Henry Ford’s War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Free Speech
Victoria Saker Woeste
Stanford University Press, 2012

“‘The Jews Try Ford!’ headlined a banner advertisement in the New York Evening Graphic” (ibid.).

On the evening of March 27, 1927, Henry Ford was doing what a lot of other Americans were doing, driving home from work. Like many of his countrymen, he was driving a Ford. However, as he owned the company — possibly the most famous brand-name in the automotive industry even today — Mr. Ford’s customized coupé was a little out of the ordinary for the marque. With a prototype manual transmission and extra gears, bullet-proof windows (against his wife’s fears of kidnapping), and a top speed of 75mph, it was rather different from the famous Model-T, the car anyone could have in any color as long as it was black. In fact, Ford was returning from a late night at his River Rouge plant, just outside Detroit, where he had been working on blueprints for the car with which he wished to replace the “Tin Lizzie”. Chevrolet and GM were already out-selling him in the everyman market.

Ford took State Route 12 home, connecting as it does Detroit and Ford’s home town of Dearborn. Ford had just crossed the Rouge when another car came up quickly behind him and ran him off the road. The only thing that saved Ford from an impromptu car-wash in the river — and quite possibly death — was the chance placement of a tree. But Ford was alive, albeit dazed and concussed, and was hospitalized until the beginning of April. Under normal circumstances, for the CEO of such a large company, this would have been an inconvenience, and Ford could have delegated his duties with confidence. But Henry Ford was about to take the witness stand in one of the trials of the century: Sapiro vs. Ford. This was ostensibly a libel trial, but its overtones make it clear that what was really on trial was anti-Semitism.

The day after the crash, a statement was made by Harry H. Bennett, Ford’s personal bodyguard and a part of his famed “secret service”. Mr. Ford’s car, said Bennett, “was sideswiped by a hit-and-run motorist driving with one arm about a girl or slightly intoxicated”. The papers, however, stirred up a conspiracy. “Plot to kill Ford suspected”, thundered the New York Times, with other titles following suit. By April 1, four days into the trial, Ford was also saying that the incident was “a deliberate attempt to kill him”. Who would attempt such a thing? Ford certainly had enemies.

A short book with a long title, Victoria Saker Woeste’s Henry Ford’s War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Free Speech [Ford’s War], gives an extended court report of Sapiro vs. Ford in which she draws each character in the context of the central question around which case revolved. In most cases of this sort, this would be libelous intent. In Sapiro vs. Ford, the invisible and yet-to-be-codified legal principle which hovered ever-present over proceedings was anti-Semitism. This case came as close as any to establishing whether or not “anti-Semitism” had woven itself into the American legal tapestry as far back as the First World War in the same way it has today in the United Kingdom, where only Jews are actually protected by legislation (although this may soon by joined by Islamophobia laws).

This was not Ford’s first time in court. Ten years prior to Sapiro vs. Ford, he had been an involved in a trial concerning the value of Ford dividend stocks, and he had already been involved in one libel case over an article supposedly libeling him in the Chicago Tribune. This was “a dress rehearsal for the Sapiro case a decade later”. Ford had become involved in the “Peace Ship”, a gimmicky environmentalist stunt which Ford sponsored in order, the newspaper claimed, to garner public sympathy for his supposed “good works”:

“The Tribune’s position was that Ford’s pacifism endangered the national welfare and made him fair game for editorial comment”.

Ford won, and later found the experience invaluable when Jewish lawyer Aaron Sapiro took him to court in 1927 over allegedly libelous editorial commentary of his own. A Ford-owned newspaper, the Independent was launched in 1919, intended as a political heavy-hitter with serious literary pretensions. The first issue featured contributions from well-known American poet Robert Frost and Hugh Walpole, a British novelist, critic, and dramatist. Ford also began what the author describes as a new war, “a war on Jews”. Sapiro was joined by Louis Marshall, a Jewish lawyer and anti-immigration restriction activist who saw anti-Semitism in all walks of life and was prepared to take on a man at the top of the heap.

As well as being a lawyer — as was his brother, Milton — Aaron Sapiro started and owned farm co-operatives, and “his fame and popularity among farmers made him the nation’s premier cooperative organizer during the 1920s”. Over-production and low prices, however, led to lower profits and excess supply, and many of Sapiro’s leading producers buckled under financial pressure. It was precisely Jewish influence on price-fixing and syndication that Ford’s editorial line sought to expose — the hidden hand of Jewry at a localized level as well as the “International Jew”, which became the title of a later and more specifically targeted series of articles in Ford’s newspaper. Sapiro’s business failure shows, if nothing else, that Jews don’t always come out of business enterprises with full control. They have yet to fully tame the market.

By 1927, and Sapiro vs. Ford the Independent had lost $2 million, but it didn’t bother the car-giant. Ford wanted the paper to become “the common folks’ primer on American culture, literature, and political philosophy”. But, together with his editor, Ernest Gustav Liebold, Ford was using the publication for another purpose, to expose what he saw as “the disproportionate influence of Jews on politics, culture, entertainment, diplomacy, industrial capitalism, and the state”. It was time, Ford believed, “to take on the Jews”:

On May 22, 1920, the Independent launched [an] antisemitic series, purporting to reveal the role of the ‘International Jew’ in world affairs. In ninety articles that ran weekly for nearly two years, the Independent excerpted and recapitulated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, adapted and Americanized for its intended audience.

