Alexander Jacob: Introduction to Contributions to the History of European Liberalism by Kurt Hancke

Contributions to the History of European Liberalism
Kurt Hancke
Uthwita Press, 2024

Amazon Blurb by TOO contributor Prof. Ricardo Duchesne who founded the Council of Euro-Canadians, interviewed here: This translation of Dr. Kurt Hancke’s book (Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des europäischen Liberalismus, 1942) should be welcomed as a major, original addition to the growing scepticism in the Anglo world about the merits of Western liberalism.

Hancke’s historical reflections on the history of Western liberalism and the Enlightenment notion of an “undifferentiated” humanity with equal rights, take us beyond a traditionalist perspective to propose instead a German nationalist conception of humanity and individualism.

This emphasis on the importance of a nationalist position that values the highest in human nature, expressed from the perspective of a particular people rather than a rootless cosmopolitan humanity, is one reason to take this book by Hancke seriously, irrespective of what our views may be about his political actions as a supporter of German National-Socialism.

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne


Kurt Hancke was born in 1911 in Hagen to Maria (née  Redhardt) and the engineer Otto Hancke. As a precocious youth he attended the local Albrecht-Dürer-Gymnasium. His propensity for German poetry led him to German studies and the history of literature at the universities of Tübingen, Munich and Berlin. In 1935 he presented the first result of his extensive studies in his doctoral dissertation on The View of Fate in Eighteenth-Century German Irrationalism. He began post-doctoral work at the Universität Freiburg but did not complete his post-doctoral dissertation. Instead, he joined the SS in 1937. In 1939 he became a Hauptsturmführer of the SS and worked as an advisor in the Sicherheitsdienst Hauptamt led by Franz Alfred Six. In 1940, as Chief Assistant to Six in the department of International Studies at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Hancke published a work entitled German Revolt against the West. Around the time of its publication, he was called to the Wehrmacht as lieutenant. It was during the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that Hancke died fighting at the small village of Sobotniki. After his untimely death, Six published Hancke’s manuscripts on liberalism as the present work, Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des europäischen Liberalismus.

The recent literature on the defects of liberal ideologies is too extensive to be enumerated here. There have been several works detailing the defects of Western liberalism by members of Alain de Benoist’s Nouvelle Droite (New Right) movement based in France, for instance. However, the Nouvelle Droite is an avowedly apolitical movement and is necessarily handicapped by the fact that liberalism, originating in England, pushed its roots into the continent first in France and achieved its most dramatic success in the Revolution of 1789. As for Britain and its American colony, it is needless to add that these are quite worthless in the fight against liberalism when they were indeed the founders not only of liberalism and Deism but also of Freemasonry. The value of the present work by Kurt Hancke lies in its focus on the special philosophical and religious virtue of the German ideology — or German Movement, as he calls it — as the most effective counter to the Enlightenment ideas that had infiltrated Germany from England and France. Though Hancke is aware that the German ideology had not been very successful initially in its fight against liberalism, he is confident that it has finally found a firm political backing in the National-Socialist regime.†

Hancke considers liberalism as an ideology of the primacy of the individual and locates its rise in the breakdown of the mediaeval world-order of the Holy Roman Empire and the subsequent emergence of nation states in Europe. Economically, this seismic shift in the social ethos of the continent was later helped by the growing phenomena of industrialisation and capitalism. The turning point of the end of the mediaeval order was the Renaissance in the south and the Reformation in the north. Thus, we glimpse liberalistic views emerging in Machiavelli and Jean Bodin and reinforced by Johannes Althusius and Hugo Grotius. The tendency now was to have recourse to Natural Law rather than Ecclesiastical as the basis of society. This reliance on natural law naturally led to the formation of Deism in England, especially in the works of Herbert of Cherbury and Viscount Bolingbroke. Adam Smith then consolidated the system with his economic liberalism.

In France, Mandeville reinforced these liberalistic trends with an amoralistic liberalism. Montesquieu’s lasting contribution to the movement was his doctrine of the separation of powers in the state, while Rousseau consummated the liberalistic impulse with his thesis that the people must eventually determine their own constitution. It was only Germany that seriously sought to resist the English and French liberalistic inroads into old Europe. This it did through the nationalistic writings of Fichte, Herder and Novalis. However, in Germany, even under the Second Reich, there was not a clear demarcation between the new German Idealism and the rising economic liberalism or the new socialism — which indeed represented a radical form of liberalism that would turn into Bolshevist Communism in the east. Liberalism is thus seen to be a versatile ideology that was able to accommodate itself to several different forms of state constitution — thus to absolutism, democracy, republicanism and socialist government in turn. Freemasonry, which followed in the steps of liberalism, evinced the same versatility.

The origin of the liberalistic idea of man may be traced back to the ‘humanitas’ of the Renaissance which represented a liberation of man from Christian otherworldly teleology that had forced him to rest his hopes on Faith. Gradually Reason was substituted for Faith and moralism replaced religion. This transformation was even more acutely associated with the Protestant Reformation of Luther and Calvin, Melanchthon and the educator Comenius.

Yet the resistance to the new liberalistic movements was also crystallised in Germany especially through the mystical tradition of Pietism. The monadology of Leibnitz was also a philosophical refutation of the Enlightenment principles since it was not atomistic and mechanistic like the Western empirical systems but more organic in conception. Nationalism was, besides, encouraged in Germany through the focus on the nation as a larger organic entity than the human in Fichte and Schiller and Herder. As Hancke puts it:

The centre of this circle, however, is the concrete German people and the threat it faces from the West. The resort to the inimitable uniqueness of the individual turned one folk among many into the single folk, the historical folk par excellence. The idea of humanity as an abstract universal model of man became the metaphysical justification of a German self-consciousness: This is the meaning of German humanity and its contrast to the Western ideology of humanity.

Unfortunately, however, Germany was not able to fully resist the Westernising influences:

The German movement’s idea of humanity was overwhelmed by the industrial levelling of Europe, by the dominant economic rationalism, by the international powers that allied themselves with the West and, as a whole, imposed a realism on the Second Reich that left no room for the German idea of ​​humanity.

