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and the Jewish community.” That’s rather like a puppeteer praising his own puppet for its devotion to duty. As I’ve pointed out in articles like “A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa” and “How to Win Power and Riches by Betraying Your Own,” Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel are expert practitioners of the goy-grovel, having endlessly ladled sycophancy on Britain’s tiny but very rich and powerful Jewish minority, and worked non-stop to advance Israeli and Jewish interests.

The Goy-Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI)

Read more