The Protocols had only recently arrived on American shores, Ford having had a copy sent from Europe shortly after the Tribune case. Nowadays, even for those some way out on the political Right, the Protocols bear the same relation to history that a graphic novel today bears to English Literature. But its effects were far more incendiary a century ago, and to implicitly bracket “the elite of American Jewry” in the same series that highlighted the Protocols was intentional, claimed Sapiro. This is anti-Semitism by association.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is often referred to as a “forgery”, but it was not. A forgery implies a primary text or image which has been illicitly reproduced, but there was no such primary text of the Protocols. More likely, it was a literary hoax, like Thomas Chatterton’s “Rowley letters”, supposedly written by a Medieval monk, or Nietzsche’s supposed confessional, My Sister and I. But the Protocols has always done great service for Jewry, and it might even be suggested that it was produced by Jews as something of a literary false flag. Jews do not wish to see an end to anti-Semitism because the term functions to bind Jews together in confrontation with a hostile world filled with irrational hatred.  On the contrary, they need it just as Blacks now require White racism in order to explain their failures.

The rise of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany had even led to the coining of a new term, ‘anti-Semitism’. Now, of course, this wearily familiar charge is equated with violence or incitement to violence, without having to examine Jewish behavior or a serious assessment of Jewish power and influence. In the America of early last century, there was more of an acceptable social itch over Jewry, as an excerpt from a letter to Time magazine of the period illustrates:

Why can’t the Jews leave us alone? Why, when I, and people who feel as I do, make up a club, an association or an organization, do a host of Jews immediately attempt to crash the gates and enter into our midst? … Why can’t they leave us alone and form their own clubs, hotels and associations where no Gentiles will be allowed? If they did this I believe there would then be no reason for any Anti-Semitism.

However, as we are all too aware today, that is not the way Jewry operates. Where there is organization, particularly among moneyed American gentiles, there is an opening for influence and potential gain. This is why they cannot “leave us alone”, and this infiltration was at the heart of Ford’s editorial campaign.

The first wave of resistance came after the American Jewish Committee (AJC) published a rebuttal to the Protocols in 1920, a rebuttal that emphasized Ford’s innovative distribution network of selling the Independent on the streets:

By using criminal libel as the legal basis for banning sales of the Independent on city streets, public officials hoped to serve two aims at once: assure their Jewish constituents that they took Ford’s attack seriously, and head off the threat of violence on the streets.

How like today in the UK, where Britain’s police forces — or “services”, as they have now been pacifically re-branded — act to “prevent community tensions” in the wake of any perceived slight, which essentially means stopping Blacks and Muslims from reverting to their nature in the public square, as they will if unsupervised.

Ford won the case, but was awarded only nominal damages. The real talking-point of the whole trial became Ford’s apology, discussed by the whole nation and not just its media. Edwin Pipp, one of Ford’s trusted aides rather than the Dickensian character, immediately told the press that the apology had been on Ford’s initiative and was Ford’s alone. Perhaps, he mischievously suggested, Ford just “wanted to pull the desk from under one of his employees”. Business is a dirty game, and businessmen fight dirty in the courtroom too, as Donald Trump has shown recently.

But why did Ford apologize? Did Ford fear that his Jewish workforce would lay down their tools and walk out on him? Unlikely. He had made a point at the trial of emphasizing the number of Jews he employed, and there is no suggestion that Ford was a bad boss in terms of working conditions. Jews wouldn’t buy his cars? Big deal. They were three million consumers out of 118 million. Was Ford eyeing a Presidential run, and thus seeking to placate William Randolph Hearst, as at least one paper suggested? The author gives the impression that casual anti-Semitism was quite acceptable in all walks of life in America at that time — “the day’s genteel anti-Semitism”, as Woeste puts it. Ford’s editorial campaign against Jewish influence might have been not problematic but rather an implicit campaigning point, albeit a whispered one.

While Marshall and the Jewish lobby saw Ford’s apology as a humiliating climb-down, it was a far shrewder move than that. It cost Ford nothing, saved him from the time-consuming business of further legal entanglement, and bound him to nothing, as it was made in the public arena and not in a courtroom:

Ford used the gesture of an apology as a dodge, not just to extricate himself from the lawsuit but also to give the appearance of taking responsibility without actually doing so.

Ford also closed the Independent at the end of 1927, and perhaps he felt both that he had made his point, and that he was now free to go further:

Although his printed war on Jews ended, Ford controlled the terms of the ceasefire, which left him free to spread his antisemitic beliefs throughout the world by other means.

But he never did go further.

Just as is common practice among Jews, litigious or not, Ford could make an insincere apology and any shame attaching to it would be exonerated. Elon Musk went to Auschwitz after being criticized for saying the ADL was an anti-White organization. Was this a sincere apology?  Who knows?  Blacks and Muslims in particular do not typically give apologies (Ye’s recent apology to the  Jews is an exception) because it represents a loss of face, anathema to both cultures in a way that is foreign to Whites. Ford’s apology was perhaps a move to force a stalemate, and leave Marshall and the Jews he purported to represent with little in the way of legal weaponry:

Whether Marshall would be able to counter that spread [of anti-Semitism] effectively would depend on his ability to use the apology to force Ford to act in ways that the legal system, for all its formal authority, failed to compel him to do.

Sapiro vs. Ford featured two of the four central pillars of anti-Semitism, what Jews themselves notoriously refer to as “anti-Semitic tropes”. Ultimate Jewish financial control of industry (centering on the local farm co-operatives) was obviously at the center of the case, and the charge that Jews act for international Jewry above the interest of country or company was implied in the debate over whether “Jew” and “Jewish” were used pejoratively, and whether libel of Mr. Sapiro and other named Jews could be extrapolated as being libel of an entire race. The other pair of “tropes” was not featured, including the rootlessness of Jews and the untrustworthy nature of their nomadic, stateless existence, was of no real relevance. The final pillar, however, was absent for a very obvious reason.