It is interesting to recall that German nationalists like Fichte were also often Freemasons, but what they contributed to German philosophy and politics was distinct from the Masonic ideal of global liberalism. Thus, the philosophical and literary ‘German movement’, though ineffective through the period of the Second Reich, maintained itself in spite of Western Masonic pressures on Germany and found its fullest champion, according to Hancke, in National-Socialism, which reasserts German independence against liberalistic and Masonic universalism:

The German worldview conceives of man as the bodily-mental unity founded in race, rooted in nationality and viable only in national community, as it has always revealed itself in the genuine history of the folk. This is the National-Socialist idea of humanity.

*   *   *

The Enlightenment, Deism and Freemasonry are the principal intellectual movements that ushered into Europe the universalist worldview. The Humanism of the Renaissance was transformed by these movements into a fully optimistic view of man as no longer burdened with notions of original sin. The theocratic state was also replaced by a humanitarian universalism. It is not surprising that the first proposals for an international association such as the later League of Nations and the United Nations were made by Deist thinkers of French extraction like Abbé de Saint-Pierre and his friend Marquis d’Argenson.

However, the baneful results of the Enlightenment ideology were the increasing mechanisation and mathematisation of the world as exemplified in the works of Descartes, Newton and Boyle. Hobbes’ political views were also mechanical in that he viewed the state as a huge machine. The Protestant ‘Glorious’ Revolution in England that marked the accession of King William of Orange to the English throne in 1688 fostered the works of the Puritan thinker John Locke, who is generally considered the father of liberal democracy.  Interestingly, Locke also vigorously championed ‘toleration’, even though he meant thereby the toleration of Catholics.

Ironically, as Hancke points out, the so-called emphasis on tolerance that was common to the Enlightenment and Masonry bore in itself the potential of intolerance when it came to defending their own position. This is the explanation of the transformation of liberalism into Bolshevism too, since the defence of the liberal ideology requires, finally, the establishment of a tyrannical totalitarian state.

In France, the Catholic regime of Louis XIV did not permit the flourishing of free-thought and it was under his successor, Louis XV, that the French Enlightenment came to the fore in the writings of Voltaire and Diderot. Rousseau, though a child of the Enlightenment in his humanitarianism, represented also the ‘irrational’ or sentimental compensatory aspect of Enlightenment rationalism. His calls for a return to Nature indeed constitute the more dangerous side of Enlightenment ideology that projects not merely a mechanisation of the world but also a reduction of it to its primitive natural constitution.

The Enlightenment’s focus on secularisation helped the Masonic ideology just as the mechanistic worldview of the age, including that of Deism, encouraged the Masons’ view of the universe as ruled by a world-architect. The Deism of Hebert Cherbury in England replaced conscience and faith with innate ideas wherewith it sought to secularise Christianity. As Hancke points out:

The reduction of faith to the innate ideas of the individual demands not only rationalism and individualism but, at the same time, a universal claim to validity: Since the ideas are equally innate in every human being without distinction, they must be equally valid for all human beings.

Another branch of the Enlightenment that differed slightly from Deism is Pantheism, which was represented especially by the Irish thinker John Toland in his Pantheisticon. This strand was derived from Spinoza’s rationalistic divinisation of Nature.

Both Deism and the Enlightenment were motivating forces in the rise of Masonic Lodges in France. The first major Lodge was established between 1728 and 1738 with Philip, Duke of Wharton who had been the grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of London, presiding as its grandmaster.

It should be noted, however, that the Enlightenment focus on rationalism also produced several irrationalist compensations that sought to emphasise the feelings or the deeper life powers, which were not tangible to the rational mind: The moral sense, which functions uninfluenced by the mind as a hidden common organ for beauty and morality, is the most successful of these life powers.

But this emphasis on feelings was inevitably perverted into a love of symbolical frauds:

Especially the dialectic of the Enlightenment counter-image led to the most strange excesses of mysticism, artificial darkness and symbolic fraud in Freemasonry: No other organisation of that time reveals the described surrogate-character of secret activity so strikingly as the Lodge, and nowhere could the primitive fantasies of the “enlightened” unfold more unrestrainedly than here.

Thus the irrationalism noticed in Rousseau was manifested in Masonry in its fake esotericism and rituals.

Freemasonry is throughout its history marked by its secretive nature and Hancke pauses to study the development of secret societies within Enlightenment Europe. Religious mysteries as the earliest forms of esoteric groupings are noticeable already in the pre-Cretan Mediterranean and they were followed in Hellenistic times by the Platonic Academy (which was dissolved by Justinian) and in the Renaissance by the Florentine Academy of the Medicis. The mediaeval era had also encouraged the formation of social groupings such as the guilds and these were followed in the modern era by various workers’ unions and political clubs, both socialist and aristocratic. The rapid interest in science promoted academic societies devoted to scientific learning such as the Royal Society and the incipient nationalism of European lands resulted in the formation of societies devoted to the promotion of national languages. Catholicism, however, succeeded in absorbing such groupings into its large organisation by making the Franciscans, for example, an Order within the Church.

Germany was characterised in the mediaeval age by associations that worked independently of the Church and the State. Protestantism itself was not conducive to the formation of secret societies since it was an essentially tolerant movement. Yet, in the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment and its Deist religious reformations encouraged the growth of various Masonic Lodges. The anti-Napoleonic societies in Germany were also formed in secret groupings.

The Enlightenment proper entered into Germany particularly through the literary circles prevalent in Prussia: Thus through figures like Wieland, Lessing, Engel, Mendelssohn and Nicolai. Many of these thinkers were Jewish emancipationists as well. Thus, after Christian Wolff, the real representatives of the German Enlightenment were the Jews Moses Mendelssohn and Lessing.[1] Consequently the Enlightenment in general became synonymous with the emancipation of the Jews.

Against the French classical doctrines of the German thinker Johann Gottsched there arose a Swiss school led by Johann Breitinger and Johann Bodmer that propagated English Romanticism. A peculiarity of the return to Nature was its appeal to antiquity as well, but not to Roman antiquity so much as to Greek. Thus, for example, the art historian and archaeologist Johann Winckelmann constantly praised Greek inventiveness as the model to be imitated in modern Germany. The Romantic movement also manifested itself in darker aspects such as the love of horror and suicide as means of escaping the world. This resulted in the German movement called Sturm und Drang (‘storm and stress’). Again, the literary models sought here were not the figures of French classicism but Shakespearean heroes.

