Jewish Influence

Tucker Interviews VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow

In what I hope is a breakthrough for our side, Tucker Carlson interviewed VDARE’s Lydia Brimelow on the very expensive lawfare (~$500,000) initiated by left-activist Letitia James, New York Attorney General. James is attempting to destroy VDARE not only with the lawsuit, but also with such tactics as demanding the real names of their writers, many of whom use pen names to shield themselves from the the fallout they would endure—fallout that all too often has resulted in loss of job (some work in government) and other penalties. Another important topic here is the disgusting harassment that she and her family have gotten from the SPLC since buying their castle-meeting venue in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia.

The reason I think this may well be a breakthrough is that Tucker Carlson has huge reach. A ~nine-minute clip of the video of the interview has been watched 19.8M times on X as I write this; it was re-Xed 32K times, and got 78K likes. Further Elon Musk then commented it was “alarming” in a post that was viewed by 16M times, received 119K likes and was re-Xed 32K times.


This is reach that immigration patriots and the dissident right in general have been denied as long as I can remember. In fact, the entire media, including social media, has been set up to exclude voices like VDARE. We have been de-platformed, banned from from social media or had our reach and followers restricted, and we have been refused service from financial companies. Indeed, as Lydia notes, it’s at the point where it’s quite difficult for VDARE to obtain legal representation. And we all know how corrupt the courts are. Just ask Donald Trump, another of James’s victims.

Here’s one terrifying example:

[Lydia]: When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us. … It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Imagine being stalked like that. Absolute evil. And of course, I have been a victim of their evil too in a campaign led by the disgusting Heidi Beirich (joined by the ADL) at my university starting in 2006 and resulting in a very difficult eight years, until I finally retired. Happiness is seeing Long Beach in the rear view mirror.

Beirich has apparently been replaced by the equally disgusting Michael Hayden. Like Hayden, Beirich tried to stir up the faculty against me, but with a much more receptive target at the university. (At least, Beirich’s actions did not result in stalking me or my family.) She was quite successful in stirring up the university. Pretty much the entire faculty turned against me, with public statements from various departments (e.g., see here, under the heading “My Replies to the “My replies to the History Department statement of April 4, 2008). One of my VDARE articles described what happened: “Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom,” dated November 14, 2006.

. And I was inundated with hostile emails for quite a long time after, many proudly posted on the faculty listserv.

One of the good things about the Brimelows’ situation is that they reside in a small town in a red state that, apart from a few nutcases, is apparently on their side. It’s a town where character and behavior count more than the mendacious propaganda used against them—unlike your typical American university.

Tucker asks if Lydia has any information on who funds the SPLC. It will come as no surprise to readers of TOO that the money comes from Jews, noted by Jerry Kammer (“The SPLC Depends on Jewish Donors“):

Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:

Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”

Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of  helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

I am personally very proud to be associated with VDARE, with 29 articles posted there, dating from 2003. Their list of writers includes many who have written for TOO, and topics include race realism, Jewish influence, and of course our disastrous immigration policy.

The video is at behind a paywall. This is the machine-produced transcript, lightly edited for readability.

Targeted by Letitia James
Stalked by the SPLC

Tucker [00:00:00] Illegal immigration into the United States is at its highest levels ever. Tens of millions of people have come here illegally over the past 15 years, and none of them will ever leave. Mostly they come from the poorest countries on the planet. We don’t know anything about them, really. We don’t know if they’re pro America. We don’t know if they’re hostile to the people who already live here. We don’t know, in the case of the recent arrivals, what they’re going to do for a living as robotics eliminate low skilled jobs. So what’s happening right now at the border that what’s often mentioned on TV is really undersold as a story. This is changing America forever, and almost certainly for the worse as we’re watching it. And no one is doing anything about it. The governor of Texas occasionally makes noises about it – it’s over his border that this human wave is flowing, and yet he’s taken no real steps to stop it. There are some media outlets that let you know that it’s happening in general terms, but they don’t seem particularly outraged by it. We’re sitting here as our country is destroyed and no one’s responding, and at some point you have to ask why? Are the majority of Americans in favor of this? Of course not. In fact, no one’s in favor of this. No one will defend this in public. No one will explain why we need it. Why it’s a good idea. How it’s going to help this country. How your grandchildren will live in a better place because of it. People are just silent, like it’s not even happening. And again, you have to ask why. And the answer, of course, is really simple because they’re afraid they know they’ll be punished if they say anything about it.

The story of Peter and Lydia Brimelow explains why they’re afraid. Peter Brimelow has been a journalist for 50 years. Worked at a whole bunch of what are now called mainstream publications. Was an editor – Barron’s, Forbes, National Review, Dow Jones, a legitimate old school journalist. And in the late 90s, he began to ask questions about our immigration scheme. Is this really good idea, is it helping America? And of course, no one could answer those questions because the answer is obvious. No, it’s destroying America as it destroyed California, so it will destroy your state. That’s certain. But for asking that question, he was fired from his jobs and shunted off into what we call the fringes. But he didn’t stop. He started a website called VDARE. He runs it now with his wife, Lydia. And for the crime in the supposedly free country of opposing the immigration system currently in place — not the official system, but the actual system — where anyone from the poorest parts of America [I think he meant ‘the world’] with no skills whatsoever can come here and immediately go on welfare. That’s our current system. For saying that that’s a bad idea, powerful forces have just tried, to destroy their lives, not just their lives, the lives of their family using the justice system to do it. And needless to say, you probably guessed, using something called the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is nothing to the South or poverty. It has to do with shutting down free speech in this country. They have descended on the Brimelows and have really kind of tried to destroy them. That’s not an overstatement, but you judge for yourself because Lydia Brimelow, who helps run VDARE, joins us now to explain what’s happened to her. Lydia, thanks so much for coming on.

Lydia Brimelow [00:03:13] Thank you so much, Tucker. It’ll be very nice to have our story told.

Tucker [00:03:18] So I have known your husband, sort of, since he was not a controversial figure at all. And he became a controversial figure when he began to say things like, hey, why are we doing this? And he was immediately called a White nationalist, a White supremacist. And I remember very well his response, which is, no, I’m not. And if I was, I’d say so. But that kept up and he wound up publishing with you, VDARE online. That would seem not a particularly controversial thing to do in a free country. But for your family, it’s been, a very risky thing to do. So I hope that you would explain to us what the government, we’ll start with the government, is trying to do to you for daring to oppose the immigration system.

Lydia Brimelow [00:04:03] Yeah, absolutely. So it’s it’s hard to believe everybody who hears the story says it’s completely incredible. Peter founded VDARE Foundation, which has its main project of back in the late 90s. As you said, we’re in our 25th year now, and I joined about ten years ago. I do the fundraising and the back office work, and he handles everything that goes up on the website We’re a nonprofit journalism enterprise. So everything that we do, all of our people are paid through generous donations from individuals. I can tell you we don’t get any government grants or big foundation grants either. It’s all just grassroots. And we’re veterans of cancel culture at this point. So we’ve been kicked off a lot of mainstream services that most people use to distribute the media that they produce. And that is nothing compared to what we’re facing right now, which started about two years ago, originating out of the hate crimes division in the state of New York. A series of subpoenas were issued by Letitia James first, to Facebook, which I can explain a little bit in a minute. And then to us and our board members, at VDARE Foundation, with no clear trigger, they have refused to tell us what they’re investigating. It’s been two years of us just being crushed under this burden of investigation. The subpoenas were, like, 47 points each. They want us to turn over essentially every document that we have interacted with, since 2016. And for a small organization, you know, at our peak, we had four full time employees. Right now, we have two. That’s Peter and myself. This has just been an absolutely crushing burden. And I will say the Facebook subpoena was interesting because we had actually been kicked off of Facebook, years previous. So we had not even been on Facebook to interact with Facebook in many years, and they were asking for all of the data that VDARE had ever accumulated, created, while we were on Facebook, which we had incidentally, also requested. VDARE was kicked off of Facebook the same day that every one of the people involved in our organization was kicked off, including myself. I had never posted anything political online, at all, but they took all my baby pictures. The video of my daughter’s first steps, which was not saved anywhere else. Facebook still has that. They have, in fact, told my lawyers that we are too dangerous to get our data back, including my daughter taking her first steps. So that was the first subpoena that, Letitia James’s hate crimes division issues.

Tucker [00:06:43] May I ask you to pause for one moment and just clarify something. So Facebook is calling you too dangerous to possess your own baby pictures? Has VDARE ever committed violence? Is there something we’re missing? Terrorism? Insurrection. Killing people?

Lydia Brimelow [00:06:59] Never.

Tucker [00:07:00] Okay, okay. Sorry. I just want to clarify that.

Lydia Brimelow [00:09:18] That’s what my lawyers have been asking. That’s what my lawyers have been asking. So there have have been no accusations. We have been desperately requesting that they tell us what it is they’re wondering about so that we can provide them with tailored, you know, rather than dumping them with this huge amount of data. Can we just provide you what it is that you’re worried about in terms of regulation? And they refused to do it. At first, they insinuated that it has to do with what we call the Castle transaction. So the backstory on that is that, around the time Trump was campaigning and electing, we were attempting as the VDARE Foundation to host conferences around the country. We tried it in Tucson, in California, multiple places in California, New York, Boston, all over the country. We would get bookings and hotels and, you know, set up normal conference activities. And as soon as we would announce that we were going to have a conference and that people could buy tickets, the contracts would be canceled by the venues. So we had, depending on how you count it, between 8 and 12 contracts canceled out from under us. We were unable to successfully host an event at all over the course of those several years, and the hotels were so adamant that they cancel us because they were afraid of protesters, not because they were afraid of my group. I was told this over and over again. We know that your group is just going to be a bunch of people, you know, wearing ties, standing in line to ask questions on a microphone. But we can’t protect our venue from the protesters that might come, or from the bad press that we might get for hosting you. They were so anxious to cancel us that they would pay out significant liquidated damages. I mean, we had one hotel in New York. They preferred to write us a check for $80,000 rather than host our conference of 50 people. And at a certain point, we have to have in-person meetings.

The whole thrust of isolating people and calling them names is to prevent them from getting to know each other, to develop communities, to come up with good ideas and to be able to organize them. Yes. And so we decided to take matters into our own hands. And we went shopping for a venue somewhere in America. And I landed in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which is in the Eastern Panhandle. It’s an absolutely beautiful place in the mountains of Appalachia. It is. And there’s this hysterical, charismatic property. It’s a stone, historic stone mountain built in the 18th. It’s historic stone castle on a mountain built in the 1880s that happened to be for sale when we were looking for a venue. And it has a what they call a great hall. It has a ballroom, it has a conference space. And so we bought it and we moved our offices there. And we have been hosting events there ever since. They’ve all been sold out. They’re all a lot of fun. Most of our speakers, all of our speakers who are not off the record, you can find their videos of their presentations publicly posted on our website, And it has really irritated the people that want to shut us down. It has really irritated them. The fact that we were able to acquire our own venue, and it’s not just some fluorescent lit, you know, rundown VFW hall where, you know, everybody goes in and it feels like some kind of depressing AA meeting. No, like it represents the beauty and history of America and the truth that we speak for in the future that our children deserve. And so it’s really fun to come to events at the castle, and that is killing them.

And so at first, the attorney general insinuated that there might be something wrong with the way we had gone about buying the castle so they, you know, they threw around concepts like abuse of donor funds, when in fact we had two significant donors step forward in 2019, who conveyed to me very clearly that they wanted to donate enough, that it would make a material difference to the work that we do, and there was no more material difference to be made than allowing us to meet in peace and safety, to develop what you might call a safe space for patriots to meet. And, once we heard that through the grapevine, that that was something that had alarmed the New York Attorney General, we immediately turned over all the paperwork that had to do with it. You know, I mean, it was it was very heavily lawyered. We know that we’re vulnerable to lawfare. And so we watch our papers very carefully and have everything look over. We turned out all over, at which point the attorney general’s office continued to lie and say that they had not received it, that we were still under suspicion of not going through the right, you know, regulatory process protocols to buy this building with donor funds. So, we then pressed them, you know, what is it that you’re still looking for? What is it that that you’re still looking for? And they have now sort of moved into the zone of we think perhaps you have engaged in related party transactions. So for people who don’t know what that means, it’s like if we were giving money, we were paying money to people who were on the inside. You know, if I had family or board members that got special deals, because, you know, of their relationship, to me, this is laughable on its face because nobody is getting rich being an immigration patriot, I can tell you that.

Tucker [00:14:47] Well, it’s a little confusing.

Lydia Brimelow [00:14:48] Also, we have already turned over all that information. Who do they think we are, Black Lives Matter?