The connection in the Jew-critical mind between Jewry and mechanization featured heavily in Heidegger’s Black Notebooks, a collection of essays on Heidegger’s working notes, and which I reviewed here at The Occidental Observer. The Jews exploit mechanization in its literal form, but also as an analogue, a working model, for how societies should be run, or at least how they should be run for Jewish benefit. Technocracy is simply the most efficient way to coerce gentiles — and the “meaningless Jews” who are collateral damage for those at the top — into both keeping Jews in the position of world hegemony, and never criticizing Jewry. Heidegger, in The Question Concerning Technology, says that man himself has become a “standing resource”, in the same way as wood or iron ore. Like the citizenry in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, humans have become cogs and switches, just another part of the machine. But Ford could hardly blame a Jewish goose for his golden egg because he was equally debarred from the “mechanization trope”, given that he made his fortune with both literal mechanization, and the technocratic analogue of specialized labor. Frederick Winslow Taylor was the man who persuaded Ford to stop a few men building one car, and instead have each man doing one stage of the job on what came to be called a “production line”.

Sapiro vs. Ford also brought the whole circus of a high-profile American court case to bear. As well as armies of lawyers in different locations nationwide, there were teams of journalists vying for the big story of the day. It is a pleasure to read excerpts from the American political press of the time. Journalism used to be an art before it was reduced to a technocratic tickertape of stringer’s clichés. There were platoons of private investigators looking into both Ford and Sapiro, as well as the jurors, and then there were the public, always drawn to these courtroom jousts as they would be to a major sporting event. Only this time a Jew was involved; this was as close as America would get to its own Dreyfus Case.

The Jewish lobby did not make a special case out of Henry Ford, but rather cynically used another defamation case to complain bitterly about discrimination. The Daily Worker newspaper had published a poem bitterly critical of America:

Ford’s newspaper merely insulted a race. The Daily Worker’s poem conjured offensive images and impeached the nation’s character. American courts had no difficulty finding that the latter was obscene on its face, whereas the former was immune to criminal prosecution.

The suggestion seems to be that to impugn Jews in print should be treated at the same level of punitive legal severity as treasonous editorial content, an extraordinary constitutional equivalence. And both the implications of Ford’s supposed libel, and anti-Semitism in print in general, also show Jewish solidarity, a type of “collective responsibility” for the entire race. And one of the drivers of this false extrapolation is very familiar to us today.

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) of B’Nai B’rith was formed in 1913 after the arrest of Leo Frank, whose case was — as we might say today — weaponized:

[Frank’s case was] a rare exception to the general pattern of American antisemitism, which remained a localized phenomenon that did not lead to widespread physical violence against Jews. Yet American Jewish leaders had grown nervous, uncertain as to how antisemitic sentiment would manifest itself in American political and civic life.

Alternatively, one might argue that the Jewish lobby saw a chance to extrapolate a single case to be an incitement against a whole race. This is a response we know today through long experience, and effectively covers all non-white or Semitic ethnicities. Thus, to single out Somalian daycare fraud is to impugn every Somalian, to point out the existence of the UK “grooming gangs” is to slander all Muslims equally, and to make any criticism of a Black is effectively a portal to racism against each and every non-White. Strange bedfellows though they may be, the Jews share something in common with the Hell’s Angels and The Church of Scientology; attack one, and you attack them all.

Ford’s War is partly history, partly an examination of the apparatus of anti-Semitism, and partly a detective story. For an amateur historian such as myself, desperately trying to play catch-up after years of inattention, Ms. Woeste’s book is the very best type of history. The broad-brush strokes are essential, of course, but those historians who take a moment in history and dissect it, looking at its fine detail forensically, and teasing out the range of its effects, breathe life into the subject for the layman, as well as posing, in this case, one of the most difficult questions currently in existence: why is it not legitimate to criticize Jews?

The point of libel law is to protect named individuals from ungrounded and defamatory attack, usually in print. Now, of course, libelous intent has been re-vamped as “hate speech” across the West, and Sapiro vs. Ford can be seen as a key driver of this mutation. Sapiro vs. Ford revolved around extrapolation: was criticism of one Jew implicitly a criticism of Jewry? Historian Norman Rosenberg described the point of libel law at the beginning of last century as being “to protect the best men”, and it was also clearly intended to provide financial redress in individual cases, which is part of the disincentive against suing someone well off. Imagine how it would sting to give money to a very rich man. But the portal to any defamation case in these pre-TV times was the press and, by extension, journalism itself.

The American courts were alive to what they perceived as the threat of sensationalist and defamatory “yellow journalism” to prominent individuals — as it was seen to be, as in today’s “gutter press” in the UK. But what happened during Sapiro vs. Ford changed the focus from individual to race of individual:

To restrain the power of the ‘new journalism’, which prized exposé-style reports into the private lives of public officials, public employees, and persons with established celebrity reputations, state appellate courts upheld damage awards in cases where juries believed newspapers had gone too far in holding such public figures to ridicule. ‘Insurgent political movements’ such as populism, with their own newspapers and networks, ‘sought to wrest both the terms and the channels of political debate from the hands of a new political-corporate elite’. During this time [i.e., during Ford’s first, 1916 libel trial], legal theory developed a ‘scientific’ law of defamation that helped judges protect the reputations of ‘honorable and worthy men’.

This is analogous to our current situation, and with the same drivers behind the scene, forever coming up with technocratic schemes to prevent speech critical of what the British now call “protected categories”. Whenever someone develops a “scientific” law of anything which is not a natural object of scientific enquiry, technocracy has come to town. “Science” should not be trusted to operate outside the lab.