*   *   *

The major German reaction against this Western sentimentality is to be found in the works of the Pietist Johann Hamann, who pointed to the organic nature of the human being and the need to acquire an intense self-knowledge that transcends the passions by which the Romantics are so easily distracted.

The revolt of German philosophy against the Western Enlightenment was generally crystallised around the religious movement of Pietism that drew on the earlier mystical tendencies of such religious thinkers as Meister Eckhart and Jakob Böhme. The two towering philosophical figures that emerged in eighteenth century Germany to combat the Western intellectual invasions were Leibnitz and Kant. The German reaction against the Enlightenment was indeed spearheaded by Kant, who defeated rationalism and empiricism in his critiques of pure and practical reason.

Fichte too, though a Mason himself, broke away from the universalist ideology of Masonry by positing the metaphysical significance of the notion of Humanity,

which becomes the given essential character which can be achieved for individuals and for peoples only through the highest exertion of all forces; history becomes a process of the self-discovery of these characters of individuals and peoples; morality has its sole standard in these tasks and achievements. Such an overall process … is no longer “good for something” like Western Freemasonry, no longer a path to the realisation of enlightening goals, but “it is good in and for itself, not a means to any end” [quoting Fichte]. This is the specifically and unmistakably German step away from all utility thinking to an “in and for itself …

Unfortunately, however, the Western forces of the Enlightenment and its concomitant Masonry eventually triumphed over the German spirit until the time of National-Socialism. As Hancke points out:

It cannot be mistaken that the Enlightenment as an epochal process united the European-American “West” and secured its historical leadership for the time being. But this is the circumstance from which a present-day German view must primarily judge: Since the Enlightenment, Germanic-German continuity has been sick from Westernization.

Politically this brought about the opposition of the democratic West to the autarkic German National-Socialist state:

The “great democracies”, in this form already self-confident since the World War, still represent that old union of the West which had been formed at the height of the Enlightenment (with the foundation of the USA) between France, England and America. It is the spirit of the old Enlightenment which is mobilised today against National-Socialism: The spirit of rationalism, calculation and security (against German “unpredictability”), of individual liberalism (against German “despotism”), of tolerance (against German “radicalism”), of humanitarian brotherhood (against German “racial mania”), of secularised rational Christianity and its “morality” (against German “neo-paganism”), all in the name of civilization and progress.

The fight that National-Socialist Germany has undertaken against liberalism and its many forms should therefore, according to Hancke, be considered as a vital philosophical mission:

It is, however, once again the spirit of the old Enlightenment which today rules the world in the form of over-technology, rational standardisation, accelerated idling and total kitschification. Here it is necessary to deepen the outer fronts and, in radical self-contemplation, to make the overcoming of the Enlightenment through itself a conscious one again — as a German mission. From this arises the radical front, above all, against the international bearers of the bad Enlightenment spirit: Against intellectual Judaism and against the mischief of Freemasonry.

[1] Eugen Dühring considered Lessing to be a crypto-Jew and classified him, along with Ludwig Börne and Heinrich Heine, as a ‘Jewish group’ of writers (see my edition of Dühring’s Die Judenfrage, Eugen Dühring on the Jews, 1997, p.120.).


The Problem with Leftism

Everyone complains about the Left, but no one does anything about it.  Or so it would seem.  Part of the problem, I suspect, is that many in the public have mistaken notions about what “the Left” is and how it operates, and thus they more or less mindlessly support it, or oppose it, as the case may be.  Hence it is high time for a hard look at this nefarious political entity, in order to devise better and more appropriate responses to it.

Let’s start with conventional views.  A constant theme of right-wing and conservative commentators is that the Left dominates America today.  This holds true across nearly the entire spectrum of conservatism, from the dissident- and alt-Right to conventional Republicans, to Pat Buchanan, to Fox News, to the Wall Street Journal, to the pro-Trump crowd.  In fact, it’s about the only thing they all agree on.  The primary concern seems to focus on media and on politics, the latter via the Democrats and the Biden regime.  Many would include academia, Hollywood, and the public schools as well.  Furthermore, this is universally seen on the Right as a disaster—and it is a disaster, but for reasons other than they presume—as well as something that poses a fundamental threat to America, to the “American way of life,” and to our very health and well-being.  The Left, apparently, is the root of all evil.

But what exactly is “the Left,” and why are they so evil?  This is rarely explained, likely because it is a relatively complicated matter that requires more than the usual 10 seconds of thinking.  Given the importance of the topic and the seriousness of the threat, however, we need to dive a bit more deeply into it.

To anticipate my main conclusion:  I think “the Left” is largely misnamed and misconceived—it is a kind of diversionary concept invented to distract from the real power-brokers and the real conflicts at hand.  “The Left” is actually a kind of fake Left, portrayed as opposing “the Right,” which is in reality a fake Right.  The net effect is to create a false antagonism and to encourage the unthinking masses to pick sides, even as they ultimately support the same side in the end.  Unsurprisingly, the Jewish Lobby plays a large role here, as I will show.

Real Leftism

I think many would be surprised to hear that real leftism is not what is commonly portrayed, and that it is actually (gasp!) not so bad.  At the risk of being pedantic, let’s look at standard definitions of both “Left” and “liberal,” since these seem to nominally be at the heart of the problem.  As I like to say, we need to know what we are talking about, if we hope to make any progress on these vital issues.  Here, then, is a typical definition of “Left”:

Left n, cap  a: those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established political order, and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man.  b: a radical (as distinct from conservative) position.

Thus stated, this is relatively benign.  Anyone unhappy with an existing political administration will of necessity seek to reform or replace it, and thus we can all agree with this.  However, it is surprising to see the Left defined as striving for increased freedom for the average individual, when today it is more common to decry the “liberty-loathing left.”  It is true that those in power are working to diminish or restrict peoples’ freedoms—but this doesn’t make them leftists.  In fact it makes them anti-leftists, at least on this definition.  More problematically, we can have no doubt that “the Right” in anything like current forms, including neo-con and Judeo-Trumpian conservatism, would certainly (and in some cases did) institute their own forms of liberty restriction; hence ‘liberty-loathing’ is no hallmark of “the Left.”