Lydia Brimelow [00:15:20] Right. So VDARE is actually incorporated in New York. This is an interesting thing. 25 years ago, our pro-bono lawyer who worked for Covington and Burling and was later banned from being able to do pro bono work for VDARE, even though he was allowed to do pro bono work for the defendants in Guantanamo Bay, set up our nonprofit in the state of New York, and our papers were signed by no other than Lois Lerner. Who you may know, went on to target the Tea Party. But, back then it was a different era politically. We were not under the kind of harsh polarization and, pressure and persecution that we are now. That was a whole different era in immigration, patriotism, where we couldn’t even get the message out. You know, there were no, peter and I would watch political campaign speeches or debates. We would watch the news and just pray just hope that somebody would mention immigration, that they would just mention it. And they didn’t. Well, people mention it now it’s on everybody’s lips now. But we also, that came at a cost. And the cost is this persecution. We’ve never operated in the state of New York. That was a convenience that our lawyer, you know, leaned on at the time. But helpful people at this point usually say, why don’t you just exit New York and you can’t. It’s like Hotel California. You cannot, if you’re a charity that’s incorporated in the state of New York, and everyone should take this as a warning, you cannot reincorporate into another state without the permission of the Attorney General’s office. You cannot sell or transfer all or significantly all of your assets without permission from the Attorney General’s office, and you cannot close up shop without permission from the Attorney General’s office. So once you are under the, jurisdiction of Letitia James, there is no getting out until she decides you’re dead enough.

Tucker [00:17:14] So at some point, and again, this is all so North Korean it’s hard to believe that it’s happening here, but that, a state prosecutor can threaten you without telling you over a period of years what crime you may have committed, and then try and bankrupt you just through threats. Like, where does this go from here? And I assume no one’s defending you, right? Of course.

Lydia Brimelow [00:17:42] Very few. You know, we have a few friends, in alternative media that have spoken up. This is the first time anybody who has any kind of significant platform has allowed us to, to share our story. So I thank you for that, Tucker. Really from the bottom of my heart, as you said, Peter was in mainstream journalism for his entire career. And, you know, that was a long career and none of his friends have been able to help him. So, or I say been able to, some of them are willing to and they’re too scared to. Others have tried and been been, you know, thwarted. The same is true with donors. We know a lot of people that can step forward and make a big difference. And the thing is, what Letitia James and cancel culture in general has done, it works. It scares people and makes them think that they they have too much to lose. They really don’t want, patriotic immigration reform to lose. They really don’t want the Brimelow’s children to be stalked by the SPLC, but they also don’t want that to happen to them. And so, despite the fact that there are many ways that people can donate anonymously, I’ve become an expert on that. And you can still even get your tax deduction in some cases. And despite the fact that if we don’t speak up, then, nobody will know that this is happening and it will continue happening to other people. We have just had a very hard time being defended, but it doesn’t stop there. It is actually very difficult for us to find lawyers who will defend us. Lawyers are too afraid to take up, our cause. And so the first thing that we have to do is to find legal representation. You know, gone are the days with the Boston Massacre, where you have an honorable lawyer who thinks everybody needs defending. Now you have to rely on whoever will help you. And sometimes those people are honest and patriotic and also really good at their trade, and sometimes they’re not. When you don’t have, the whole market available to you because they’re afraid of political persecution. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Tucker [00:19:43] It’s beyond belief. But it doesn’t end there. You’ve also been hounded and slandered by the media, and you have furthermore, and you just alluded to this, been stalked and your children have been harassed by the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is, a hate group posing as an anti-hate group. Tell us what your interactions with them have been like.

Lydia Brimelow [00:20:11] Well, I would start by saying they’ve been extensive and unpleasant. They, the Southern Poverty Law Center was tracking VDARE for years. Well, before we got the castle, the Southern Poverty Law Center I say, between them and, you know, some other smaller groups are mostly responsible for pushing cancel culture. And were really the cause, I would say, of our cancellations of all those events that I was talking about before that encouraged us to buy our own venue. And when we did buy the venue, then suddenly the fact that we had done this was so enraging to them. So we live now in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Like I said, it’s a very small town. It’s a beautiful historic town. There are natural mineral springs that bubble up out of the side of the mountain, all year round it’s 73 degrees. It was originally surveyed by George Washington. And the people there are just incredible. But there are very few of them. Only 700 people, populate the main town. Morgan County is much bigger. Berkeley Springs is much bigger. But the reason I say that is because once you live there for a little while and I think you’ve lived in some small towns, you know everybody. It doesn’t take that long. And at first when VDARE bought the castle, which is this icon of the county, you know, when you live in a rural area and you have something as much of a folly, as a stone castle looming over a tiny little resort town. Everybody wants to know what’s happening to it. So when we first bought it, people were nervous. Because of that the media said, oh my gosh, are these going to be, you know, is this the Klu Klux Klan which has now descended on our precious, you know, landmark? And, over time it became evident that no, we our main goal in Berkeley Springs is to be good, quiet neighbors. I’m raising my children there. My daughter went to the public school. We belong to the church. And so the overwhelming number of people in the town are actually good friends of ours. But there are a few bad apples, and the SPLC has really fixated on them. And starting from the first few months that we were in operations there, the SPLC would fly out journalists to embed themselves in Berkeley, little old Berkeley Springs to try to talk the locals into being quoted in the paper about how awful we are, and host secret meetings and, you know, after hours back rooms of local leftists—there’s like one leftist organization and one leftist company in our town. It’s really easy to see because they’ve got lots of colorful flags [presumably LGBT+ flags] and Black Lives Matter signs. They self-identify. It’s very like tropical fish, you know, the more colorful they are, the more poisonous they are. Destroyers. Yes. And so they their whole goal, Michael Hayden and the others who came in there to talk was to turn them against us. I mean, I think I’m certain that they would not have been happier than to organize a literal torch [parade], you know, [a] mob to come up to the castle and pull my family out of it. I mean, when I hear some patriots attend these meetings, some locals are really not having it. And I’ve heard recordings from it. I heard Tanya Gersh, [a Jewish activist] who was flown in from Whitefish, Montana, who thinks that she has endured persecution. But it is nothing like what my family has endured. And she sat here and told these West Virginia people that my family are maggots who should never see the light of day. And, you know, here I am sending my daughter to to first grade in the public school and I’m thinking, wow, this is what you’re sowing in my community. And then on top of that, when that didn’t scare us off, Michael Hayden has now decided to write a book about our family, and in support of this supposed book that he’s supposedly writing, he is spending a lot of time in town. He hangs around my church and pesters my priest about what my faith habits are. He inquires with the town council who are my neighbors. You know what are you actually friends with, Lydia? What’s your relationship with her? Have you seen their children in town? He actually bought tickets to a local Christmas, fundraiser. So there’s a nonprofit in my town. It’s all volunteer operated people who decorate the whole town for Christmas just for the benefit of the town. Our municipality is too impoverished to decorate the town for Christmas, you know, sponsored by any kind of town thing. And so some of the local townspeople decided they wanted some Christmas cheer. And they all get together and they decorate the town every year. And what we do is we, offer the castle space to nonpolitical groups, non-VDARE groups who want to have events there. And they had rented the castle for the night. We had actually donated the space to them, and they sold tickets to have a little champagne reception with our, 13 foot live Christmas tree. And they get to, you know, the guests get to wander around and see the Christmas decorations. And Michael Hayden and Hannah Geist drove from New York City to the mountains of Appalachia, bought a ticket under a fake name, and then came in there so that they could spy on VDARE’s headquarters and approach my eight year old daughter to ask her questions about the off-limits areas of the building, and then wrote about it, and the piece was run in The Daily Beast. Now, he didn’t mention my daughter, but he has lots of pictures of himself, you know, prowling around the public spaces of the Berkeley Springs Castle. And, is surprised when the security guy at the party tells him on the way out that he’s not welcome there. When you have the media so focused on turning you into a monster, on conveying to people that you are a subhuman who has evil, evil, you know, [with] patriotic ideas, there are a lot of people on the left, a lot of people generally probably, who are just there on the edge. And when they hear somebody being described as this person, they will believe them and they are unhinged. So one of the other challenges that we have faced is, there’s actually a group of trannies who have decided to stalk my family, and by that I mean follow us around, town, at the farmers market that we attend [and] again at my church, showing up at my church, wearing lots of guns on the outside of their clothes, in an attempt to intimidate us.

Tucker [00:26:54] Wait, wearing guns?

Lydia Brimelow [00:26:58] Yeah. So you know they have their their regular clothes on and then maybe a trench coat or something. And then they just have all their open-carry guns, just like, you know, multiple guns on the outside of their bodies.

Tucker [00:27:09] Well, they’re, I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:11] In my church who don’t even … .

Tucker [00:27:13] I mean, they’re violent. There’s, I mean, there been a lot of shootings by people like that recently. I mean.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:19] Absolutely.

Tucker [00:27:20] Really threatening. Absolutely. I interrupted you. I’m sorry.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:23] It’s very threatening.

Tucker [00:27:25] People in your church. How do they respond?

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:27] [They] don’t even know why they’re there. You know, they don’t think, who this person is trying to intimidate Lydia from attending mass. They think, who is this horrific, violent person who’s in our church? It’s terrifying. And the main leader is male to female, but one of his sidekicks is male to goblin identifying. Do goblins even have a gender? I mean, these people actually are telling you that they are demons. You have to believe them.

Tucker [00:27:52] Yes.

Lydia Brimelow [00:27:52] And I’m very blessed to have moved from a more liberal area to Berkeley Springs, because I can actually trust the law enforcement, and I can trust my friends, and I can trust my neighbors. But, you know, I don’t want it to get to the point where I need to be calling law enforcement. One of the beautiful things about living in a coherent community where people care about each other and value things like neighborliness, is that as soon as one of these hostile people comes in, I’m getting text messages. I’m getting phone calls. Hey, you don’t want to stop by Sheetz today? There’s somebody weird up there. Hey, I took a picture of this guy because he’s been snooping around. Do you know who he is? You know, that’s actually the first line of defense. And it actually reinforces what Peter and I and VDARE have been saying from the beginning, which is that your community matters. And when you flood it with huge numbers of people who are alien to you in their in their manners, in their culture, and you don’t know them, they don’t know you, you don’t know their history, you don’t know their family. They they have different values and they have different skills and abilities. You actually don’t know what’s going to happen. And it’s to everyone’s detriment. When you no longer have relationships and an understanding of your neighbors and of your community and of your town, of your state, of your country. You have lost it. There’s nothing.

Tucker [00:29:15] That’s right. That’s exactly right.

Lydia Brimelow [00:29:17] And that’s the goal. You know, of course [what] they’re trying to [do]. I mean, our issues have won every argument that we’ve made. Their immigration exacerbates all issues. It’s the queen of all issues. When you have mass immigration, unvetted even vetted when you’re talking about legal immigration, you’re bringing in huge numbers of doctors or CEOs or whatever. I mean, it still has the same effects on the social fabric of a community. And when you have a situation with ours where it’s like we have won on every issue, but we have certainly not rewarded from it. In fact, our lives are being used as an example to others. How dare you say what you can see with your own eyes? Or you know you must lie or we will hurt you and we will hurt your children. That tells you how dedicated they are to make sure that the damage to the social fabric continues. That is what they are dedicated to.

Tucker [00:30:16] It’s been received.

Lydia Brimelow [00:30:16] And the situation right now Elon Musk is just tweeting about immigration all the time. Yes and yet, you know, the small mom-and-pop operations that have been doing this work slow and steady for 25 years. I mean, there’s a strong chance that while we win the day with the arguments our organization, it’s hard to see how we’re going to survive. You know, we’re praying for a miracle. Peter and I are both natural optimists. I don’t think you can do this kind of work if you aren’t. But and we love working together, and we actually truly believe in our cause. And so I think that there’s a strong chance that something will change. But something does need to change. Because, if we are never going to get relief in the courts from Letitia James, you know, who is taking the same tactics and using them against Donald Trump. But Donald Trump has way more resources than we do. I feel like I don’t even need to say that out loud. It’s so obvious. He also has a much bigger microphone than we do. You know, I remember when, General Flynn was treated so horrifically, you know, when he was removed from the White House because of these false accusations, I think he had to sell his family home to handle the investigation.

Tucker [00:31:26] He did.

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:27] You know, and this weaponized, the process is the punishment type can you call it, justice system? Injustice system.

Tucker [00:31:41] It’s a political-

Lydia Brimelow [00:31:41] Anarcho-tyranny is what it is. And the courts have become political tribunals. So all we need is one good judge to tell Letitia James that she can’t do this anymore. Or we need, you know, a big media campaign to pressure Letitia James, against forcing us. What she’s trying to do right now is to force us to turn over all of the names of our writers, contributors and vendors, many of whom operate, under a pen name because they’re afraid of being outed. We have whistleblowers. We have whistleblowers in the government. I mean, there’s a reason they don’t want their names to be known to Letitia James, even aside from the fact that the Charities Bureau and the attorney General’s office, which is what Letitia James, operates, has already even leaked Nikki Haley’s donors. Look, if they’re going to leak Nikki Haley’s donors and hope that those people get harassed, how do you think they’re going to treat the names of the whistleblowers who write for So a judge needs to step forward and say enough is enough. If you’re concerned about, their financial propriety, examine the financial documents that have already been turned over. But you do not need the names of their anonymous writers.

Tucker [00:32:58] Well, because.

Lydia Brimelow [00:32:58] They don’t need, you know, gigabytes of all the emails that they have written since 2016.

Tucker [00:33:06] I think they haven’t even articulated what you’ve done wrong.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:08] No. The other thing.