Sapiro vs. Ford was, perhaps, the first hate-speech trial. Such trials take place across the UK on a daily basis today (some estimates now put the annual arrest rate for online commentary up from 12,000 annually to as high as 14,000), so the British are among the first people becoming used to lawfare against people who are neither rich or famous. The legal principle animating Britain’s hate-speech laws is analogous to the ideal EU form of legislation; Rather than everything being legal except what is specifically deemed illegal, the reverse is the case. Everything is illegal unless a legal dispensation deems it otherwise. I want to avoid saying say “let that sink in”, but do read and inwardly digest. Because this is a link in a chain another link in which is Sapiro vs. Ford.

In 1927, however, the new legal principle at stake — that of libelous extrapolation — had not been written into national law, as it has now in the UK, as noted. Sapiro vs. Ford was largely a spasm in the Jewish body politic rather than any genuine moral crusade. Nevertheless, and despite winning the case, Ford has been what is today called “demonized” by the Left. It is not the court records or the verdict in Sapiro vs. Ford that color today’s perception of Henry Ford. It was the ideological company he was seen to keep. Before World War 2, Hitler was known to be a great admirer of another of The International Jew. Ford is mentioned in Mein Kampf, something akin to being in the Epstein files today, in some quarters.

A section towards the end of Ms. Woeste’s (thoroughly enjoyable and assiduously researched) book concerns the Jewish lawyer cum activist who rode shotgun for Sapiro throughout the trial. Louis Marshall’s response to Henry Ford’s placatory gestures after the verdict were anticipated by a nation. How would Marshall respond in victory? The section is worth quoting in full:

The more Marshall thought about it, the more he became convinced that the real value of Ford’s apology lay in the impact it would have in places where Jews still lived in fear of their safety. ‘The subject is one of life and death to the millions of Jews abroad’, he told the New York Sun. ‘The International Jew has been translated into the various European languages and has made a deep impression because of Ford’s fabulous wealth and the myth that has become prevalent that he is a leader of human thought and a man of high principles’. The prospect that Ford would separate his industrial leadership from his antisemitic literature gave Marshall ‘more happiness than any action in which I have ever been engaged because I feel that its effect will be far-reaching, especially in Eastern Europe, where anti-Semitism is raging today worse than at any time during this century’.

Now, before I attempt to unpack this epilogue to Sapiro vs. Ford, full declaration:

I am very new to the Jewish Question 2.0, as it exists for us today. In fact, my introduction was The Culture of Critique, by this magazine’s editor. I suspect this was a far more level-headed and objectively informed start than being introduced to the subject by, I don’t know, Andrew Anglin. But there are many on the dissident Right (for want of a better term) who train their gaze on pieces such as this, like Panzer commanders with their binoculars trained on the horizon. Of course, I am not saying save your breath for cooling your porridge. Comment is free (as it says on the Guardian’s website, where it isn’t). I have no interest in the wider spheres of Jewish influence I didn’t mention here, but my reading on the subject is in its infancy. I admire Ms. Woeste’s book as a stand-alone, superbly reconstructed key moment in legal history. I have no idea who she is, outside of her online resumé. Nothing I found makes any reference to her ethnicity. ChatGPT says there “is no evidence she is Jewish”. Woah. Like it’s a crime scene now? If you should look her up, and you were a film director and you wanted to cast the role of a typical Jewish woman in her forties, you would not see any other actors after seeing her. It’s not important, just vaguely amusing. This is a very good book, and I recommend it.

The book left me with two main thoughts on the Jewish Question 2.0, late to the party as I undoubtedly am:

1. Sapiro vs. Ford was important both on a legal level and a philosophical level. Libel had always been against an individual. Now that was extrapolated into libelous intent against an entire race, every Jew that exists on the globe, unless their nomadic lifestyle has led them to other worlds of which we do not know. That is an extraordinary and rather crude use of a reductive version of the argument concerning the particular and the universal which began metaphysically with Plato, and raged on with reference to language throughout the Scholastic and Medieval periods. Metaphysically, the fact that any individual thing is both individual and universal (or at least instantiates universality, unless it is unique) is not a problem because its range of effects are confined to the metaphysical. A lot of Plato is not all the harsh politics of the Republic. A lot of Plato is metaphysical chatter in the square, shooting the breeze. But in a twentieth-century court of law, where the potential range of effects include incarceration and pecuniary ruin, to extrapolate from the particular to the universal has somewhat more gravitas behind it. But that it precisely the tactic — call it tribal memory, if you will — which even modern Jewry uses, along with their new pets in the Islamic and African worlds.
2. From what I have gathered and gleaned so far, one thing is glaringly obvious; Jewry is not monolithic. As with the Arab world — the Jews’ supposed foes — there is no locus of power for international Jewry. Judaism has no Pope. So, who is at the helm of, as I believe it is known in some quarters, the ZOG? Is it Soros and Co.? the ADL? Israel? BlackRock? Mel Brooks? Whether or not there is a central Jewish cabal, the cabal are not acting for Jews as a people. Unless those Jews murdered across Europe were just taking one for the team. Louis Marshall’s “places where Jews still lived in fear of their safety” in Europe are now Paris, Amsterdam, and Birmingham. Perhaps the whole point of history was to find who gets to be last man standing, capo di tutti capi, top Jew. King of the Jews, maybe.

Finally, there has been another democratization in the tumultuous period between the golden age of the printing press and Ford’s Model-T and today’s online world. Now, you only have to own a cheap mobile phone to get yourself in hot water over anti-Semitism. Ninety-nine years ago, you had to own a newspaper. In terms of personal culpability, we are all newspaper owners now, and just as concerned by Jewish influence as Henry Ford was. William Henry Gallagher, one of Sapiro’s lawyers, makes it clear. Read this paragraph well, because it will show you the legal principle currently operating across Europe with reference to hate speech. The Left disowned moral agency for so long — and still does, if you are Black — but now it is back and, like a Jim Crow saloon, it is for Whites only:

Never lose sight of the fact that Henry Ford stands behind the [Independent], gives his thoughts to it to appear on his Henry Ford Page, and is responsible for the thoughts which appear in it.