As to the “radical” aspect, I would argue that this is largely in the eye of the beholder.  To be a radical in this sense is simply to press for far-reaching and qualitative change, as opposed to “tinkering around the edges,” which can be considered a conservative approach.  Clearly one can be a “radical right-winger” as much as one can be a “radical leftist,” and so part (b) does not offer much illumination.

What about “liberal,” or more generally, “liberalism”?  Here’s what we might find:

liberalism n:  a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Again, we find woefully little to object to here.  I think we all are in favor of “progress,” even though we may have different ideas about what exactly that means.  What about “the essential goodness of man”?  That’s a strange phrase.  It is almost a religious idea, almost like saying we are all “children of God” or something.  But that’s nonsense.  I guess we can agree that most people, most of the time, are good; but still, there are bad, malevolent, and detestable people out there whom I would never declare to be “essentially good.”  That phrase might have been better stated as a general optimism about human nature, perhaps.  And I can agree to this.  I am generally optimistic about humanity; it is primarily aberrant conditions that cause the worst in people to come out.  In a mass technological society, “people” can seem incredibly dull, ignorant, and short-sighted, but this is more a consequence of social structure than anything else.  Much more needs to be said on this, but I defer that to another time.

“Autonomy of the individual” and “protecting civil liberties” are again, perhaps, a surprise.  But they should not be.  Liberalism, like liberal, derives from the Latin liber (free).  A liberal is, literally, a free thinker; a key part of the definition of ‘liberal’ is the idea of “one who is open-minded.”  Who among us does not claim to be open-minded?  Hence a true liberal is a free-thinking, autonomous, civil libertarian.  But doesn’t that describe the vast majority of “the Right”?  What are we to make of this?

We are beginning to see the nature of the problem.  Many of us, based on these definitions, would be forced to call ourselves “leftists” and “liberals.”  And yet, many would never do this, even on pain of death.  Somehow, politics has either become detached from reality, or it has altered the basic meaning of words so much that we, collectively, and quite literally, do not know what we are talking about.  Or perhaps a bit of both.

If nothing else, all this suggests that the stereotypical right-left distinction has become almost meaningless, likely as part of a deliberate strategy of obfuscation.  Clearly a more precise analysis is called for.

The Structure of the Fake American Left

The Left as commonly portrayed—the fake Left—is in reality a two-tiered system, composed of a small number of ideological leaders and propagators, and a large mass of people who generally self-identify as “Democrats” or “liberals.”  In America today, ‘Democrat’ and ‘Left’ are virtually coextensive; nearly all Democrats are leftists, and nearly all leftists are Democrats.  The terms are almost interchangeable.  But here, I will focus on ‘Left’ and ‘leftism’ since that terminology has a broader international meaning than the American-only party of Democrats.

More revealing is who these people are.  The elite leftists today are almost exclusively either Jews (of political, corporate, or academic stripe) or Gentiles, mostly White, working for and on behalf of Jews.  (Whether these Gentile lackeys are aware of their subservient status or not, and whether they care, are good questions that I can’t address here.)  In other words, the elite Left are either Jews or people beholden to Jews.  Either way, Jewish interests and Jewish issues predominate.

We know this because, firstly, so many of the Democratic elite are themselves Jews (Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, George Soros, Jerry Nadler, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Janet Yellen, Tony Blinken, Rochelle Walensky…) or have Jewish family members (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomo family).  The pervasive Jewish presence in the Democratic Party is a fact never mentioned in the MSM, and rarely discussed even by their strongest right-wing opponents.[1]  This should tell us something.

Secondly, we know that a large majority of Democratic campaign money comes from Jewish sources.  Over the past few decades, reported percentages of Democratic totals range from “about half,”[2] to 50%,[3] to “as much as 60%,”[4] to “over 60%,”[5] to as much as 2/3,[6] to “70% of large contributions,”[7] to 80-90%.[8]  A recent study, “The Jewish Vote 2020,” cites a number of relevant statistics, including these:

  • In the 2016 cycle, all of the top seven biggest donors overall were Jews (p. 11).
  • The top 10 donors in 2016 gave $406 million, of which $357 million—an amazing 88%—was from Jews (p. 14).
  • Of the top 50 donors in 2016, 20 (40%) were Jews (p. 14).
  • And it reconfirms that, today, Jews comprise roughly 50% of “big individual donors” to Democrats, and 25% of the same for Republicans (p. 11).

Late in 2020, in the run-up to the presidential election, it was reported that 15 of the top 25 donors (for both parties combined), or 60%, were Jews.  Top Democratic donors were Steyer ($54 million), Don Sussman ($22 million), James Simons ($21 million), Michael Bloomberg ($19 million), Deborah Simon ($12 million), Henry Laufer ($12 million), Josh Bekenstein ($11 million), Stephen Mandel ($9 million), Soros ($8 million—although he funnels many other donations through various nonprofits), and Steve Ballmer ($8 million).  These days, anything less than $10 million barely warrants mention.

So much for politics.  What about leftist media?  We know the main culprits:  CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  Unsurprisingly, Jews fill top spots at all these organizations or their parent companies.  CNN’s president is Jeff Zucker, and is owned by Warner Media, with Jason Kilar as CEO.  MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, with CEO Jeff Shell, and top execs Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, and Ron Meyer.  The NYT has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1896; the current owner and publisher is Arthur Sulzberger.  The Washington Post has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1933, with the possible exception of current owner Jeff Bezos (status unknown), who acquired it from the Jewish Graham family in 2013 (“at the suggestion of his friend, Don Graham”).[9]  We could include various other media entities, such as NPR Radio; elsewhere (note 10) I have shown that its on-air staff is over half Jewish.

In support of political and media Jews are the leftist “Big Tech” Jews, who include the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Larry Page and Sergei Brin (Google), Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube), Steve Ballmer, Andy Jassy (Amazon), Marc Benioff, and Michael Dell (Dell computers).  Thus, between money, power, media, and technology, the leftist elite—Jews and their sycophants—have a near monopoly on discourse in America and much of the West.