Tucker [00:33:10] You haven’t been charged with anything.

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:11] No. No, there have been no charges.

Tucker [00:33:16] So can I take you back just a couple paragraphs to the SPLC. What they’ve done to you is so monstrous and so obviously evil. I mean, it’s not activism. It’s a moral crime. What they’re doing to your family. I think the obvious question is, who’s paying for this? Who are who are the Southern Poverty Law Center’s donors? Who is directing this? Do you know?

Lydia Brimelow [00:33:42] I don’t know. VDARE, a few years ago, I mean, gosh, before Covid. So that seems like 20 years ago was, we had a series [in which] we wrote about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s financial situation. And what’s really interesting is that a huge amount of it is held in funds, you know, like it’s operated like a hedge fund and a lot of it’s offshore. I don’t know who their donors are. I know that to the extent that they have individual, you know, American donors, it is people who have been frightened by the rhetoric who think, you know, White supremacy is coming for my children, which, they’re very good at spreading that lie and, propping up what they think are examples of that which are actually just people being normal. So, you know, they have this, I would say bifurcated approach. One is, to scare vulnerable people into handing over lots of money , and the other is to operate it in a corrupt way. And so what I wonder is, why hasn’t the Attorney General of Alabama [where the SPLC is located] done anything about it? We have the Attorney General of New York giving us an example. And, you know, there are other attorney generals out there. West Virginia, could could step in at this point. Texas, I think has done some, where’s Alabama? Where are the other patriot states out there?

Tucker [00:35:03] Because they’re I mean, the Republican Party is utterly fraudulent, as you know. And that’s the core problem. There’s no one to defend you. Which leads me to my last question, you said, a couple of moments ago that you’re in charge of fundraising for the group. And people can assess it because it’s you still have a website and assess whether they agree with your views or not. And want to support you or not. But there is a way to donate anonymously. That is, you think, secure. Can you explain what that is?

Lydia Brimelow [00:35:33] Oh, well, there is more than one way to donate anonymously. If you have a small donation that you would like to contribute, what people often do is send in a money order and they sign it to VDARE. And that’s, you know, very well established, you’re not going to get a tax deduction for that. But usually when you’re talking about $25, that’s not an issue anyway. For more significant donations you can still go through donor-advised funds. So Fidelity Charitable, which is the world’s biggest giving vehicle for for charitable money these days, will not honor a donor advisor’s direction to donate to VDARE. But there are lots of other donor advised funds that will. So, I’m happy to mention some of those, although I don’t have official relationships with any of them. That’s the main way that people donate anonymously is through donor-advised funds that are still, allowing their donor advisors to direct the money. You can also do it through a lawyer on an individual basis. And, if you’re concerned about, the tax deduction, that’s really the best way to go. If you’re not concerned about the tax deduction, then there are other ways that can help VDARE financially. They get a little bit more esoteric. But, you know, in an environment where we are having to diversify, in order to make sure that our, business is able to survive, there are a lot of opportunities for investment and patriotic type businesses.

Tucker [00:37:07] Man, it’s just it’s unbelievable that we’re having this conversation. Lydia Brimelow, thank you very much. And Godspeed.

Britain’s “Hate Speech” Trap

In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”

This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”

How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?

The Public Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance

Samuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.

As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.

Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.[1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]

Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).

The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”

Legislative Evolution

In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. John Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”

The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.

The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.

More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.

Hate Crime Entrepeneurs

The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”

Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.

Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.

Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.

The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.

Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.

Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”

In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.

[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

[3] Ibid, 41.

[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

Why Are Jews So Influential?

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and likely have been under genetic selection in Ashkenazi Jewish groups: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness, and finally mention the Jewish guru phenomenon.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, along with strong charismatic leadership result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the post-Enlightenment world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, even before the Enlightenment Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers.

It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.[1] Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”[2]

Nineteenth-century critics of Jews typically complained about Jewish influence in the media and Jewish wealth that often made traditional Western aristocratic elites subservient to them, and, like Richard Wagner, they complained about Jewish influence on culture.[3] Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union and willing participants of horrendous mass murders of its early decades, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until well after World War II.[4] They were a central focus of National Socialism in Germany, in part because of the Jewish role in Bolshevism, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and multicultural/multiethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-White immigration to countries of European origin.[5] In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed neoconservative Jews in the Bush administration and the media had a critical role in fomenting wars that benefit Israel, and now neocon Jews in the Biden administration have established the all-out support for Ukraine against Russia and  Israel against Hamas. Right now the ADL is leading the campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, particularly on X (Twitter), and Jewish billionaires are blacklisting students and withholding funds from universities if they don’t express enthusiastic support for Israel.[6] Indeed, I would say that we are once again witnessing an incredible display of Jewish power in the U.S.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? I will not discuss the role of Western individualism in facilitating Jewish influence.[7] We tend to see people as individuals, as in the ideology of colorblind meritocracy so common among mainstream conservatives.

Jews are Ethnocentric

Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish ethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins.[8] Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males.[9] These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies.

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries, and moral particularism represented by the phrase “Is it good for the Jews.” In Jewish religious writings, non-Jews had no moral standing and could be exploited at will as long as doing so didn’t harm the entire group. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups.[10] Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon:

There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion.[11]

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward collectivism and ethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish ethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism—perhaps most notably ethnic networking that was so important to The Culture of Critique—and have argued in several places that Jewish ethnocentrism is biologically based.[12]

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.[13] Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in the Kabbala—the Jewish mystical tradition. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Kabbalistic literature by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Kabbala has a universalist message. The actual texts say salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”[14]

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:

We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.[15]

These people and secular ethono-nationalists who have basically the same ideas are firmly in charge in Israel, leading to a long series of protests by liberal Jews in Israel and the US. There are a million more examples but in the interests of brevity I’ll leave it at that. Even a prominent Israel apologist like Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes recently wrote that the present government as a “far-right coalition of Jewish supremacists and ultra-Orthodox Jews.” But AIPAC still dominates Congress and the Executive branch, so there won’t be any changes soon.

From Mondoweiss:

When Rep. Jayapal called Israel a racist state in July, Democrats and Republicans leaped on her in a political feeding frenzy. They fell over each other to cash in on the defense of Israel, a state whose racism is not just obvious but a point of pride for many in its government. They immediately and overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating that “the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state.” Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.  Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.

Similar overwhelming support for Israel in the Gaza war passed the House of Representatives and it was unanimous in the Senate. Republicans and conservatives generally are especially supportive of Israel.

Same with conservative media. I am not sure why this is. Part of it is probably because a significant portion of their audiences are evangelicals who think Israel’s success will inaugurate the Second Coming of Jesus and the end times. It may also be their desire to gain legitimacy in a cultural environment that is completely dominated by the left which accuses anyone to the right of Mitt Romney of being a raving Nazi.

Ethnocentrism is responsive to particular environmental triggers, what evolutionists term “facultative mechanisms,” that is, mechanisms that can be triggered by external circumstances such as perceived threat. The phenomenon of a siege mentality has been mentality noted by many authors as typical of Jewish culture throughout history (see A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7, pp. 218–219).

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982)[17] note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage–with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153)[18] note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.” 

A good example is how American Jews reacted to the 1967 war. Silberman notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was.[19] Silberman comments that “This was the response, not of some newcomer to Judaism or casual devotee but of the man whom many, myself included, consider the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of our time.” Many others made the same surprising discovery about themselves: Arthur Hertzberg wrote that “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else.”[20]

The current war in Gaza is no exception. Haredim, who usually avoid military service in order to devote their lives to study, are enlisting in the IDF and J Street, the liberal Zionist lobby is issuing context-free condemnations of Hamas. It’s the same with the Jewish faculty at my former university — liberals all and oblivious to the role of Israeli behavior in producing Palestinian hatred, but horrified that someone would tear down a poster of a Jewish hostage posted in a university building and trumpeting calls for free speech. (Where have they been in condemning the ADL’s pivotal role in censoring free speech on social media? Somehow I don’t think it’s an accident that I and a couple of my brothers-in-arms have been banned from X after Musk took over and is doing his best to avoid the wrath of the powers that be.)  There are still voices like Jewish Voice of Peace and Mondoweiss that have long condemned Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, but they are definitely do not represent the vast majority of the power and money of the Jewish community in America.

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification—for example, the messages of ever-increasing threat of anti-Semitism promulgated by the ADL — accompanied by pleas for donations.

Bar-Tal et al. (1992) note that 

not surprisingly, Siege Mentality is related to Ethnocentrism. The belief that the world has negative intentions towards the group indicates its evil, malice, and aggressiveness. In this context, the group not only feels victimized and self-righteous, but also superior to the out-group.[21]

Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy)

The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with an average IQ of approximately 111 with a particular strength in verbal IQ. Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary societies, it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Intelligence, as well as the other traits discussed here, were likely under genetic selection in traditional Ashkenazi societies because scholars were given marriages to the daughters of wealthy Jews and good business opportunities. Wealth and reproductive success were strongly linked at least prior to the nineteenth century.

Nevertheless, because of the demographic differences between Jews and White Americans, there are many more White Americans at any level of IQ required for upward mobility and leadership positions in American society. For example, at IQ of 140, there are five times as many White Americans as Jews. IQ is thus an insufficient explanation for Jewish influence.

Intelligence and ethnic networking are important for academic success, and in Chapters two and five of The Culture of Critique I showed that Jews and Jewish organizations led the intellectual effort to deny the importance of racial and ethnic differences in human affairs and to pathologize any sense of White identity or White interests. The Jewish role in creating the intellectual context of the 1965 immigration law relied on the success of the Boasian movement in anthropology in shaping academic views on race by dominating the American Anthropological Association since the 1920s. For example, historian of anthropology Gelya Frank noted “in message and purpose, [Boas’s anthropology] was an explicitly antiracist science.” This subverted the strong sense of race and racial interests that were prominent trends in academia and the mainstream media. Science is that lingua franca of the West, so the prestige of the Boasians was critical for their success.

Intelligence is also linked to wealth. Based on past results, Jews are probably around 35% of the wealthiest Americans, and that translates into a well-funded infrastructure of Jewish causes, from neocon think tanks to AIPAC to the ADL and political campaigns where the Democrat Party is basically funded by wealthy Jews and the Republican Jewish Coalition probably provides 40% of GOP donations aimed at supporting Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues. ADL Assets in 2021 were listed at $238,000,000; $62,000,000 in contributions. The national ADL, like the ACLU, the SPLC, the NAACP, and other so-called civil rights groups, is now merely a tax-exempt cadre of the Democratic Party and has gone all in on anti-White critical race theory, gender insanity, and opposition to any talk about the Great Replacement, claiming that the very idea is racist and anti-Semitic (while stating that Israel must retain its Jewish majority by controlling immigration and preventing Palestinians on the West Bank from voting). The ADL is a very prominent player in the censorship regime that pervades the left in the West. Right now the ADL is leading an aggressive campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, most famously on X (Twitter) so that Elon Musk is routinely labeled an anti-Semite in Jewish media and any mention of George Soros’s influence or calling out globalism is anti-Semitic. Because of their elite connections they have been able to pressure advertisers on Twitter, so that ad revenue is down 40% from pre-Musk days.

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jews and Jewish organizations organized, led, funded, and performed most of the work of the most important anti-restrictionist organizations active from 1945–1965 and are still prominently involved. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well-funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. Intelligence and organization are also apparent in Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel. Over thirty years ago US Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond.”[22] At the time there was concern that the State Department remained a bastion of old school WASPs. Not a problem any longer, with neocons Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, and Wendy Sherman firmly in charge of State.

Conscientiousness and Emotional Intensity

In Chapter 7 of my 1994 book on Judaism, I highlighted two personality traits of Jews, conscientiousness and emotional intensity. Both are heritable and quite likely under selection in traditional Jewish communities. Conscientiousness, which involves attention to detail, neatness, orderliness, striving for achievement, persistence toward goals in the face of difficulty, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification is, along with IQ, linked to upward mobility. Social conscientiousness appears to be a sort of “don’t let down the group” trait, originally proposed by Darwin (1871) as the basis of group allegiance. Individuals high on this trait would be expected to feel intense guilt for having failed to fulfill their obligations to the group. Moreover, given the importance of conformity to group norms for Judaism, it would be expected that individuals who were low on this trait would be disproportionately inclined to abandon Judaism, while successful Jews who were the pillars of the community and thus epitomized the group ethic of Judaism would be disproportionately likely to be high on group conformity—and also likely to be reproductively successful in traditional societies. The result is that there would be strong selection pressures toward high levels of social conscientiousness within the Jewish community.

Conscientiousness was strongly emphasized in Jewish socialization. Thus, a child reared in a traditional Jewish home would have been socialized to continually monitor his/her behavior to ensure compliance with a vast number of restrictions—the vast number of commandments of the Ashkenazi religious writing. These are exactly the sorts of environmental influences expected to strengthen the conscientiousness system, what I call “system-specific environmental influences.”

Jews also tend to be high on the personality trait of affect intensity; i.e., they are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions.[23] Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. They are prone to fast and frequent mood changes and lead varied and variable emotional lives. Clinically, affect intensity is related to cyclothymia (i. e., alternate periods of elation and depression), bipolar affective disorder (i.e., manic‑depressive psychosis), neurotic symptoms, and somatic complaints (nervousness, feeling uneasy, shortness of breath).