The year of the fire horse is set to lead the way into the second quarter of the 21^st century. If the current geopolitical buildup does not represent an ominous window of chaos then nothing does, as Trump threatens to go scorched earth on the permafrost of Greenland among other places. One can’t go shopping at the Mercator projection every day in this new age of defense-based irredentism, but time is running out for Trump as the midterms approach to curtail his power. With a host of potential conflicts set to erupt, you could be forgiven for thinking the other three horses of the apocalypse aren’t far behind.

Following the piracy of the Caribbean and Maduro’s eviction from the presidential suite, former hotelier Trump has turned to naval-gazing off the coast of Greenland to scout America’s next national security acquisition. It’s all part of the Monroe Doctrine, a somewhat legitimizing appellation cited by Trump and hardly challenged by the Washington consensus. Closer examination reveals that it is actually a clear misappropriation of the founding father’s legacy.

The whole point of President Monroe’s insistence that Europeans not interfere in the Americas and vice versa was to function as a balance of powers mechanism. It did not mean free rein within one’s own domain, indeed Monroe was a strategic isolationist who argued that intervention was only justified where U.S. assets and interests were directly threatened. The Europeans had nothing to do with Venezuela, and so far the country’s only crimes seem to be leaving the IMF plantation and selling their oil to the Chinese.

Monroe was a rather honorable man and veteran of the Revolutionary War. As a politician, he supported expansionism, albeit through diplomacy. Before becoming president, he had been involved in the peaceful acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, though it helped that Napoleon wanted to sell and both territories naturally bordered the United States.

These days, the only wall Trump is building is the BRICS alliance of countries that was born precisely out of a need for solidarity in the face of Western hegemony. Last week Putin and Brazilian president Lula discussed the crisis in Venezuela at some length, though it’s difficult to imagine what consolations Putin could extend. After all, it was the Russians at the Alaska Summit who proposed the spheres of influence concept to the Trump administration. Trump has evidently warmed to the idea, without fully taking the hint on Ukraine. If the administration was to actually adhere to the Monroe Doctrine, it would mean leaving Ukraine, ignoring Iran, defunding Israel, abandoning Taiwan and withdrawing troops from Germany.

Suffice it to say, the American empire is a sprawling entity whose tendrils spread wherever there are resources and willing regional supplicants. As Putin once surmised, “America does not need allies, it needs vassals.” America’s dogma of national security always absorbs more territory and people but never relinquishes anything, not even Guantanamo Bay after all these years or the “floating island of garbage” Puerto Rico.  To hear such national security alarmism over a few enemy submarines must be sickening for the Russians, who have a much better case for the defense-by-annexation argument. The most common way Russia has been invaded throughout the ages – be it by the Mongols, the Turks, or the Germans – has been through Ukraine.

The other country typically downwind from Trump’s verbal spraying, China, felt obliged this week to officially deny having any designs on Greenland. China has already had its moments of rapid territorial expansion in the last century: East Turkestan in 1949 and Tibet in 1951. Combined with the earlier conquests of Tibetan Amdo and Kham and the total land area is roughly equal to two Greenlands. Incidentally, the flag of Greenland could be viewed by superstitious Chinese as an homage to Chairman Mao, whose moniker Red Sun was so ascribed because everything revolved around him in Communist China. Thanks to Mao, the sun rises at 10:20 am for some Uyghurs in the West of the country, almost as if they were in the Arctic Circle in winter. It wasn’t enough that their land was dehumanizingly renamed Xinjiang (New Frontier) – they also have to set their watches to the time of the control freaks in Beijing.

All the territories ever ruled by China

President-for-life Xi Jinping hosted Canada’s managing director Mark Carney this past week, renegotiating trade in the shadow of Trump’s cowboy diplomacy. Money talks and bullshit walks – agricultural goods to China and visa-free travel in exchange for impressive Chinese EVs that will flood the American continent. There won’t be much that Trump can do about it. China builds – America bombs, as the Sinophiles often say, sometimes adding that China buys oil whereas America steals it. It’s difficult to argue against this aphorism, indeed America is no longer what it used to be and is compensating for living above its means, being prodigal abroad but burdened domestically by a growing alien underclass as well as a ruling class that isn’t exactly Founding Fathers material.

The elites in Davos this week were treated to a confused screed of hyperbole and contradiction from Trump, who is living proof that God didn’t invent war to teach Americans geography, as someone once quipped. Trump’s speech writer may be America First, but for the boss to mention out of control spending at a time when offering up to a million dollars to every Greenlander was comical, let alone recently advocating for a $1.5 trillion dollar military budget. The rhetoric against his northern neighbors has only slightly cooled, alas it is all part of his well-worked good cop bad cop routine, hoping to gain enough leverage to at least end up with two subordinate lapdog regimes, as it were, on either side of the Labrador Sea.

The Europeans meanwhile, enthralled as always, continue to be led by a gynocentric coven of careerists who suffer from main character syndrome: Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen. If in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, then among this crowd even the Austrian painter would rule. Trump represents such a figure of dominance and fortitude who runs rings around his European counterparts. Sometimes they even humiliate themselves, as with Keir Starmer and his rent-boy scandal, or Emmanuel Macron, who continues to threaten war on Putin but can’t defend against wife Brigitte’s backhand. At Davos, the Bonapartist looked more like Napoleon Dynamite than a statesman, sporting cartoonish aviator sunglasses. Chronic sloucher and Greenland Field Marshall, Friedrich Merz, left with his tail between his legs as soon as Trump threatened sanctions for sending troops to Greenland. Amid reckless militarization, disastrous energy policies and ballooning welfare state costs, Merz recently told the German people (the most industrious in Europe) that they ought to commit to “greater economic output… through more work.”