What about the base of the fake Left?  This is a large group of individuals, mostly White, who have been deluded as to the true nature of that ideology.  We can get a rough idea of numbers by considering the fact that Biden received about 80 million votes, of which some 72% were Whites; thus, there are about 55 million Whites who presumably identify with or favor the leftist Democrats.  To this number we can add the 15 million Blacks and 10 million Latinos who also voted for Biden.  The leftist base is thus about 80 million people.  This is a large number, though not overwhelming in a nation of 330 million.

By contrast, Trump earned about 50 million White votes; another 50 million or so Whites did not vote.  Hence, in rough terms, the (fake) Left has a grip on only about one-third of Whites; two-thirds elude their grasp.  This is a good sign—perhaps the best news among a raft of bad omens.  Something like 100 million Whites are either opposed, or potentially opposed, to leftist ideology.  There is much to build on here.

In sum, the nominal Left is a fake Left, adhering to virtually nothing of the meaning of a true leftism.  Rather, it is influenced and run, directly and indirectly, by wealthy and influential Jews.  This fake Left is a Jewish Left, ideologically speaking, and it operates largely by and for Jewish interests.  Likewise with liberalism, which today is a fake liberalism: an ideology that is fully aligned with Jewish interests.  In fact, the marriage of convenience between Jews and liberalism has long been known.  Consider this revealing passage:

Throughout the nineteenth century and later, the fate of the Jews would be linked inextricably with that of liberalism itself.  Their loyalty to liberalism would be intense and abiding, nurtured on gratitude for rights received and determination to establish a permanent place for the Jews in the modern European world.  Liberals, although scarcely ecstatic over persistent Jewish religious and social particularism, would reciprocate with toleration and increasing measures of equality before the law.  Both parties, but especially the Jews, would be acutely aware that Jewish emancipation stood or fell with the fortunes of liberalism.[10]

For well over a century, a majority of Jews have allied themselves with liberalism and leftism solely because it served their interests—the welfare of native populations be damned.  In a sense, they hijacked an otherwise virtuous ideology and perverted it to their own benefit.

The Real Right

Now that we have done some preliminary analysis of the Left, let’s turn to the Right.  In a popular sense, the Right has some stereotypical characterizations.  We know the catchphrases: “Guns, God, and country”; “Don’t tread on me”; “Liberty or death”; and various takes on the notion of freedom.  Again, these are constant themes across the conservative spectrum.

But how do these conventional ideas match up with the formal notion of “the Right”?  Earlier I cited standard definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘liberal,’ and to be fair, I need to do the same for their nominal counterparts, ‘Right’ and ‘conservatism’.  Here they are:

Right n, cap  (1) individuals favoring traditional attitudes and practices, and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order.  (2) a group or party that favors conservative, traditional, or sometimes authoritarian attitudes and policies.

conservatism n:  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

As before, there are some surprises—mostly in what is not here.  On the one hand, we find an emphasis on tradition and stability, gradual change (“reform”), and potentially anti-democratic policy, if this is how we may interpret ‘forced authoritarianism’ in this context.  On the other, we notice what is missing:  God, religion, rights, liberty, freedom.  Nothing on “small government.”  Even terms like ‘nation’ and ‘country’ are absent.  What are we to make of this?

It would seem that, as with the Left, that the Right has also been distorted from its formal and definitional meaning into a kind of caricature.  The current obsession with religion, freedom, patriotism, and formal democracy have been introduced by those who would like to divert people away from the true ruling entities in the US—Jewish money and power, Judeophilic lackeys, the ultra-rich, and a techno-industrial system that is spinning out of control—in order to confuse and distract the masses.

A true Right, composed of true conservatives, would do the following:

  • They would be less concerned about formal, representative democracy and more about the integrity of society, human welfare, and long-term sustainability of their own people. If this demands the use of “undemocratic” policies, so be it.
  • They would actively oppose any corrupt and malevolent minority from attacking the basis of society and from seeking to exploit it for their personal gain.
  • They would strive for social homogeneity, both racially and ethnically, knowing that multicultural and multiracial societies are inevitably prone to conflict, disruption, instability, and ultimately decay.
  • They would oppose an advancing high-tech society, knowing that potent and uncontrollable technologies not only empower our social overlords but also destroy traditional society, damage human health, and promote the destruction of the natural world upon which all real stability is grounded.
  • They would support the disintegration of large, unstable political systems like modern America and encourage the devolution and decentralization of political power; large complex societies have, of necessity, more laws, more constraints, and less freedom. They are also more easily manipulated by unscrupulous minorities.

Incidentally, one troubling fact of the January 6 “insurrection” is that most of the people there were pro-America and pro-democracy (or so it is claimed).  But true conservatives would not hold these views.  True conservatives realize that “America,” in both practice and theory, is anti-conservative and unsustainable.  America needs to be replaced with something else—something new, something different, something that will protect and defend the social well-being of the American majority and the ecological basis for it.[11]  Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have had any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics.  Most of those people, I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right”—a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.

The True Problems with “the Left”

Returning to the main theme, the fake Left is a heavily Jewish enterprise.  But most people, Left and Right, don’t know this or don’t acknowledge it, and they therefore don’t object to that fact.  When those on the Right object to the Left, it is usually to more concrete (but secondary) issues.  We can make a short list:  leftists are for “big government”; they support “open borders”; they want to take our guns; they stifle our freedom of speech (or freedom generally); they are authoritarian; they conduct “cancel culture”; they demonize Whites; they are anti-Christian; they tyrannize the public, as via their over-hyped Covid panic; they “tax and spend.”   Maybe even “they hate America” (if we listen to Tucker Carlson).  Doubtless we could add more, but I think this covers the main concerns for most on the Right.

I cannot argue with these points; I think all of them are basically true.  But there are deeper factors at work that help to explain this collective phenomenon, which is why we need to press a bit harder to really understand the process at work here.

When I consider the many objectionable features of what is called the Left, I compile a different sort of list.  For what it’s worth, I find it to have the following negative qualities:

A desire to impose their beliefs and values on others.  This is the “controlling,” “authoritarian,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect.  Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system.  They are the antithesis of “live and let live.”  They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions.  They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, and so they suppress it.[12]

They are blind to the realities of race, biology, and genetics.  For the Left, most all of human nature is a “social construction”—something pliable and malleable, something that can be defined and redefined almost at will.  Humans are merely a plastic biology; the many races are rather like different colors of Playdough, all equally moldable into new shapes and forms.  This results in an over-inclusive and naïve egalitarianism.