The common perception of Jewish and gentile psychiatric workers from the late nineteenth century until at least the end of the 1920s was that compared to gentiles, Ashkenazi Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic‑depression, and neurasthenia (Gershon & Liebowitz 1975; Gilman 1993 92ff) and depression (men only). Gershon and Liebowitz note that 45 percent of 22 patients had bipolar affective disorder—about the same as in an Iraqi population—compared to 19 percent in a study of northern European populations. Within Israel, they cite an Israeli study (in Hebrew) that found that affective disorders were “much more prevalent” among Ashkenazi Jews than Sephardic Jews.[24] And a “preliminary” study found significantly more patients with affective psychoses and fewer with schizophrenia than among the non-Jews.[25] A study from 2000 found that in a sample of Israelis with bipolar disorder, the manic phase was “much more common in Israeli bipolar patients” than European and American populations (55 percent of the patients have illnesses characterized primarily by manias, 28 percent have approximately equal numbers of manias and depressions, and 17% suffer predominantly from depressions, but with no difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations).[26]

I emphasize here that affect intensity is also linked to creativity and the manic phase of bipolar affective disorder which seems to be more common among Jews.[27] During episodes of mania the person has a grandiose self-image (“I am brilliant and can save the world if only people would listen to me”), goal-directed activity like obsessively working on a project all night, excessive involvement in pleasurable activity like buying sprees and sexual gratification, and racing thoughts which of course the manic person thinks are brilliant. The depressive part is just the opposite. But a lot of people may be high on emotionality but not meet the criteria for psychopathology. It’s easy to see that people moderately high on positive emotionality—hypomanic or normal but close to the manic range—would be high achievers; they would work persistently toward goals, and they would be very self-confident and with high self-esteem. Such people gravitate to leadership positions in whatever organization they are in. And it’s easy to see that they would become gurus, establishing a devoted following, like charismatic rabbis in traditional Jewish communities—Jewish gurus like Freud, Boas, Trotsky, etc. discussed in Culture of Critique.

For example, Albert Lindemann notes that many of Trotsky’s personality traits are stereotypically Jewish:

 If one accepts that anti-Semitism was most potently driven by anxiety and fear, as distinguished from contempt, then the extent to which Trotsky became a source of preoccupation for anti-Semites is significant. Here, too, Johnson’s [i.e., Paul John, author of A History of the Jews] words are suggestive: He writes of Trotsky’s “demonic power”—the same term, revealingly, used repeatedly by others in referring to Zinoviev’s oratory or Uritsky’s ruthlessness [Zinoviev and Uritsky were two other prominent early Bolsheviks]. Trotsky’s boundless self-confidence, his notorious arrogance, and sense of superiority were other traits often associated with Jews. Fantasies there were about Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, but there were also realities around which the fantasies grew. (Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 1997, 448)

The Trotskyist movement was a heavily Jewish milieu and much loved by my radical Jewish acquaintances in college. A prominent Trotskyist Max Shachtman

attracted young Jewish disciples—the familiar rabbi-disciple model of Jewish intellectual movements (here, p. 17–18): “Youngsters around Shachtman made little effort to hide their New York background or intellectual skills and tastes. Years later they could still hear Shachtman’s voice in one another’s speeches.”[28] To a much greater extent than the Communist Party U.S.A, which was much larger and was committed to following the Soviet line, the Trotskyists survived as a small group centered around charismatic leaders like Shachtman, who paid homage to the famous Trotsky. In the Jewish milieu of the movement, Shachtman was much admired as a speaker because of his ability in debate and in polemics. He became the quintessential Hasidic guru—the leader of a close, psychologically intense group: “He would hug and kiss [his followers]. He would pinch both their cheeks, hard, in a habit that some felt blended sadism and affection.”[29]

Another example is Leo Strauss, a cult figure for neocons and the quintessential rabbinical guru, with devoted disciples such as Allan Bloom. Gertrude Himmelfarb (1974, 61) noted: “There are many excellent teachers. They have students. Strauss had disciples.”[30] And Levine: “This group has the trappings of a cult. After all, there is a secret teaching and the extreme seriousness of those who are ‘initiates.’”[31] Strauss relished his role as a guru to worshiping disciples, once writing of “the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn.”[32]

The psychoanalyst Fritz Wittels noted long ago: “The faithful disciples [of Freud] regard one another’s books as of no account. They recognize no authority but Freud’s; they rarely read or quote one another. When they quote it is from the Master, that they may give the pure milk of the word.”[33]

Affect intensity influences the tone and intensity of Jewish activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.

In my 1994 book I noted the historical pattern of a paranoid, siege mentality and desire for revenge that pervaded traditional Jewish communities. Interviews with New Left Jewish radicals revealed that many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors”[34] combined with the belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order—clearly indicating high self-confidence and self-esteem. The trend is towards low self-criticism and what amounts to psychopathic levels of high self-esteem.

Jews Are Aggressive

Much of the previous is also about Jewish aggressiveness. Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect of Jewish personality, but Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality and Phil Rushton’s inspiration on race differences, claims that Jews are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know them well.

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades poor Jews attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”

The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other [Jewish lightening]. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”

Albert Lindemann in his Esau’s Tears noted the same about Jewish perjury in Czarist Russia.

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”[1]

[1] Yaffe 1968, 73. Yaffe embeds this comment in a discussion of self-hating Jews—implying that Jews are simply accepting stereotypes that are the fantasies of bigoted non-Jews.

Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture. From the perspective of Henry Ford’s The International Jew, the United States had imported around 3.5 million mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely ethnocentric Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period and long prior to achieving anything like the power they obtained after World War II and the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, Jews had had enormous effect on American society, particularly in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights. Ford’s outlet, the Dearborn Independent stated “The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the US is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.”

A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the US. As noted in Culture of Critique:

In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.

The epitome of Jewish aggression is their long crusade as a tiny minority to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. in order to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, but the most recent one I have found is from  Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired and blacklisted from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. Paul Findley noted over 30 years ago that there are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas”[35]—a phenomenon that, as noted above, is ongoing.


The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel since the 1967 war despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an apartheid occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation and degradation of the Palestinians. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the US, and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of double standards in the aboveground media.

The American Jewish community is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests. One of the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. Massive changes in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3.

[2] Ibid, Ch. 4.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “Historical Writing on Judaism and Anti-Semitism; Review of Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, 1850–1945, edited by Thomas Dalton,” The Occidental Quarterly 23, no, 2 (Spring, 2023): 85–112.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR. Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century.  Princeton University Press. The Occidental Quarterly, 5(3), 65-100.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.


[7] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.

[8] A People that Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; The Culture of Critique, Preface.

[9] Burton et al. 1996.

[10] E.g., Coon 1958, 153; Eickelman 1981, 157–74.

[11] Coon 1958, 153.

[12] A People That Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; Separation and its Discontents, ch. 1.

[13] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999.

[14] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 58.

[15] In Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 59–60.


[17] Herz, F. M., & E. J. Rosen (1982). Jewish families. In Ethnicity and Family Therapy, ed. M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano. New York: The Guilford Press.

[18] Zborowski, M., & E. Herzog (1952). Life Is with People: The Jewish Little-Town of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.

[19] In Charles Silberman (1985). A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books, 184; emphasis in original.

[20] Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America. New York: Schocken Books, 210.

[21] Daniel Bar-Tal, Dikla Antebi, “Beliefs about Negative Intentions of the World: A Study of the Israeli Siege Mentality,” Political Psychology, 13, no. 4 (December, 1992), 633–645, 643.

[22] Kevin MacDonald, “Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Summer 2003(, 5–38.

[23] Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.

[24] Kalman, G., Maoz, B., & Yaffe, R. (1970). Demographic survey of an open psychiatric hospital. Briut Ziburi (Public Health), Jerusalem 13, 67, 1970 (in Hebrew).

[25] Cooklin, R., Ravindran, A., & Carney, M. (1983). The patterns of mental disorder in Jewish and non-Jewish admissions to a district general hospital psychiatric unit: Is manic-depressive illness a typically Jewish disorder? Psychological Medicine, 13(1), 209-212. doi:10.1017/S0033291700050236

[26] Y. Osher, Y. Yaroslavsky, R. El-Rom, & R. H. Belmaker, (2000). Predominant Polarity of Bipolar Patients in Israel. Biological Psychiatry 1, 187–189, 187.

[27] Tucker, D. M., K. Vanatta, & J. Rothlind (1990). Arousal and activation systems and primitive adaptive controls on cognitive priming. In Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, ed. S. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[28] Drucker, P. (1994). Max Shachtman and His Left: A Socialist’s Odyssey through the “American Century” (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International), 43.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Himmelfarb, M. (1974). On Leo Strauss, Commentary 58 (August), 60–66.

[31] Levine, D. L. (1994). “Without malice but with forethought,” in Kenneth L. Deutsch & Walter Nicgorski (eds.), Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 354.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Wittels, F. (1924). Sigmund Freud: His Personality, His Teaching, & His School, trans. E. and C. Paul. (London: George Allen & Unwin), 143.

[34] Cohen, P. S. (1980). Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews. London: Academic Press, 1980, 208).

[35] Findley, P. 1989. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 2nd ed. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 296.

Bill Ackman Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

It is said that Jews of a certain vintage would pick up the New York Times at the breakfast table, back when it was consumed in its physical form, and ask “well, is it good for the Jews?”

What is picked up at this morning’s breakfast table — in paper or I-phone format — is most certainly not good for the Jews.

Just when the Jewish people were about to bask in the greatest outpouring of American sympathy since the 1967 war, an idiot named Bill Ackman has seized defeat from the jaws of victory, launching a vicious attack on a bunch of Harvard students for dissenting from the approved Israeli war narrative — a dissent that would probably have been ignored by most but for his attack.

As is well known by this point, early on Saturday, self proclaimed members of Hamas, numbering about 2–3,000, stormed across the (so we are told) lightly guarded border of Gaza into Israel, apparently killing or raping everything in sight, in addition to taking somewhere around 100 hostages, all with typical middle-eastern barbarity.  While some stories, like that of the decapitated infants, are in dispute at this point, see Blumenthal, Source of dubious ‘beheaded babies’ claim is Israeli settler leader who incited riots to ‘wipe out’ Palestinian village – The Grayzone, enough appears to be confirmed that the methods — if not the strategic object — of the attacks have been condemned by most Western nations.  In a word, this was far from a “surgical” strike at solely military targets with some inevitable, unfortunate, “collateral” civilian casualties like the strikes the US claims to enact.  It was obviously aimed at creating civilian casualties.

These events of course represent a tragedy for the people involved even if, from a Jabotinskyite point of view, such events were and will remain inevitable so long as Palestinians ring the borders of Israel.  But the silver lining for Israel and its Jewish supporters — if there can be one to such killings — was the huge outpouring of support for Israel from most Americans and most members of the Western block, most of whose knowledge of history terminates with last night’s CNN broadcast.

Of course, not all Americans bought the narrative.   Students at a number of universities, including that university to whom all heads must bow — Harvard — have pointed out the historically irrefutable fact (as is the case in most wars) that there are two sides to the story.  Some even expressed solidarity with the Palestinians and with Hamas, justifying their positions by equally horrific (though differently delivered) Israeli barbarity against Palestinians.

Although the Harvard groups’ letter has apparently been scrubbed from its original site on the internet, the following, taken from a purported copy on a Twitter (sorry, X) post, apparently represents a copy of the letter:

If this is the complete letter, frankly, it seems relatively anodyne.  It expresses no rejoicing at the deaths nor even in the attack itself.  It simply takes the point of view that the fault of this attack — and presumably all the violence of the last 75 years — is with Israelis, the people who evicted (or more accurately, were permitted by Britain and the US to evict) 700,000 Palestinians from their homes through massacres like Dar Yasein.  Although most (though not all) Jews would disagree, the position certainly is a viable one based on the historic record.  It also merely states what undoubtedly is (or is close to) the official position of the various groups representing the Palestinians.  Even a number of (outlier and outcast) Jews, such as Max Blumenthal of Greyzone appear to agree with this analysis, and, in fact, add an edge totally absent from the Harvard statement.

It should be noted that one of the organizations that signed the letter, at least according to the above partial reprint re-posted on Twitter, lists the “Harvard Jews for Liberation,” an apparently Jewish group, composed of persons who will undoubtedly be labeled self-hating Jews.  The letter is certainly more restrained than the bloodthirsty statements by scores of “pro-Israel” commentators, including the Israeli defense minister who labeled the Gazans “human beasts” and who pledged to make the whole Gazan people — more than 2 million — accountable for last Saturday’s atrocities; or former member of the Knesset Michael Ben Ari, who states “There are no innocents in Gaza.  Mow them down.  Kill the Gazans without thought or mercy”;   or Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, the Chief Rabbi of the evacuated Sinai Penninsula settlement of Yamit, waxing Biblical in September 2015:  “If the Muslims and the Christians say from now on no more Christianity and no more Islam … then they would be allowed to live.  If not, you kill all of their males by sword.  You leave only the women.”  All quoted at Information Clearing House.