One of the stranger additions to the European theatre of late is Canadian parliamentarian Chrystia Freeland, who abandoned her constituency to go and serve as economic advisor to Zelensky, pro bono, we are told. Freeland’s grandfather was a prominent Nazi collaborator, so the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in this case. She’ll now have to keep a lookout for falling hazelnuts, which, for those who don’t speak Russian, is a reference to the Oreshnik.

One of the few silver linings on the European horizon is the Neue Rechte movement led by identitarian figure Martin Sellner. His imprudent younger years have given way to strategic activism both online and in the city squares of Austria and Germany. Sellner is the architect of the very successful #Remigration campaign, which is now gaining traction in the Anglosphere. The slogan may be new, but the concept is centuries old and goes back, funnily enough, to American president James Monroe. This not so well-known doctrine of Monroe arguably makes him the patron saint of such efforts to repatriate non-Whites to their homelands. Monroe was so enthused in promoting the return of freed Blacks to Africa that Liberia’s capital city bears his name. Monrovia was founded in 1822 but only managed to get paved roads in the 2010s and is now focused on installing running water for the entire city. Perhaps America’s ongoing problem with the Somalis, amplified very strongly by Trump, could be a pretext for something similar, and maybe even a Denaturalization Act.

Upon reflection of Trump’s first year back in office, as chaotic as it was, it’s somewhat difficult to ascertain what his motivations and priorities are at this stage of his life. They say Jews never retire and that appears to be a habit that has rubbed off on him. Like his sons, Trump is a vainglorious headhunter, only he can now mount that Nobel Prize medal on his wall, even if second-hand. One also can’t exclude the possibility of a psychosexual motive, just as Henry Kissinger once proclaimed.

The neocon clique that Trump seems to gravitate toward evidently knows how to better manipulate him and convert the America First ideal into the Global Leadership agenda. Trump has shredded enough international law in the last year to supply his next ticker-tape military parade, while some claim that he has morphed into his former nemesis, John McCain. Trump appears to have been desensitized to death and extrajudicial killings, which started with the Iranian general but is now aimed at civilians in fishing vessels. Trump has the blood of around 100 security personnel on his hands – liquidated in the kidnapping of Maduro, including 32 Cuban officers who came back in boxes barely larger than cigar cases, leading to speculation of what horrific new American weapon was unleashed for the first time.

In addition to the narcissism and psychopathy known to be self-selecting traits among politicians and elite businessmen, there is something more going on that explains Trump’s ruthless aggression, deal-making and occasional subterfuge. Rather than drawing spurious associations to such conservative prudes as James Monroe, we need to go back to the era of ancient European rulers, of which Trump is a throwback. The Old Norse King Frode comes to mind – a semi-mythical figure whose questionable methods were in the service of greater goods. One saga holds that upon conquering a Slavonic nation he asked for all thieves and murderers to step forward so that they may be appointed to exalted positions, only to promptly hang them in the gallows. It’s unreasonable to think that high-trust European societies could have evolved without breaking a few eggs. Europe is now in the return orbit of its civilizational trajectory and, frankly speaking, its cultural satellite across the Atlantic may be its last hope.

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

6801 words

Defeat of the West

“A conqueror is always a lover of peace: he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.” – Carl von Clausewitz, On War

We are left with only the terrible truth: the White race has been conquered by organised Jewry. Jews alone have agency in America and its dominions. They alone have the means to ensure that most European nations — with perhaps the sole exception of those within the Russian sphere of influence — act not according to the interests of the White majority, but have taken the interests of Jewry as their fundamental purpose (a concession is given to the interests of non-Whites, but of course this is only so long as they do not step on any Jewish toes). Through possession of the tripartite power of Finance, Media and Academia, which eventually enabled command of the United States government and its domestic and foreign policy agenda, a Jewish elite achieved predominance in the twentieth century — the Jewish Century as Yuri Slezkine would call it — and all our institutions were thereafter hijacked to make sure that this elite minority is safe and protected. All of our society was given an ideological lobotomy and then retrained in order to combat racism and anti-Semitism; all our politics was formulated to prevent the next Holocaust.

Over the course of the last century, Jewish concepts and ideas rapidly permeated our culture and became our concepts and ideas. They redefined our moral systems — turning White solidarity into a sign of psychopathology — and through a process of mass media exposure, behaviours once considered foreign and un-Christian became a matter of course in everyday life. We lost all touch with our roots, our folk songs, our own past, and had our minds filled with the products of America. Ordinary Australians have few reference points beyond what is taught to them by Judeo-centric histories that rage against the alleged evils committed by our ancestors and by European civilisation as a whole. Compare what the average secondary-school educated Australian learnt of the world in 1900 — a rich civilisational history that encompassed the poetry, philosophy and literature of Classical Antiquity and 2000 years of European Christendom — with the smattering of ideas he or she picks up in 2026: Holocaust, Racism, Stolen Generations, Slavery, Pogroms, Hitler, ‘White man bad’ ad nauseam. No wonder so many who are maddened by this society turn to Hitlerism as the ‘cure’. They know of nothing else in history.

We live in the intellectual and cultural confines set by the conqueror. Nobody in Australia can tell you how many Australians died during World War Two, but every Australian knows of the Six Million. They can tell us about the latest Netflix TV show or Stanley Lieber’s ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’ but not about the Enlightenment or the scientific achievements of Europe. Australian history is even more neglected, other than that which serves to benefit the narratives of the conqueror; knowing what occurred at Lambing Flat is pointless in their system other than to castigate Australia for ‘racism.’ In all, our society was fed a steady diet of self-hatred and inculcated with a guilt complex that has turned so many of our peers into enemy assets. What freedom we once had to pursue nationhood for the benefit of our children has been lost in a hidden conflict waged within our lands. In order to understand how total is the defeat of the Australian people and the broader judaization of the White race, one must understand that it is the victory of Jewry.