But this is not reality.  The fact is that there are profound and unalterable differences between human beings, both between and within races.  These are manifest in physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and cultural ways.  They are rooted in genetics, and cannot be wished away.  But leftists have deeply imbibed the fallacy of human equality.  Many are also functional relativists who cannot bear to make value distinctions.  (I should note here the difference between the leftist elite, who espouse views that they don’t really believe, and the naïve leftist masses, who generally do seem to believe them.)  As a result, leftists say incredibly stupid things and make incredibly stupid policy proposals.

No concept of a noble humanity.  When one swallows the myth of human equality, one condemns the human race to a miserable mediocrity.  If all are equal, then none are better, and in fact no one can be better.  Equality denies the existence of superior individuals, who are the very ones that drive society forward.  When such superior individuals do appear—as they inevitably do—they are suppressed, censored, attacked, perhaps jailed, perhaps killed.  Superior individuals put the lie to the myth of equality, which is one reason why they are so dangerous to the Left.  Because leftists have repudiated the whole concept of a noble humanity, they represent a profound threat to human well-being.  They effectively destroy the future of our race.

A pathology of pity.  Leftists are pity-mongers in the extreme.  They wallow in pity.  They praise pity.  And they sell pity.[13]  Great individuals and great societies do not wallow in pity.  They accept pain, hardship, and loss, and then they move on.  They give a fair respect to all of humanity, but they don’t elevate the lesser or the weak.  They don’t allow the lesser to dominate or even to consume inordinate time or resources.  The lesser of one’s own race are cared for, quietly, and the lesser of other races are excluded.  Such an approach can seem harsh, but such is life.

Dangerous and possibly fatal naiveté.  By accepting false but comforting myths, by failing to address the real threats to society, by adopting a de facto philo-Semitism, and by wallowing in an over-socialized and misdirected form of pity, leftists dodge the hard reality of the modern world.  In doing so, they doom society to inevitable suffering and decay.  Life is hard, evolution can be brutal, and choices are painful.  Leftists, though, prefer the easy way out; they seek to avoid all conflict and confrontation, and are happy to surrender control of their lives to, for example, a Jewish elite who would like nothing more than to use them, exploit them, and utterly crush them in the end.

Only by addressing these deeper failings of the Left can we get to the root of the problem.

Where Is the Opposition?

As I mentioned above, all sectors of the Right oppose leftism, but most are half-hearted—or worse.  Let’s take a specific example.  Perhaps the most visible and vocal critic of the Left is Tucker Carlson of Fox News.  In my essay Dissecting Tucker Carlson, I have critiqued his modus operandi, but here I want to emphasize his deeper alignment with the Left.

Let’s compare Carlson’s worldview to that of the typical leftist.  (A) The leftist, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist.  He believes deeply in human equality.  He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.”  He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity.  Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices.  The leftist never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities.  In this way, the leftist maintains his status and material well-being.

(B) Tucker Carlson, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist.  He believes deeply in human equality.  He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.”  He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity.  Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices.  Carlson never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities.  In this way, Carlson maintains his status and material well-being.

I trust that we can see the similarities here.[14]  And yet Carlson is supposedly an exemplary member of “the Right.”  Sadly, he is not alone; the above description applies to a large majority of the nominal Right.  This is precisely why the alleged Right is a fake Right, and why so many populist conservatives are fake conservatives.

If Carlson and others were true right-wingers, and true conservatives, they would display the characteristics I cited above.  They would be openly and explicitly anti-minority, anti-egalitarian, explicitly “racist” (or “racialist”), anti-Semitic, pro-environment, anti-technology (and not just anti-Big Tech), and perhaps even anti-democratic.  They might be anti-capitalist, knowing the disruption caused by unrestrained free-market capitalism.  God forbid, they might even be a little socialist!  They would be not so much patriotic—which implies a kind of naïve acceptance of the ruling class and the existing political order—but rather truly nationalist, in the sense of defending the interests one’s own race and ethnicity, which is, after all, the true basis of a “nation.”[15]

Where, then, are the true conservatives?  Where lies the true Right?  It is almost impossible to find, even in the big wide world of the Internet.  Thank God for organizations like The Occidental Observer, The Unz Review, and National Vanguard, who are willing to call a spade a spade.  Thank God for individuals like Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Anglin, William White Williams and David Duke, who are willing to speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question.  Thank God for the small circle of leading Holocaust revisionists, who work relentlessly to undermine the keystone of Jewish mendacity.[16]  Without such individuals, we would be lost.  With them, we have hope.

The Way Forward

In sum, the popular Left-Right divide in American politics is a fake dichotomy, constructed by and serving the interests of a Jewish elite and their well-paid Gentile lackeys.  When people focus all their attention and energy on this contrived distinction, they are distracted from, and thus overlook, the true and deeper causes of social crisis in this country.  The fake Right and the fake Left both serve their Jewish masters.  Only by moving beyond this superficial divide can we get to the root of things.

There are positive aspects of both real leftism and real conservatism.  We should indeed be open-minded, free-thinking, non-dogmatic, and progress-oriented.  We should indeed defend individual autonomy, and political and civil liberty, while promoting the better instincts of humanity.  At the same time, we should be truly nationalist:  that is, defending the integrity and well-being of White Americans.  We should work toward a relatively homogenous, monocultural, mono-ethnic nation, which is the only type of nation proven to be stable and sustainable.  We should be ardent environmentalists, preserving wild nature, expanding wilderness, and protecting indigenous species; without this, we cannot hope for a flourishing society.  We should put sharp limits on free-marketeers, finance capitalists, and financial speculators; if this means moving toward a limited socialism, so be it.

Above all, we should end the constant clamor over the bogus Left-Right confrontation, and focus on what really matters:  subverting the dominant Judeocracy, creating a manageable and ethnically-uniform nation (or nations), and getting down to the hard work of restoring a sane society.  I fear that we haven’t much time to spare.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at  For all his writings, see his personal website

[1] It will be a cold day in hell before Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity ever speak explicitly about the Jews on the Left.