Wow!  No those are “no holds barred” statements.  Not like the cucky, weakling, soy-boy Harvard “pro-Palestinians”!  Where the hell was Bill Ackman when those statements were made and did he, for example, propose that Congress bar the entry of followers of such people into the United States or warn Wall Street firms not to interview them?  Ho, ho, ho.

In fact, a member of the EU Parliament, Clare Daley, made the same point as the Harvard folks to the head of the EU in a response tweet.

Similarly, such former government officials as Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst who was the Presidential briefer for Reagan and Bush I, analyzes the situation much as does the infamous Harvard letter. “Can you give a brief synopsis of what’s happening in Israel?”; also talking on the “Israel as ally” issue at the National Press Club.  Ray McGovern – Does Israel act like a U.S. ally? – YouTube .

The Jewish Norman Finklestein asked two days ago “What were they [the Gazans] supposed to do?”.  He also agrees with the narrative set forth in the Harvard letter.  The Palestinians Had NO OTHER OPTIONS — Norman Finkelstein – YouTube

To top it off, there are now reports that Israel was warned by Egypt 3 days before the attack and apparently chose to ignore the warnings. On purpose? Rachel Blevins on X: “How did Israeli intelligence miss that Hamas was planning such a massive attack? Well, it appears they didn’t. Reports are now revealing that Egypt repeatedly warned Israel of an attack coming from Gaza, but Israeli officials chose to ignore it and focus on their settlements in the West Bank instead. Also: Simon Ateba on X: “BREAKING: US confirms Egypt warned Israel ‘three days’ before Hamas attack. “We know that Egypt had warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen.”

Why? To create an excuse for a Jewish jihad into Gaza?  This in addition to the fact that most experienced observers believe Israel — and Netenyahu himself — in the beginning helped promote Hamas to counter the then powerful Palestinian Fatah organization.  Ron Paul: Hamas was created by Israel and the US to counteract Yasser Arafat… – Revolver News.

One thing for sure — we will never know.  And if Ackman has his way, we will not be allowed to talk about any of these things either.

So, had the Harvard chicklings been better informed, and had they wanted to be truly nasty, they could have accused Netanyahu of working covertly with Hamas to create an horrific false flag attack justifying the taking of Gaza and its valuable gas fields.  My God, what if they had said that!!

In any case, given that America thinks of itself as a free country with freedom of speech and given that Israel, after all, is not technically an “ally” of the U.S. — the U.S. has never entered into a formal security agreement with Israel such as it has through NATO with the European countries — Americans should be free without consequence to air their views on this difficult and complex subject, free from extortion, whether privately or publicly enforced, on any topic, particularly on Israel.

However, this is definitely not the case for Bill Ackman and a group of like-minded “CEO’s”.

Ackman, a Jewish hedge fund manager, has publicly demanded, on behalf of himself and a number of “CEOs” that he did not initially name, that Harvard release the names of the Harvard students behind the letter quoted above   It appears that among the “CEO’s” Ackman is Abe Renick, the Jewish CEO of rental housing management startup Belong.  In addition a number of other CEOs have followed suit,  including Jonathan Newman, CEO of salad chain Sweetgreen (Newman is married to billionaire heiress Leora Kadisha who is a member of the Nazarian Clan, which is one of the world’s wealthiest Jewish Iranian families; she is the middle daughter of business tycoon Neil Kadisha and Dora Nazarian). Also: David Duel, CEO of health care services firm EasyHealth (David Duel is Jewish and “passionate” about giving back to the Jewish community), Hu Montegu, the CEO of construction company Diligent, Michael McQuaid, the head of decentralized finance operations at blockchain firm Bloq, Art Levy (presumably Jewish), head of strategy at payments platform Brex; Jake Wurzak, the CEO of hospitality group Dovehill Capital Management, and Michael Broukhim, apparently an Iranian Jew now a US citizen.A good number of these appear to be relatively small companies — perhaps a reason Ackman kept the names to himself initially.

And, as if on cue, we have Israel patriot Alan Dershowitz, former professor at the Harvard Law School (formerly the “Dane Law School” at Harvard, named for Nathan Dane, a donor who rescued the Law School in the early nineteenth century; he is long since forgotten, like most of Harvard’s non-Jewish donors). Dershowitz echoed Ackman, saying that students that “support murder and rape” should not be allowed to remain anonymous Students in groups that support rape, murder and Hamas should be named – YouTube   No mention was made by Dershowitz of the many, many Jewish Harvard students that have over the years expressed support for Israel and implicitly its air strikes, use of phosphorous bombs, destruction of Palestinian homes, and use of collective punishment.  Presumably, they’re all Goldman Sachs’ priority hires!

And today we read that a “big law” law firm named Winston & Strawn has just withdrawn an offer of employment to a Black NYU student, Ryna Workman, because of her tweet supporting the rights of the Palestinians. She was targeted specifically by Alan Dershowitz. See:  Students in groups that support rape, murder and Hamas should be named – YouTube .  The totality (apparently) of Workman’s tweet simply echoes the Harvard statement:

“I want to express, first and foremost, my unwavering and absolute solidarity with Palestinians in their resistance against oppression towards liberation and self-determination. Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life. This regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary.”

Note that she references the “tremendous loss of life.”  At least in this clip she does not, contra Dershowitz, “support rape [and] murder,” although, if one interprets Dershowitz to say that all Palestinians commit murder and rape (an astonishing charge which could be used to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people), then, perhaps.  In fact, she appears, if anything, to decry the “tremendous loss of life.”  What she says is that Israel’s policies are responsible.  Dershowitz’s problem with her is obviously not that she supports murder, but that she holds the “wrong” party responsible.

Ryna Workman is now unemployed because of a nasty, vindictive Jewish supremacist law professor who is a fixture on conservative media in the US.   She should talk to Norman Finkelstein, who was also pursued by the good professor for Norman’s apostasy on Israel, as well as his accusations that Dershowitz was guilty of plagiarism.  Or ask Sue Berlach, Alan’s first wife, whom he left in the mid 1970’s for an affair with a young law aide, thereafter using his legal skills to get custody of her kids.  She later simplified his life by committing suicide, jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge into the unforgiving waters of the East River 119 feet below. Dershowitz 1st Wife — Tragic Abuse, Divorce, Suicide) ; see also 5 Surprising Details From That New Yorker Alan Dershowitz Profile ( So I guess Ryna can’t talk to Alan’s first wife after all, unless she’s a psychic medium and a really good swimmer to boot.

So, from Jews to Blacks:  if you have an independent opinion on world affairs, fuck you.  So much for the “Black-Jewish alliance”!

More recently, Ackman is reported to have doubled down on his demand, as follows:

“If you were managing a business, would you hire someone who blamed the despicable violent acts of a terrorist group on the victims? I don’t think so,” Ackman wrote. “Would you hire someone who was a member of a school club who issued a statement blaming lynchings by the KKK on their victims? I don’t think so.  It is not harassment to seek to understand the character of the candidates that you are considering for employment.”  Quoted at: Bill Ackman: It’s Not Harassment to Name Pro-Hamas Harvard Students (

The arrogant implication, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with the Israeli and Jewish opinion on this is of “low” character.    But I guess that is what you get in a nation that now appears to operate on the principal, as E. Michael Jones would say, that truth is the opinion of the powerful.

It is worth noting that American statesmen like George Marshall (U.S. Secretary of State under Truman), the distinguished U.S. diplomat Loy W. Henderson, Ambassador to both India and Iran and Director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs under Roosevelt and Truman, and George Ball, Undersecretary of State under President Johnson, along with scores of other distinguished Americans, have been smeared with the “anti-Semite” label for raising significant questions about Israel’s activities — not to mention the propriety of its very creation; men who would undoubtedly have views not inconsistent with the letter issued by the Harvard students, having predicted 75 years ago events such as those just occurring.  So, apparently, they would also be judged by the Jewish establishment today to have such “low character” as to be unemployable.  The only Jewish pushback this author has seen is former president of Harvard, Larry Summers.  Former Harvard president Larry Summers thinks Bill Ackman asking for lists of student names is the ‘stuff of Joe McCarthy])

It should be noted that a few radicalized Harvard students are not the only ones in the gunsights of these Jewish gangsters.

The Presbyterian Church of the United States has unequivocally endorsed boycotting and disinvesting from Israel and its products, as has the United Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the Quakers.   The World Council of Churches has also called for divestment from Israel.  Other Churches that have at least partially divested include the Alliance of Baptists, Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Mennonite Church USA, Roman Catholic Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the World Communion of Reformed Churches (a confederation that overlaps some of the above).  Oy Vey, that’s a lot of Churches, bro.  And the Jews thought the Catholic Church was their only enemy!!!  Oops!!

Presumably congregants of these Churches will soon also make Ackman’s “unemployables” list for implicitly “blaming the victims”.

Student opponents of BDS certainly are on a very similar list, such as the list displayed on the so called “Canary Mission website, reputedly financed by Adam Millstein, another Jewish supremacist centimillionaire.

So will we soon come to a point where no member of the Presbyterian Church, the Congregational Church, or the Quakers — the denominations of most of the founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison, a principal architect of the Bill of Rights (Presbyterians) or John Adams or Roger Sherman (Congregationalist) — can ever again be offered a job on Wall Street or, perhaps, by a Fortune 500 company?  Holy shit!  We all better learn the “Hatikva” and throw that old musty painting of the signing of the Declaration in the waste bin if we want to earn a living in the America to come!

But at this point, it is worth noting whom these people pick on.  Not on Max Blumenthal, who would just tell them to “go fuck themselves”.  Not to Ray McGovern, who would just shake his head and smile “what’s new?”  Not to Norman Finklestein, who would intellectually eviscerate them.  Apparently Ackman is too scared even to take on the Harvard administration — adults.  No, Ackman picks on soft targets, college kids, who, with some justification will believe their careers, and perhaps lives, are ending before they have begun.  In a word, Ackman doesn’t dare pick on the strong.  He picks on the weak.  He is a cheap bully.  The lowest form of scum.

And, we must ask, have we come to the point where, to get a degree from Harvard, to get a job, to keep a job, you need to kiss Jewish ass from morning until night?

The blunt fact is that Wall Street, the media, the universities, and the government are all now run by Jewish supremacists.  In fact, it appears that, if the Jews get enough power, they will do to us in the U.S. exactly what they are doing in their other occupied territory to the Palestinians. Or as they did in the early decades of the Soviet Union.  Ackman’s attack is just the start.  Before the phosphorous bombs start raining down on our heads, if Ackman’s attitude is indicative of how Jews behave when acquiring positions of enormous power — and it clearly seems to be — perhaps we should ensure, au contraire, that a certain group should be barred from holding certain jobs, just as Ackman is proposing for people who disagree with his views on Israel.  And that group is not comprised of the signatories to that Harvard letter, or George Marshall, or Loy Henderson, or George Ball.

Here’s some analogous proposals:

If this is how Jews use their power, how about barring them from any job in financial services?
How about barring Jews from holding any position as an officer or director in a publicly traded company?
How about barring Jews from holding any position of authority at any level of federal, state, or local government?
How about barring Jews from owning or operating any media assets?
How about barring Jews from voting, making campaign contributions, serving on juries?
How about offering physical protection to Jews but also preventing Jewish influence on the greater society?

Given the current viciousness of the Jews currently in power — Ackman, Schumer, Garland, are only the most prominent examples — would it be too much to ask for a Constitutional amendment depriving Jews of citizenship, replacing the passports they appear to disdain with residency certificates, revocable at will and requiring that the Jewish nation (both in and out of Israel) be represented by ambassadors rather than lobbyists, political fundraisers, and political hacks?

How would Bill Ackman like that?  Maybe then he could actually go to Israel and sign up with the IDF.  Then he could defend his true country — not the one of which he is a fake citizen, but his real one — Israel.

The proposal to bar Jews from financial service jobs is not so far-fetched as one might assume.  In fact, a while ago, a number of Jews were indeed expelled from their chosen marketplace:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, [13] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. Matthew 21:12–13

Perhaps the man that kicked them out remembered his earlier words:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44

Maybe our Lord and Saviour knew more than we think he did.  Maybe He was actually pretty smart.  Maybe we ought to listen to Him.

Thank you Bill Ackman, et. al. for reminding us — through your vicious, uncalled-for, activities — of that fact.


1.  The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (Fidelity Press), by E. Michael Jones.


Is There Really a Huge Spike in Anti-Semitism on X?

In Monday’s New York Times, there was an article (“Elon Musk Has Crossed a Line“) by David Austin Walsh who, perhaps surprisingly given his name, is a postdoc in the “Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism and author of the forthcoming book Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right.”

In an outburst on his platform on Monday, Mr. Musk claimed — without presenting any evidence— that ad revenues on Twitter are down 60 percent “primarily due to pressure on advertisers by @ADL”— the Anti-Defamation League — which he said “has been trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic.”

Greenblatt has acknowledged that the ADL asked advertisers to stop advertising on X when Musk took over, and Musk says it’s never come back.

And as Musk has noted, advertisers (except Bud Light!) are loath to get involved in any controversy.