Jewry have always been flexible strategists in this generational conflict between Jew and Gentile. Once full equality had been achieved and all the old legal disabilities had been naively cast aside, they finally had the upper hand, and all manner of nations and ideologies stood at their disposal.  What followed from the first emancipation degrees of the late eighteenth century until the year 1939, was a period of grand experimentation, an era of political trial and error learning so to speak. They set out to find what worked and what didn’t; what systems put up the most resistance to Jewish predominance and which nations proved most pliable to Semitic guile. For a while Marxian Communism seemed to have the right stuff, and for other factions, the Anglo nations, with their all-encompassing finance-capitalism, became the safest bet. Then a war emerged, induced by a country which presented the most acute threat to their power since the Inquisition, and world Jewry pulled out all the stops.

Capitalists teamed up with Communists in an alliance that to this day still befuddles those whose minds sit lost within the false Left-Right binary. World communism, on the verge of extinction as the German artillery guns pounded less than 20 miles from Moscow, received a lifeline from Capitalism courtesy of Messrs. Roosevelt and Morgenthau — a one-way lend lease deal of guns and funds to the tune of millions of US dollars. The USSR was saved, and once the dust had settled, the British Empire was no more, thrown away by Churchill and his Jewish benefactors in order to prevent Hitler from achieving continental dominance, and the country left hopelessly in debt to the Americans. And when Stalin turned on the Jews culminating in the Doctor’s Plot, he finally realised that Israel was more important to them than international revolution, and it was clear that the USSR had to be discarded too. That left only the United States — the ‘Goldene Medina’ — and Australia was right there in its pocket.

President Donald Trump with his most valued political donors, Las Vegas tycoons the Adelsons.

Jewry and the Judeo-Liberal consensus are in charge in America, having captured the institutions of decision making by displacing the WASPs and then crushing all other forms of ethnic power. This takeover advanced on every front, from within the halls of Harvard and the Treasury Department, to the seedy lairs of organised crime. All politics since World War Two is downstream of that fact and the impacts on Australia were immediate. When analysing the radical social and political changes of the post-war era, all Australian scholars speak of a “shift”, an emergent cosmopolitan class in our politics and at our universities that took shape by the 1960s. That is, a class which eschewed all national and racial feeling and trained the next generation of anti-White establishment in their ‘tolerant’ ways.

The use of euphemism is required, but what Australia experienced was the ideological end-product of the mass influx of Jews into American and British (and later also Australian) institutions from the 1880s onward, all of whom — no matter their profession or discipline — began a program of deconstruction of the existing Christian and national-racial sympathies. Jewish academics, having studied the Western psyche for many generations, understood that framing an attack on our society using the language of egalitarianism and moral universalism was like catnip to Europeans. Adrift in a new world, and awash with the conquerors’ ideological products from Hollywood, Wall Street and elsewhere, Australians could do little to prevent the cascade of ideas flowing down into the country from Jewish sources — Freudianism, the New Left, the Chicago School of Economics, Second Wave Feminism, Neo-conservatism, Critical Theory; Popper, Rand, Hirschfeld, Boas, Von Mises, Derrida and so many more.

[T]he key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency towards altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily rise up in moral anger at their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy — a manifestation of their much stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter gatherers…

The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy.[1]

What we are dealing with here is not really a ‘lobby’, nor is it truly accurate to use the euphemism ‘Zionist’. If it were merely a lobby group, it would be as inconsequential as the lobbying of the Muslim community. If it was the expressions of Jewish nationalism, it would have the same power in Australia as Hindu nationalism — a quirk of multiculturalism, not a central policy plank of both major parties. The anti-Zionist Jew, as minuscule as their groupings are, is as much our opponent as the Zionist Jew is; the distinction is an almost meaningless one when considering White Australia. Both work in concert with one another for the security of the Jewish people against the interests of the Australian majority. Both ultimately support the existence of some kind of a Jewish-dominated State (with a few differences in rhetorical flourish) and then close ranks against anti-Semitism: One faction when they find it within the Right, and the other when they find it within the Left, especially within pro-Palestine groupings. Quite simply, the ‘lobby’ and the ‘Zionist’ draw power because they are representatives of the conquering elite in America, nothing more.

The elected leaders of our race, when not complete ignoramuses, know this well and indeed the system empowers the worst and most corrupt individuals among us, picks them out as collaborators so to speak. Most of these leaders just accept this state of affairs and see no need to challenge it, so ideologically accustomed are they to servitude and acting as the compradors of the empire (in these ranks we would place current Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese). Many are married directly into the conqueror’s ranks (UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for one) and are related through their extended family via the marriages of their daughters or sons, or have been in and around the Jewish community since childhood (e.g., President Donald Trump). Bribery and financial benefits, the countless trillions of dollars pumped into the political system by Jewish billionaires in order to mould the discourse, provide good reason to stay in line. Others — like President Richard Nixon — are too scared to speak out (for proof, refer to the Nixon Tapes), and some are even blackmailed, as the Jeffrey Epstein saga is revealing to us. Philo-Semitism is the path to advance into the elite and if any ever step out of line, the repercussions are immediate: All who fall afoul of Jewry must walk the road to Canossa.