[2] Jewish Power, by J. J. Goldberg (1996), p. 277.

[3] Jerusalem Post (27 Sep 2016).

[4] Washington Post (13 Mar 2003), p. A1.

[5] Jewish Power in America, by B. Feingold (2008), p. 4.

[6] Jewish Telegraphic Agency (7 Jun 2011).

[7] The Hill (30 Mar 2004), p. 1.

[8] Passionate Attachment, by Ball and Ball (1992), p. 218.

[9] This fact alone is damning; I know of no instance in which Jews have sold a major media company to a non-Jew.  And the fact that Bezos turned over operations of Amazon to another Jew, Andy Jassy, is a further indication.

[10] The Jews in Weimar Germany, by Don Niewyk (1980), p. 1.

[11] More needs to be said on this, which I will address in a subsequent essay.

[12] Again, the Left has no monopoly on this issue.  The Right can be just as imposing.

[13] One need only watch any episode of popular television shows, especially so-called reality TV.  Shows like “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” are endless parades of sob stories.  Crying contestants are de rigueur.

[14] There are, of course, differences:  Carlson is anti-immigration, pro-Christian, Covid-skeptical, and withering in his critique of the Biden regime.  But the similarities are more significant and more consequential than the differences.

[15] ‘Nation’ comes from Latin natus or natio, that is, those who are “born together,” or of similar birth.

[16] Among whom I would include Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jürgen Graf.  Any discussion of Holocaust revisionism that does not mention these men is not worth its salt.

Andrew Joyce Reviews Richard Houck’s Liberalism Unmasked

Liberalism Unmasked
Richard Houck
Arktos, 2018
Available at Arktos and Amazon (all 5-star reviews)

One of my favorite old Irish ballads is ‘The Wind That Shakes the Barley,” written by the nineteenth-century poet Robert Dwyer Joyce. The song (sung magnificently here by Dolores Keane) revolves around a young Wexford rebel who sacrifices his relationship with his beloved, and then engages in violence associated with the 1798 rebellion against British rule. The barley of the title, and chorus, is a reference to the fact the rebels often carried barley or oats in their pockets as provisions while on the move. When these guerrilla fighters were captured by the yeomanry, they were often summarily shot and quickly buried in mass graves. In these graves, the oats and barley germinated, resulting, post-rebellion, in pockets of “croppy-holes,” or random barley growing. The pockets of barley, emerging anew every Spring, nourished later generations of roving guerrilla fighters, and came to symbolize the regenerative and unconquerable nature of Irish resistance to British rule. While the politics behind the imagery may be divisive, I find the deeper Romanticism of the symbolism to be utterly compelling. Every movement of resistance, of any political hue, must cultivate a sense of self-renewal and regeneration.

Our own movement is no different. In 2015 I had the great fortunate to attend and address a sizable meeting of Nationalists, both in Baltimore and Washington D.C. On both occasions I was struck by the number of young people “of quality” in attendance. And on both of those nights, in the quiet moments, the song of Robert Dwyer Joyce came forcefully to mind. Here was the “barley” of our own movement, coming into its own in order to take up the mantle and take us forward. Here was the living proof of the unconquerable nature of our ideas, and a new generation to carry them forth. And, recently, the lyrics of Joyce came to mind once again, this time on reading the work of a young intellectual, and precocious writing talent, in the form of Richard Houck and his Liberalism Unmasked.

Several months ago, Richard contacted me via social media. He struck me immediately as an enthusiastic and earnest young activist, still in college and eager to get into the fight. When he told me he was writing a book, I have to confess to taking this with a pinch of salt, or as a variation on the theme that “everyone has a book in them.” As time went on, however, his sporadic communications impressed upon me that Richard was an incredibly serious individual — serious beyond his years and serious in his ambitions. When Liberalism Unmasked finally arrived from Arktos, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect other than that I was prepared for a tour de force. And I was not disappointed. Read more

Liberals vs. Mother Nature: Freddie Mercury, AIDS, and Minority-Worship

Who is the biggest hate-criminal in the world? There’s only one contender and you may be shocked to learn that it’s a female. Worse still, that female is as immortal as she is immoral. For millennia, she’s been hating on humanity, discriminating between different groups and imposing inequality, preventing women from matching the intellectual, cultural and physical achievements of men, flatly refusing to allow sub-Saharan Africans to flourish in science, mathematics and philosophy.

Hateful, horrible and heretical

Yes, let me introduce you to that hateful, horrible and heretical harridan known as Mother Nature. Quite clearly she is the biggest hate-criminal there ever has been and ever will be. Forget the Patriarchy: it’s the Matriarchy, the rule of Mother Nature, that really explains why the world is such an unfair and unequal place.  She’s responsible for that vast and on-going hate-crime known as human evolution, whereby human beings in different environments have acquired different bodies, brains and psychologies. In other words, race exists and different races aren’t equal. Mother Nature hasn’t treated Homo as a special, post-biological genus. She didn’t relax natural selection when human beings invented new technologies like fire, the bow-and-arrow, and the written word. Instead, she accelerated it. Neanderthals had to be robust and muscular because they hunted at close range, but that selective pressure was removed when Homo sapiens developed throwing-spears and poisoned arrows. Slender Bushmen bring down giraffe and rhinoceros with ingenuity and cunning, not brute strength and aggression.

But Mother Nature doesn’t commit her hate-crimes at the same rate all over the earth. There are hot-spots of hate, that is, places where human evolution has operated in particularly interesting and complex ways. One of the most intense hot-spots is the Indian subcontinent, the region of Asia that stretches from Pakistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east and Sri Lanka in the far south, with India in the middle. The subcontinent is what you could call an S.S.S.I. — a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Mother Nature has been very busy there for a very long time. Whether you’re interested in geology, zoology, or botany, in archaeology, anthropology or linguistics, in religion, literature or philosophy, the Indian subcontinent is a fascinating place.