Musk replied “accurate analysis” to this tweet:

Nawfal’s tweet continued:
an independent assessment by Sprinklr found that hate speech impressions on 𝕏 “to be 0.003% compared to Twitter’s estimate of 0.012%.”
2) Greenblatt clarified that he has never claimed Elon or 𝕏 are anti-Semitic: “I don’t think Twitter as a platform is anti-Semitic.”
3) When Greenblatt was asked by the host (who also identified as Jewish) if he was seeking a position or donation from 𝕏 to the ADL, he took offense to this, called it an anti-semetic trope, almost as if he was trying to cancel him, leaving the host uncomfortable and defensive.
4) Greenblatt claimed ADL is NOT publicly or privately talking to advertisers, BUT shortly after, said, “It is true we did call for a pause back in November, after the acquisition and since then” and in a previous interview he stated “if it remains a hellscape the advertisers won’t take part in [Twitter]”
5) Greenblatt said the ADL is a SMALL non-profit in NY. NOT TRUE. The ADL is an influential organization with over 100 years of history, and according to the ADL’s 2021 tax filings, the organization’s total revenue was $101 million with a balance sheet of $238 million. They ALSO received millions of dollars of indirect government funding via grants to groups in which the ADL has special interests.
6) Greenblatt says the ADL works WITH other social media platforms, including Facebook. We saw in the Politico article that @elonmusk posted that the ADL indirectly CONTROLS what can be posted on Facebook.
7) Greenblatt claimed he doesn’t know what prompted Elon’s tweets, but Elon was clear it was prompted by the 60% drop in advertising from the ADL’s interference, which Greenblatt admitted in the video. Doesn’t seem like the meeting with X CEO Linda Yaccarino went as well as Greenblatt is making it out to be.

Walsh continues:

While the website has long had a reputation as a cesspool for lies, hate speech and a significant neo-Nazi user base, under a former chief executive officer, Jack Dorsey, Twitter had begun to take steps to ban the most provocative and openly racist and antisemitic users. A 2018 report by the ADL noted that 4.2 million antisemitic tweets had been shared or re-shared on the platform in the previous year, before Twitter’s ban on extremist accounts took effect. Mr. Musk largely reversed those policies under the aegis of free speech. Thanks to the reinstatement of extremist accounts — and a new algorithm which prioritizes posts from “verified” users who have forked over $8 a month to the company — X/Twitter now functions as a bullhorn for the most toxic elements of the white nationalist right.

The problem with these numbers (even though he didn’t make the claim that such Tweets have doubled since Musk took over, as the next article claims)  is that the ADL is responsible for tabulating them. Who could doubt that they inflate the numbers by lying or at least by including fact-based tweets? (See below for discussion of examples of fact-based “anti-Semitism.”) Or their numbers may include false flags from anonymous users, perhaps encouraged or even recruited by the ADL. Why get rid of people like James Edwards, Paul Fromm, Tom Sunic, Jared Taylor and me—all of whom made responsible, fact-based tweets—but keep all the anonymous users on, many of whom make over-the-top nutcase comments that feed into the narrative that people who are critical of Jews are conspiracy theorists or mentally ill? It seems obvious that we were removed at the behest of the ADL since they openly brag about their activism on all social media platforms. But of course, it’s never enough. The ADL wants to destroy any hope that X could be profitable.

Here’s another article condemning Musk, again with the numbers propaganda, and notice that both authors call X a “cesspool.” Monday on The Hill, by Arsen Ostrovsky:

Twitter was a cesspool of antisemitic hatred and vitriol long before Elon Musk took over. But now, under his leadership, the newly renamed platform, X, has become an unrestrained free-for-all against Jews, where neo-Nazis and white extremists seemingly run rampant and antisemitism is widespread.

Research shows that since the company’s takeover by Musk in October 2022, the volume of English-language antisemitic tweets has more than doubled.

The last link goes to a report by an organization called Beam which states that it uses the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism for its research. This definition of anti-Semitism clearly includes statements that may well be true and certainly could be made by reasonable people. Here are some of the types of statements said to be anti-Semitic:

  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

In other words, any claim that Jews as a collective have power in the media, etc. This is outrageous. Where to start with the reams of documentation, much of it available on this website? In fact, the ADL is the prime example of the collective nature of Jewish activism— being essentially an adjunct of the most leftist elements of the Democrat Party which still reliably gets at least 70 percent of Jewish votes and probably well over half its funding. And the Jewish community, including the ADL, do act as a collective on several important issues, the most important of which are support for Israel despite its present reality as a racist, apartheid ethnostate while decrying those same policies in the U.S., and support for replacement-level immigration and refugee policy in the U.S. while calling the use of the term racist and anti-Semitic.

And despite many campaigns by the ADL to raise money off attacking Musk (trust me, I’m on their mailing list), Greenblatt claims that any suggestion the ADL would try to shake down Musk (like they did with Kyrie Irving and the New York Nets) is an “anti-Semitic trope.”

To which Musk replied:

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Are we supposed to think that all Jews in the West are more loyal to the countries they live in than to Israel? How do they know that, given that many Jews living in the West have dual citizenship and all can emigrate to Israel at any time, and given the power of the Israel Lobby with its long record of supporting U.S. wars that benefit Israel at great cost to the U.S. and credible charges of spying on behalf of Israel?

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Claiming that the “existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is one thing (I wish we European-descended peoples could have our own ethnostate), but it’s silly to deny that Israel is a racist ethnostate.  Thomas Friedman, an apologist for Israel if ever there was one, has called Israel a Jewish supremacist state, and the current government includes people who proudly proclaim their racism (see “How Democrats Learned to Defend Israel’s Ethnocracy,” by Mitchell Plitnick).

  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

It’s reasonable for Americans to be more critical of Israel than other countries given the level of financial, military, and diplomatic support that the U.S. routinely gives it. The U.S. is essentially endorsing whatever Israel does.

  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

The “blood libel” is a reasonable belief given Ariel Toaff’s book on medieval Ashkenazi practices. Indeed, the campaign against Musk is highly reminiscent of the campaign against Prof. Toaff’s book, as described in the above review.

  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Which policies? Being concerned with race and with ethnonational interests? Religious fundamentalists and the ethnonational right are clearly in charge in Israel, to the point that there have been huge protests by liberal Jews—without lessening the pro-Israel activism of the ADL and the rest of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. The above-linked article by Mitchell Plitnick in Mondoweiss makes clear the ethnonational reality of Israel and the massive explicit support it receives from nearly the entire U.S. Congress.

  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

It’s hard not to hold the Jewish community responsible when one notes the massive support that American Jews give to Israel, without which Israel would likely have been destroyed a long time ago. Support for Israel spans the Jewish-American political spectrum, including neoconservative Jews who have been a powerful force in the Republican Party. Despite some dissenting Jews, support for Israel is a collective project of the American Jewish community because the great bulk of Jewish financial, political and media power is directed at support for Israel.

At a time when any mention of George Soros’s influence (even without noting his Jewish background) and any mention of globalism or the Great Replacement are considered anti-Semitic by Jewish activists, one can be forgiven for supposing that tabulations of anti-Semitism on social media platforms by Jewish activists are nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like trusting Democrats not to cheat on elections.
*   *   *
James Edwards has some highly relevant comments on the ADL, from an article that will soon be out on American Free Press.

The ADL never stops seeking to portray white people as monsters who are always on the verge of lynching a black person or burning down a synagogue, and are only stymied in their efforts by the constant vigilance of the ADL.

More recently, every time President Trump did anything to restrict immigration, the ADL immediately went to court and filed paperwork seeking to have a federal judge declare his efforts unconstitutional—and they almost always got their way. The ADL paints white Americans who oppose mass immigration as “Nazis,” while at the same time defending Israel’s extremely race-based immigration policies.

The ADL is also a gigantic and Orwellian surveillance outfit. Author Matt Taibbi once described Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” The ADL does the same thing to truth, freedom, and Christian culture.

Did you know that for decades, when many U.S. Representatives and Senators received letters from “right-wing conservatives,” they would forward the letters to the ADL so they could “keep an eye on” them? Did you know that many newspaper editors across America used to do the same thing? Even more incredibly, PayPal recently gave the ADL access to its database to search for transactions from groups it doesn’t like. This isn’t a secret; PayPal admits it. Every American should be up in arms over this, but nobody seems to even be aware of it.

And finally, it’s pretty clear that Musk isn’t stopping. I wish him well. The ADL is very powerful and they will certainly continue their campaign against him no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost. From September 8:

Aboriginal Worship and the Flight from Whiteness in Australia

Anti-White activism in Australia is becoming increasingly strident

Results from the 2021 Australian Census revealed an astonishing 25 per cent jump in the nation’s Aboriginal population over the preceding five years. This confirmed the trend of the 2016 census showing a 19 per cent surge in the Aboriginal population. Over the last decade the self-identifying “Aboriginal” percentage of the population of Australia has increased from 2.5 to 3.2 per cent. This massive increase in Aboriginal self-identification is not the result of a sudden surge in Aboriginal fertility, but is the culmination of the establishment of an intellectual, political and economic climate that encourages White Australians to shed their racial identity. Like other Western societies buffeted by waves of non-White immigration and anti-White intellectual and political activism, Australia is now a nation where White people are actively discriminated against, and where significant social and financial advantages accrue to non-White people.

Commentators in the leftist media lauded the leap in Aboriginal self-identification, claiming the statistics show Australians finally feel safe to identify as Aboriginal. In truth, the growing embrace of Aboriginal identity and flight from Whiteness is symptomatic of the anti-White trajectory of Australian society as a whole. Commentator Andrew Bolt sees the dramatic increase in the number of White Australians calling themselves Black as evidence of Australia’s “toxic anti-white racism.”

It’s now so embarrassing to be white that another 90,000 Australians have decided to call themselves black instead. … Or let’s put it more kindly: it’s now so chic to be black that these 90,000 Australians have called themselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander for the first time in the last census. The 2021 Census is dramatic evidence of the new anti-White racism — and of the growing fraud that comes from lavishing privileges on people claiming to be Aboriginal, with few questions asked. … The 2016 Census found at least 40,000 people who claimed to be Aboriginal or Islander but had likewise chosen not to in the previous survey.

Still, who can blame them from seizing any excuse — however remote or imagined — to stop being white? Check woke bookshops that stock white-hostile titles such as White Fragility, or Back to Black. Or consult the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, which last year published an insanely racist paper calling “whiteness… a malignant, parasitic like condition” that “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable.” So it’s no surprise that the biggest rises in people now claiming to be Aboriginal are in our wokest states. In Victoria, the rise was a spectacular 37 per cent in five years. NSW was second with 29 per cent. In contrast, the Northern Territory – with the biggest proportion of Aborigines – the rise was just 5 per cent.

Back in 2009 Bolt wrote two columns pointing out that individuals with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) were taking advantage of a raft of government scholarships and affirmative action job vacancies by choosing to identify exclusively as Aborigines. Bolt claimed these people were choosing to identify as Black to leverage their career and social advancement.

For pointing out this this rather obvious fact, and that this increasing Aboriginal self-identification had been encouraged by the multitude of financial and professional incentives available to those identifying as Aboriginal, Bolt was hauled into court and found guilty of violating Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (the enactment of which was a direct result of Jewish activism). In September 2010 nine of the “Aboriginal” people Bolt identified in his articles commenced legal proceedings against him and his employer the Herald-Sun. The complainants, represented gratis in the Federal Court by the Jewish barristers Ron Merkel and Herman Borenstein, sought an apology, legal costs and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs and “other relief as the court deems fit.” In the trial Merkel argued in reference to Bolt’s articles that “this kind of thinking led to the Nuremberg race laws and that Bolt had adopted a eugenic approach to Aboriginality.”

In his ruling for the complainants in 2011 the presiding judge Mordy Bromberg (also Jewish) declared that: “I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles. … Even if I had been satisfied that Section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.” Thus “good faith” as interpreted by a judge is now the criteria for acceptable speech about race in Australia — with this to be determined by the likes of Justice Bromberg who is a prominent member of the Australian Jewish community. This point was not lost on Bolt at the time, who noted that “And which judge becomes relevant, doesn’t it? Or are we not allowed to suggest that, either?”

Today, the increasingly anti-White tenor of Australian society, and proliferating government programs designed to redress Aboriginal social dysfunction (currently costing taxpayers around $33 billion annually, or some $55,000 per “Aborigine”) are fueling a population boom, with those with negligible amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) self-identifying as indigenous to access ever-expanding indigenous welfare programs, scholarships and career opportunities. The practice of White Australians self-identifying as Aboriginal has become so widespread that Sydney’s Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council recently made a complaint to a government anti-corruption body about the number of Sydney University students identifying as Aboriginal by using just statutory declarations rather than producing “a confirmation of identity letter from a Local Aboriginal Land Council or other Indigenous community-controlled organisation, showing they meet the Commonwealth three-part identity test: that they are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, identify as such, and their identity is accepted by a community in which they live or previously lived.”

Bruce Pascoe: Poster Child for the Benefits of Fleeing Whiteness 

The remarkable professional and financial benefits that can accrue to White Australians willing to discard their racial identity to become Aboriginal is illustrated by the spectacular rise of “historian” Bruce Pascoe. Before his rise to fame, Pascoe was the obscure author of works such as the 1988 novel Fox, about a “fugitive searching for his Aboriginality.” Critics at the time suggested it would have been a better book had Pascoe not been White: “Pascoe is, after all, imagining the psyche of an Aboriginal person. … He writes as a humane, informed liberal, but as a white man as well.” Around this time Pascoe started identifying as Aboriginal, even though two Aboriginal groups call him a fraud and his genealogy shows all his ancestors are of English descent. But now as an Aborigine, Pascoe has enjoyed wild career and financial success: hailed as an “elder,” promoted as an “Aboriginal historian” by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, given grants for Aboriginal enterprises and made a professor of “Indigenous Agriculture” by the University of Melbourne. “Indigenous Agriculture” is a fake discipline invented by Pascoe using so-called evidence to claim Aborigines were farmers in his widely acclaimed and promoted 2014 book Dark Emu.

Fake Aborigine, bad historian, and all-round grifter Bruce Pascoe

In Dark Emu Pascoe contends that, rather than being Stone Age nomadic hunter-gatherers as long assumed, Australia’s Aborigines had settled towns and practiced agriculture. Pascoe based his ahistorical thesis on dubious sources and legitimate sources taken out of context. In their critical analysis of Dark Emu, the academics Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe demolish Dark Emu noting the book is poorly researched, not fully sourced, and, when it is sourced, Pascoe does “not cite the relevant extract from a source in its correct context, thus skewing the interpretation.”[1] They also note Pascoe’s tendency to generalize from local examples to incorrectly claim that particular technologies were used across the whole Australian continent. They and anthropologist Ian Keen conclude that Pascoe’s thesis is a vast exaggeration: that Aborigines were fundamentally Stone Age hunter-gatherers who practiced some rudimentary forms of agriculture on an insignificant scale.[2] Sutton and Walshe also chastised Pascoe for his implicit acceptance of the (now verboten) anthropological notion that settled agricultural societies are superior to those of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Even some Aboriginal activists like Hannah McGlade criticized Dark Emu, insisting the book is “misleading and offensive to Aboriginal people and culture” and “is not very truthful or accurate.”[3]

Lying to schoolchildren

These criticisms have not prevented Pascoe’s work from being showered with awards, aggressively promoted by the leftist media (prompting sales of over 250,000 copies) and cited as a valid historical source in textbooks used in Australian schools. One such textbook, citing Pascoe, falsely claims, for example, that Aborigines “actively managed the land in complex ways and so were not nomadic hunters-gatherers.”[4] Another textbook tells students:

Over 30,000 years ago, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were baking bread in Australia. They developed this skill alongside their ability to harvest seeds and grains. Historian Bruce Pascoe says this makes them the world’s oldest bakers – they were baking 15,000 years before the next known bakers, the ancient Egyptians. How do we know this? One way is through the research of historians like Pascoe. Pascoe has written a lot about how they developed farm practices around Australia. These practices enabled them to settle in specific regions, and rely less on hunting and foraging. They were able to manage the land to create food for their communities.[5]

Such dishonesty is symptomatic of how Aboriginal history is taught in Australian schools. Students are fed a romanticized view devoid of any criticisms. Because the culture of Australia’s Aborigines was the most primitive in the world – they remained Stone Age hunter-gatherers right up until contact with Europeans – the focus, in recent years, has been to stress the opposite: how “sophisticated” and “complex” Aboriginal societies and culture were (and supposedly remain) today.

A sampling of school history textbooks reveals that, while offering abundant criticisms of Europeans and European culture, authors flatly refuse to offer any criticisms whatever of Aboriginal culture and society. Instead, Aborigines are lavished with unwarranted praise for the supposed complexity and sophistication of their culture. “First Nations Peoples of Australia” (always capitalized) were, it is insisted, “highly skilled in dealing with environmental challenges,” were “advanced cultures with considerable populations,” had “complex political, social and legal structures,” were “well fed, fitter and probably healthier than their European counterparts,” and developed “sophisticated farming and food-production methods.” They were also the world’s first astronomers: “They used the stars to create complex seasonal calendars, which included details on the position of the stars and constellations.”[6] Unfortunately for those students interested in learning about the exact nature of these “complex” structures, such concepts are declared “sacred” and, consequently, “They can only be shared with the initiated, and cannot be described in a textbook.”[7]

While the early British leaders of the Australian colonies receive scant praise and abundant moral censure, the same textbooks laud the “great Genghis Khan” as “a brilliant, merciless leader who built a vast empire, slaughtering millions in his quest to rule the world.” The Mongol leader’s “determination to succeed combined with a charismatic personality, intelligence, courage and ruthlessness” saw him “lead his ferocious Mongol army on the largest military expansion in history.” The Mongols are commended for having “fostered cultural development in the arts, ensured peace among their peoples, respected different cultures and religions, and improved trade.”

Genghis Khan is granted the epithet of “great” despite the fact his “troops killed many and used the most brutal tortures imaginable,” and the “more resistance they encountered from an opponent, the more horrible the treatment the opponent received from the Mongol army.” In fact, we are told:

Genghis Khan’s cruelty was unprecedented. At the battle of Kalka River in 1223, the Mongol army defeated the Russian forces, wiping out 90 per cent of the soldiers. Mstislav of Kiev and his army retreated and surrendered in return for their safe treatment. Once they surrendered, however, the Mongol army slaughtered the Russian force. They executed Mstislav of Kiev and buried the remaining noble prisoners alive under a victory platform, enjoying a victory feast on top of them as the nobles suffocated beneath them.[8]

None of this prevents Genghis Khan and the Mongols (as a non-White group) from receiving vastly more acclaim (and less moral censure) than the European explorers, founders and leaders of the Australian nation. When the British arrived in Australia in the late eighteenth century these benighted fools purportedly “failed to recognise that the First Nations Peoples of Australia were advanced cultures who actively managed the land.” Aborigines are also (laughably) said to have been more socially progressive than the British. One textbook informs students that “British Women in the colonial period were treated as second-class citizens. … Women were expected to obey their husbands and to bear children. In contrast, the women of the First Nations of Australia held equal status and power in their communities from the distant past until today.”[9]

In reality, Aboriginal societies were, prior to and after contact with Europeans, extremely abusive to women and children and generally violent. In 1995, paleopathologist Stephen Webb published his analysis of 4,500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia going back 50,000 years. These bone collections were at the time being handed over to Aboriginal communities for re-burial, which stopped any follow-up studies.

He found highly disproportionate rates of injuries and fractures to women’s skulls, with the injuries suggesting deliberate attack and often attacks from behind, perhaps from domestic squabbles. In the tropics, for example, female head injury frequency was about 20–33%, versus 6.5–26% for males. The most extreme results were on the south coast, from Swanport and Adelaide, with female cranial trauma rates as high as 40–44%—two to four times the rate of male cranial trauma. In desert and south coast areas, 5–6% of female skulls had three separate head injuries, and 11–12% had two injuries.[10]

The high rate of injuries to female heads was very different from the results from studies of other peoples. These findings, according to anthropologist Peter Sutton, confirm that serious armed assaults were common in Australia over thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans.[11]

From 1788, Europeans arriving in Australia were shocked at the extreme physical violence Aboriginal men inflicted on their women. Watkin Tench, a British marine officer who arrived on the First Fleet, noticed a young woman’s head “covered by contusions, and mangled by scars.” She had a spear wound above her left knee caused by a man who dragged her home to rape her. Tench wrote: “They are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens. They meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality.”[12] Tench observed that when an Aboriginal man “is provoked by a woman, he either spears her, or knocks her down on the spot; on this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club, or any other weapon, which may chance to be in his hand.” British soldier William Collins recounted how “We have seen some of these unfortunate beings with more scars upon their shorn heads, cut in every direction, than could be well distinguished or counted.”[13]

In 1802 an explorer in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales wrote how, for a trivial reason, an Aboriginal “took his club and struck his wife’s head such a blow that she fell to the ground unconscious. After dinner … he got infuriated and again struck his wife on the head with his club, and left her on the ground nearly dying.”[14] In 1825, the French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville observed that “that young girls are brutally kidnapped from their families, violently dragged to isolated spots and are ravished after being subjected to a good deal of cruelty.”[15]

George Robinson observed in the 1830s that Aboriginal men in Tasmania “courted” their women by stabbing them with sharp sticks and cutting them with knives prior to rape.[16] A contemporaneous account by an ex-convict named Lingard noted that: “I scarcely ever saw a married woman, but she had got six or seven cuts in her head, given by her husband with a tomahawk, several inches in length and very deep.”[17] Explorer Edward John Eyre similarly observed that “women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands and friends. … They are frequently beaten about the head, with waddies [clubs], in the most dreadful manner, or speared in the limbs for the most trivial offences. … Few women will be found, upon examination, to be free from frightful scars upon their head, or the marks of spear wounds about the body. I have seen a young woman, who, from the number of these marks, appeared to have been riddled with spear wounds.”[18]

None of these accounts are included in any of the history textbooks currently used in Australian schools. Also conspicuously absent is one of the best primary sources we have for understanding Aboriginal social and cultural practices around the time of European colonization: the account of William Buckley, who lived for over three decades with an Aboriginal tribe around Port Phillip Bay in present-day Victoria in the early nineteenth century. Buckley witnessed constant raids, ambushes and massacres and noted how, in night raids, the Aboriginal tribes he encountered “destroyed without mercy men, women and children.” Buckley also described the practice of cannibalism between the warring tribes of the area, including the practice of eating flesh from the legs of slain warriors which “was greedily devoured by these savages.” Buckley says in one tribal battle he lost his brother-in-law and the man’s wife, along with their blind son, who was then roasted and eaten. He mentions their practice of mortuary cannibalism for love, relating that “they eat also the flesh of their own children to whom they have been much attached should they die a natural death.”

They have a brutal aversion to children who happen to be deformed at their birth. I saw the brains of one dashed out at a blow, and a boy belonging to the same woman made to eat the mangled remains. The act of cannibalism was accounted for in this way. The woman at particular seasons of the moon, was out of her senses; the moon—as they thought—having affected the child also; and certainly it had a very singular appearance. This caused the husband to deny his being the father, and the reason given for making the boy eat the child was, that some evil would befall him of he had not done so.[19]

Such accounts are assiduously hidden from Australian schoolchildren, and Jewish anti-White activists like the late Colin Tatz flared up indignantly when anyone dared to publicly reference Buckley’s detailed eyewitness description of Aboriginal cannibalism. Tatz falsely insisted that “we do not have a single eyewitness account of Aboriginal cannibalism” and when the Australian politician Pauline Hanson referred to the Aboriginal practice of cannibalism, he equated it with “the blood libel against the Jews,” angrily claiming “the Hanson vilification about cannibalism is not of the same magnitude or consequence, but it is very much in the same genre.”[20]

Noting that extreme violence against women and children in Aboriginal communities has a venerable history, and is currently at “catastrophic levels,” Stephanie Jarrett notes that: “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policymakers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from violence. … Deep cultural change is necessary, away from traditional norms and practices of violence.”[21] Aboriginal woman Bess Price, in her forward to Jarrett’s book pointed out that “my own body is scarred by domestic violence” and noted that “Aboriginal people have to acknowledge the truth. We can’t blame all of our problems on the white man.”[22]

The “Genocide” Charge

Unlike Price, the authors of all the textbooks currently used in Australian schools are content to blame all Aboriginal problems on Europeans whom they charge with “genocide.” Students are informed in one text book that while previous generations of historians (i.e., the rational ones who weren’t slaves to today’s regnant anti-White ideology) used words like “settled, settlement and settler” to describe the arrival of Europeans in Australia, modern (woke) historians much prefer “words such as colonist and invader.” These modern historians, we are informed, also “use the word genocide to describe the experience of First Nations Peoples of Australia.”[23]

Today’s anti-White historians (and the activist authors of school textbooks) straddle a muddy line between contradictory narratives: on the one hand we are told that British settlers sneakily (and immorally) “stole” the land of the indigenous peoples, while, at the same time, the British arrival in Australia is characterized as an “invasion.” Yet if we accept the “invasion” thesis, then it follows that Australian territory was conquered in a war (and not stolen) by the British — just as warring Aboriginal tribes conquered each other’s territory.

Brainwashed self-hating Whites enthusiastically pushing Jewish activist narratives

There has even been a proposal by the current Labor government to include an exhibit for Aboriginal victims of the “Frontier Wars” at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. By thereby formalizing the notion of a war between Aborigines and Europeans, Aboriginal activists are inadvertently undermining the long-cherished notion of “stolen land” and its propagandistic utility. The Australian War Memorial Act 1980, under which the memorial operates, is clear that the memorial is dedicated only to those who “died in active service in war or in warlike operations by members of the defence force,” which “includes any naval or military force of the crown.” It is certainly not to remember victims of crimes, reprisals and acts of self-defense by Whites, who were primarily pastoralists. Andrew Bolt makes the point that if the memorial is “so keen to honour Aborigines who died fighting for their tribes, then why include only those who died fighting whites? Why not include the many more who died in wars with other Aboriginal tribes?” He notes how:

Tribal warfare was relentless. William Buckley recalled a corroboree with another tribe ended in a fight that killed 20 people. Shortly afterwards, two boys of his tribe were killed. Then three women and an unspecified number of “boys” died in a war with five other tribes. Much later Buckley’s tribe lost at least two women and a man in another battle, but that night ambushed the enemy camp and killed three of theirs. The other tribe then fled, leaving its wounded “to be beaten to death by boomerangs”, with the bodies then “mutilated in a shocking manner” and cooked. And on it went. Multiply the experience of this one tribe by the 500 others. As historian Geoffrey Blainey has noted, the death rates in tribal wars were in some areas clearly worse than what Europeans suffered in their world wars.