The Indian subcontinent

But the most important part of its dazzling variety may turn out to be its genetics. It’s one of the places where Mother Nature has most comprehensively blasphemed against the liberal dogma that “We’re All the Same under the Skin.” In fact, we aren’t, and the Indian subcontinent provides abundant proof. The genetic complexity introduced by ancient invasions and migrations was further enhanced by the intricate rules of the Hindu caste system, whereby different professions and classes were banned from intermarriage. This created a whole series of ethnicities and micro-ethnicities, as genetic lines separated, occupied different cultural environments, and evolved in different ways. Literacy and mastery of complex intellectual systems were compulsory for Brahmins, but prohibited for Dalits. Read more

Dianne Feinstein: An Exemplar of Our Hostile Elite

Occasionally an example of the embodiment of an abstract idea comes along that is so perfect, one almost wonders if it was invented. Senator Dianne Feinstein is such a case. More than just about anyone, she embodies our hostile elite. Should Whites be lucky enough to one day find a new land of our own, the successful career of California’s current octogenarian senator will be sure to inspire particular shock in students.

Mrs. Feinstein (she has been married several times, and held many different titles, so for simplicity’s sake, “Mrs. Feinstein” will be used throughout this piece) first dipped her toes into politics innocuously enough by way of student government when she was at Stanford. After graduating in 1955, she immediately returned to her native San Francisco and married Jack Berman in 1956. Mr. Berman was a young Jewish lawyer with quite a few political ties throughout the city, and no doubt was instrumental in getting his wife her first official political position — an appointment by Pat Brown to the Women’s Board of Parole of California. Mr. Berman would go on to earn quite the reputation: a civil rights activist, even going to the South to fight Jim Crow, and an obsessive gambler who frequented Las Vegas. The marriage did not pass the five-year mark.

While the Berman marriage was crumbling, a young Black lawyer named Willie Brown from Texas was making a name for himself by defending pimps, prostitutes, and other street criminals. Then in 1961, his career pivoted and he began a campaign of agitation to abolish “housing discrimination” throughout San Francisco. This garnered the attention and support of the young Mrs. Feinstein.

While Mr. Brown and Mrs. Feinstein were both working to defend criminals, crime across the nation was increasing exponentially, and both began their rise to greater and greater prominence. In 1964 Mr. Brown became a state assemblyman, and in 1968 Mrs. Feinstein joined the San Francisco Committee on Crime. The next year she was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and soon became its president.

Simultaneously, San Francisco was changing. Haight Ashbury became notorious for its drug-fueled hippie scene and became the destination for runaways, junkies, and vagrants across the nation. Jim Jones and his “People’s Temple” headed to San Francisco as well. Harvey Milk and the “gay rights” agitators of Castro Street were beginning to get organized and achieve political and cultural clout. By the 1970s, the city had a well-deserved reputation for incredibly high crime, immortalized by the Dirty Harry films, the first of which was released in 1971.

Read more

Silent Sisterhood Revisited: Another Vibrant Rape Gang, Another Liberal Lie-Fest

When you’re studying the behaviour of animals, it’s pointless to look for motives like “truth-seeking” and “compassion.” Animals aren’t interested in discovering the truth and Making the World a Better Place. They’re interested in survival — in eating and not being eaten.

“All white women are only good for one thing…”

Something similar applies when you’re studying the behaviour of liberals. Whatever they might claim, they’re not interested in truth or world-improvement: they’re interested in power — in dominating and not being dominated. As I pointed out in “The Silent Sisterhood,” feminists prefer to ignore sex-crimes committed by non-White men, because such crimes contradict their insistence on the Omnipotent Evil of the Stale Pale Male. Now more proof of feminist double-standards has arrived, because another Muslim rape-gang has hit the headlines in Brave New Britain.

It’s vibrant up north: the Newcastle rape-gang

Newcastle, in north-east England, was the vibro-centre this time. Seventeen Muslim men from “backgrounds” of dazzling diversity — “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish” — have been found guilty of the “rape and human trafficking” of more than 200 “vulnerable women and girls.” One of those men, Badrul Hussain, is reported to have espoused a shockingly toxic mixture of racism, misogyny and male supremacism. His alleged words, addressed to a White female ticket-inspector, should have set feminist keyboards rattling right around the world. They went like this: “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to fuck and use like trash. That’s all women like you are worth.” Read more

The Silent Sisterhood: How Feminists Collaborate with Rape and Murder

In one of the most famous passages of his Summa Theologica, the great Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) considers this delicate question: “Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the damned?” He concludes that, yes, they do: “the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy.”

Xenophobes in charge

Aquinas reached that conclusion many centuries ago, but it has “contemporary resonance,” as the Guardian might say. What do nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia feel as they watch the vibrant enrichment of Western Europe? I think they must be rejoicing in “their own deliverance.” No suicide-bombers for Hungary. No rape-gangs for Poland. No FGM and drug-resistant TB for Slovakia. What’s more: Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t want to experience any of these things.

Beast in the East: Robert Fico

To the Guardian and other liberal outlets, this merely confirms the depravity and backwardness of politicians like Viktor Orbán, Beata Szydlo and Robert Fico, who are the xenophobic prime ministers of these nations. In a shameless rejection of all decent progressive principles, Orbán, Szydlo and Fico place the welfare of their own citizens above the welfare of the vibrant vulnerable. Indeed, Fico has crystallized his hate into a single shocking phrase: Islam na Slovensku nemá priestor — “Islam has no place in Slovakia.” Ach, if only he would consider what Slovakia is missing:

Indian Muslim woman ‘raped and murdered in honour killing’ after starting relationship with Arab man

An Indian Muslim teenager involved in a relationship with an Arab man was kidnapped, raped and murdered in a suspected “honour killing” in London, a court has heard. The body of Celine Dookhran, 19, was found stuffed in a fridge with her throat slit after a second woman who was also attacked raised the alarm from her hospital bed.

The two women were said to have been bound, gagged and kidnapped by masked men on Wednesday. They were taken to a house in Kingston-upon-Thames, south-west London, where they were both raped and Ms Dookhran was killed.

Mujahid Arshid, 33, of no fixed address, appeared before Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Monday charged with the murder, attempted murder, and two counts of rape and kidnap. He appeared alongside Vincent Tappu, 28, of Acton, west London, who stands charged with kidnapping both women. (Indian Muslim woman ‘raped and murdered in honour killing’ after starting relationship with Arab man, The Independent, 25th July 2017)


Read more