All currently-used history textbooks in Australian schools charge Europeans with “genocide” against the Aborigines. As I have previously discussed, the origins of this “genocide” charge can be traced to a coterie of Jewish academics and intellectuals including, most prominently, Latrobe University historian Tony Barta and the late Sydney University genocide studies professor and “anti-racism” crusader Colin Tatz. In collaboration with Winton Higgins, Anna Haebich, and A. Dirk Moses, these Jewish intellectual activists succeeded in ensuring that “genocide is now in the vocabulary of Australian politics.” The word “genocide” was first used regarding Australia’s Aborigines by Barta at an academic conference in 1984 in a presentation entitled “After the Holocaust: Consciousness of Genocide in Australia” where he proclaimed that “genocide had indeed occurred here.”[24] For Barta, a laudable focus on “the Holocaust” had “inhibited consciousness of the violent past that had enabled us to meet on ground named after the colonial secretary, Lord Sydney. The question was equally suppressed where I had settled with my family, the city named after Lord Melbourne.”[25]

The policies of the British administrators of the Australian colonies of the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and those of Australian state and federal governments in the twentieth century, cannot, by any objective standard, be regarded as “genocidal” as the term was defined by Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish jurist who coined it in 1944. The problem for anti-White activists has been that Lemkin’s definition, subsequently adopted by the UN, relies heavily on “intent to destroy,” which has proved problematic in an Australian context where, “without being able to prove intent on behalf of the colonial administration, the case for genocide is weak.”[26] Barta, therefore, simply redefined “genocide” to make it encompass the totality of European colonial societies like Australia. His redefinition was “a way of obviating the centrality of state policy and premeditation” embedded in Lemkin’s ‘hegemonic intentionalist’ definition of genocide.”[27]

Barta’s redefinition of genocide enabled him to conclude that “Australia — not alone among the nations of the colonized world — is a nation founded on genocide.” He advocates this message “be the credo taught to every generation of schoolchildren—the key recognition of Australia as a nation founded on genocide.”[28] And, as mentioned, the intellectual activism of Barta and others has succeeded in embedding this ahistorical notion in school curricula and textbooks where White Australian children are encouraged to loathe their race, their ancestors and to disregard their incredible achievements. The Sydney Jewish Museum is proudly playing its part in training Australian teachers “not only about the Holocaust” but also about “the Australian genocide.”[29]

Recalling how he was inspired by Barta’s genocide thesis, the late Jewish academic and activist Colin Tatz claimed it “set my wheels going about seeing not parallels or analogies but echoes of the Holocaust here — at the very least making me realize that genocide doesn’t have to be a sharp annihilatory episode confined to 1939 to 1945.”[30] For Tatz, Barta’s presentation was an “inspirational moment and one that became central to my life thereafter.”[31] Embracing and weaponizing the utterly bogus notion of the “Stolen Generations,” Tatz claimed that as a result of “the public’s first knowledge of the wholesale removal of Aboriginal children, the dreaded ‘g’ word is firmly with us,” affirming that the “purpose of my university and public courses” is “to keep it here.”[32] According to Tatz, White people who rejected his “genocide” label exhibited psychological disturbances manifested in “paroxysms, ranging from upset to extreme angst to even more extreme anger, when the (literal) spectres of genocide appear as facets of their proudly democratic histories.”[33]

Inevitably, Barta and Tatz likened rejection of, or even ambivalence toward, their assertion that “Australia is a nation built on genocide” to “Holocaust denial.” Here they were joined by fellow Jewish academic and leading proponent of the “Stolen Generations” myth, Professor Robert Manne. Former editor in chief of The Australian, Chris Mitchell, noted Manne’s penchant for “manipulation of the idea of the Holocaust for political advantage, particularly in the Stolen Generations debate,” observing “this Holocaust tactic, like the related use of the word ‘denier,’ is a simple trick to undermine an opponent’s moral position when a polemicist has little intellectual case.”[34] In levelling the “genocide” charge against White Australians, these Jewish activists seek to exert the kind of psychological leverage used so effectively against Germans, who, as Tatz noted, are “weighed down by the Schuldfrage (guilt question)” to such an extent that “guilt, remorse, shame permeate today’s Germany.”[35]

In addition to this genocide charge, other important parts of the psychological leverage exerted against White Australians are the (now ubiquitous) ceremonial practices known as “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country.” Replacing Christian prayer, these solemn genuflections to the sanctity of Aboriginal people and their culture now feature at the commencement of all public events. Welcome to Country was invented out of whole cloth by the Aboriginal actors Richard Walley and Ernie Dingo in 1976. Despite the lack of any real evidence, some Aboriginal activists allege (relying on Aboriginal oral tradition) that the practice can be traced back thousands of years. We are supposed to take such claims seriously despite the fact that such hearsay evidence is considered unreliable and is therefore inadmissible as evidence in all Australian courts.

Regardless of origin, “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country” have exploded in observance and become a potent symbol of the new secular religion of Aboriginal worship and enforced White penitence. Some jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, have made Welcome to Country (or, failing that, Acknowledgement of Country) mandatory at all government-run events. It was first introduced into the Federal Parliament in 2008 and now forms a regular element of Australian political process. The Acknowledgement of Country is touted by activists as a way “any person can show awareness and respect for Aboriginal culture and heritage and the ongoing relationship the traditional custodians have with the land. … It is a demonstration of respect dedicated to the traditional custodians of the land (or sea) where the event, meeting, school function or conference takes place.” In reality, the practice is about political correctness, virtue-signaling and fostering a culture of White abasement.

The new civic religion of Aboriginal worship has infiltrated corporate Australia via compulsory diversity training — pushed under the threat of people’s livelihoods. It is manifested in scrupulous and ubiquitous observance of Welcome to Country and Acknowledgment of Country (all QANTAS passengers are now subjected to it when landing at any Australian airport), and in the fetish for featuring Blacks of all kinds in advertising (in a nation with a still negligible Black population). It is also expressed in the prominent use of Aboriginal art in corporate headquarters and websites.

It is hardly surprising that, in response to such practices, the diffusion of bogus anti-White historical narratives in Australian schools, and the raft of financial and professional incentives available to Aboriginal people today, we are seeing a sharp increase in the number of White Australians identifying as Black. The spectacular professional rise of individuals like Bruce Pascoe only demonstrates the rich rewards that can flow from shedding one’s White identity in contemporary Australia.

 Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.

[1] Sutton, Peter; Walshe, Keryn (2021). Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.

[2] Keen, Ian (2021). “Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture”. Anthropological Forum. 31: 106–128.

[3] Taylor, Paige (23 June 2021). “Darker issues at play over Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu”. The Australian.

[4] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A. Eggleston, T., Osbourne, D. Polatidis, D., Keith Pratt, A., Ritchie, L., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 9 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 20.

[5] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A., Casey, J., Driscoll, B., Eggleston, Frigo, N., Middlebrook, Y., Polatidis, D., Keith T., Keith Pratt, A., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 7 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 7, 6.

[6] Ibid., 20.

[7] Lawless, B., Green, D., O’Brien, P., Shephard, N., Van Weringh, I., Fricker, A., Good Humanities 9 (Matilda Education: Fitzroy, Victoria, 2021), 9, 62.

[8] Lawless, B., O’Leary, D., Van Noorden, P. Good Humanities (Matilda Education: Fitzroy Victoria, 2021), 106.

[9] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, Op cit., 9, 90.

[10] Tony Thomas, “The long history of Aboriginal violence – Part II,” Quadrant Online, May 7, 2013.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Nowra, Bad Dreaming: Aboriginal Men’s Violence Against Women & Children (Melbourne: Pluto Press, 2007), 10.

[13] Peter Sutton, The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the Liberal Consensus (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press, 2009), 100.

[14] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 13.

[15] Joan Kimm, A Fatal Conjunction: Two Laws Two Cultures (Sydney: Federation Press, 2004), 76.

[16] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 12.

[17] Ibid., 12.

[18] Stephanie Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence (Victoria: Ballan, 2013), 123.

[19] William Buckley, The Life and Adventures of William Buckley: Thirty-Two Years a Wanderer Amongst the Aborigines of the Then Unexplored Country Round Port Phillip, Now the Province of Victoria (Hobart: Archibald MacDougall, 1852), 66-7.

[20] Raphael Israeli, The Blood Libel and Its Derivatives: The Scourge of Anti-Semitism (London: Routledge, 2017), 4.

[21] Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence, 1.

[22] Ibid., 291.

[23] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, op cit., 61.

[24] Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: A Life Confronting Racism (Clayton, Victoria; Monash University Publishing, 2015), 251.

[25] Tony Barta, “Realities, Surrealities and the Membrane of Innocence,” In: Genocide Perspectives: A Global Crime, Australian Voices, Ed. Nikki Marczak & Kirril Shields (Sydney: UTS ePress, 2017), 161.

[26] A. Francis Johnson, Australian Fiction as Archival Salvage: Making and Unmaking the Postcolonial Novel (Boston: Brill Rodopi, 2016), 198.

[27] A. Dirk Moses, “Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History” In: Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Ed. A. Dirk Moses (Sydney: Berghahn Books, 2004), 26.

[28] Ibid., 238; 174.

[29] George Newhouse, “Standing up for the Aboriginal community,” The Australian Jewish News, October 26, 2017.

[30] Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs, 251-52.

[31] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 499.

[32] Colin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide (London; Verso, 2003), xvi.

[33] Tatz, With Intent to Destroy, xiii; xvi.

[34] Chris Mitchell, “A critic untroubled by facts who seeks to silence dissent,” The Australian, September 17, 2011.

[35] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 3009.

Ye’s Latest: Listing Jewish Media Owners and Executives

-The man formerly known as Kanye West held an impromptu interview in which he recites a list of Jewish media executives and owners.

The list is apparently from Daily Stormer (2013) but I hear there are other similar-looking versions floating around the internet. I can’t vouch for its accuracy but the general idea is certainly true. In the 2002 Preface to the Second Edition of The Culture of Critique (p. xlvi and following), a listing and discussion.

After what seems like an awkward silence from the questioner who likely did not anticipate such a detailed response, the questioner goes to  Plan B, saying, “Do you think they stick together when they heard about what happened?”—as if to suggest that even if Jews have a predominant place in the media, that they don’t have any common beliefs or act together.

And yet, as is so often the case, that is pretty much what happened despite the apologetic suggestion that Jews do not have any common interests or opinions.

The whole thing blew up after “super agent” Ari Emanuel wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times on October 19.

In a blistering op-ed for the Financial Times, which was picked up by The Hollywood Reporter, super-agent Ari Emanuel — whose client list includes Martin Scorsese, Denzel Washington, Robert Downey Jr., and Oprah Winfrey — is urging his fellow entertainment industry power brokers to cease all dealings with the man currently known as Ye.

In the piece, Emanuel, who is the CEO of Endeavor, urged corporate behemoths like Apple, Adidas, and Spotify to stop working with West, as they were only giving him a wider platform from which to spread his hate speech. Emanuel also urged Parler’s parent company to not go through with any deal to sell the network to the former Mr. Kim Kardashian.

“West is not just any person,” Emanuel wrote. “He is a pop culture icon with millions of fans around the world. And among them are young people whose views are still being formed. This is why it is necessary for all of us to speak out. Hatred and anti-Semitism should have no place in our society, no matter how much money is at stake.”

The Hollywood Reporter piece notes Emanuel’s previous activism:

Emanuel’s essay referenced a 2006 piece he wrote for HuffPost in which he said entertainment companies should stop working with Mel Gibson after the antisemitic remarks he made that year during an arrest for drunk driving. In his new op-ed, Emanuel explained that he has since recommended Gibson for roles following the actor’s public apology and “commitment to understanding the consequences of his actions,” and that he would be open to helping West do the same.

Given what has happened, West is quite correct to say that he has been proved right on the Jewish  power being able to destroy people (3:46). As Joe Sobran wrote in 1996:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.

A hypocritical etiquette indeed.

And then there’s Kanye discussing his Jewish doctor and his prescription what he calls a “misdiagnosis,” and the assertion by someone that White Lives Matter is “Anti-Semitic” — quickly retracted and changed to the idea that White Lives Matter is anti-Black.

West is obviously not on our side but he is certainly to be praised for publicizing Jewish power—and not backing down in the face of grievous financial damage. Who among us has lost so much—at least $1.5 billion (maybe 2) and counting (at least 3/4 of his fortune)—by standing up for what they regard as the truth?