Jews are sacrosanct in the West. After October 7 and after and Bondi attack on December 14, surely everyone can see it now, even if only in a vague sense. All those mass stabbings/shootings or terror attacks directed against Whites are forgotten by the State within a week; conversely, we will surely be hearing about the Bondi attack and its legal-political ramifications for the next decade, for no amount of ‘Hate Speech’ laws or crackdowns on political communication and expression ever seem to be enough to satisfy them. The response to the slaughter in Gaza and the almost religious devotion of our political leaders to Israel in the face of genocidal atrocity has opened the eyes of many, but it is visible in the smallest acts: the latest, writer Randel Abdel-Fattah was cancelled by the Adelaide Festival for the crime of being Palestinian. A Sudanese gang member can stab a young Australian in a frenzy of hate, screaming out “die white boy” as he lacerates him with a knife, and no authority will ever call this act racist and will surely let the offender out on bail in no time. Meanwhile if anyone so much as throws a water balloon at a synagogue or farts aggressively in the direction of a kippah-wearing man, you can bet the whole country will be made aware of this outrage against a sacred people. This state of affairs cries out to the Nationalist for justice.

To regain any form of independence and to survive as a people, we must find the path to liberation, a way to re-enter history. As members of a conquered race, liberation requires us to take on an unambiguous position against the conquerors; if you fail to recognise the enemy, you only end up joining their ranks. How would the Reconquista have fared if the Spanish failed to identify the Moors and the Umayyad Caliphate as their opponents? Would Indian Nationalists have succeeded if they refused to articulate an anti-British position? Oppose absolutely the conqueror and its ruling establishment: that is the motto. Call out the agents of the State and the US government and expose the Zionist spies that always try to enter our ranks. Never accept funding from Jewish sources and boycott all their political projects and foreign policy adventures. Spurn all the Zionist lackeys and the traitor class within our own race who choose to benefit (financially or otherwise) from the conquerors’ system. Reach out to others who share the same oppressor and create a united front against a common enemy — the conqueror fears that Ishmael and Edom will stop fighting each other and finally realise who the real opponent is. As painful as it may be to admit, we are a defeated people. It’s time we acted like it.

But let us quickly make an assumption: you, dear reader, winced a little upon reading those last few paragraphs? If so, your reaction is understandable. Even non-Western leaders have a hard time coming to grips with this state of affairs; they are flummoxed by how America is run and how it almost always behaves in a way totally counter to the interests of the overwhelming majority of America’s White citizens. They can’t bring themselves to the belief that Jewry are in charge — the implications of that are so far reaching and so devastating to so many political worldviews. We understand that saying these words out loud ignites all the Pavlovian conditioning we have been trained with and bring us within proximity to the crude messaging of the local Hitlerists whom Nationalists want nothing to do with. But look past the gas-lighting attempts and push aside those sophists telling us that nobody is really in charge, that it is a ‘wicked problem’, and that our demographic disaster is the result of systems too complex to be undone or even understood. Ignore that voice in your head screaming out “It’s not just da Jooz” (Whoever said it was? The White race has produced plenty of traitors and Zionist assets) and look only to the hard facts.

Despite how foreign it feels to us in the 21st century, the counter-semitic position was the natural, logical position of our ancestors and the historical norm of our civilisation. The Jewish Question was a central question of European political life that all our leaders and thinkers encountered for centuries before the Austrian Corporal entered onto the stage of world history. Know that the Magna Carta (the original one, not White Australia), the foundational document of common law civil liberties, contained within it anti-Jewish clauses. The Third Reich does not have exclusive rights to anti-Semitism, despite what contemporary rhetoric would have you believe, and White Australia predated their racial theories by half a century. Having seen the errors of past decisions, we chose to take the counter-semitic position because the circumstances of our nation demand it, not because we seek to emulate a long expired German political movement.

The Problem of Australianity

“Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” — Mao Zedong

Once this has all been established, Australians are uniquely confronted with a problem. To give it a name, it is the Indigeneity of Jewry in Australia. On this continent, Jews are — and no-one can deny this in the slightest — Australians just the same as us. They are not only rightful Australian citizens, but members of the founding stock of this land, without whom there may not even be an Australia in the sense we see it today. There is no point in Australian history where Jewry did not contribute to the creation of our country: they have voted in all our elections and were elected as representatives in colonial legislatures as early as the year 1849, a full decade before Baron Rothschild become the first Jew to take up a seat in the British House of Commons. They have represented us in federal parliament since Federation; they have served as mayors of our cities, our military generals in war, as our first Australian-born Governor General. The Anglophiles at the British Australian Community would be better off speaking about our ‘Anglo-Celtic-Hebrew inheritance’.

Let’s briefly summarise this inheritance. We all know that there were Jewish convicts on the First Fleet and Jews aplenty (Fagins and fences) on all subsequent convict ships until transportation ceased. Soon they came as wealthy free settlers initiating vital trade networks across the colonies. They set up banks and drapery stores, built import businesses, and started the auctioneering houses that supplied a growing economy. In 1834, Jews encouraged the passage of the ‘Forbes Act’ that declared English usury law did not apply in the colony of New South Wales, arguing it would be an impediment to colonial development. It was Jewish capital that spurred the founding of two separate colonies on the continent: the Swan River Colony (later to be called West Australia) and the South Australian free settler colony. The central roles played by Solomon Levey in the former and the Montefiore family in the latter are well attested.

Portrait of Jacob Barrow Montefiore (1801-1895), a founding father of South Australia. Born in Barbados into a family of wealthy sugar plantation owners, his family’s relationship with the slave trade is yet to be investigated.

Jewish convict brothers Judah and Joseph Solomon in Van Diemen’s Land were financial sponsors of the Port Phillip Association and received generous portions of the first (illegal) land divisions that began the original settlement on the banks of the Yarra.[2] A decade and a half later, it was the Rothschild banking interests who oversaw the flow of gold that transformed this small settlement of Melbourne into a gem of the British Empire. It was loans from the Jewish finance power at the heart of the British Establishment that built our railroads, our mines, our factories, and when the economy boomed and collapsed during the 1890s on the back of a real-estate bubble, the greatest swindler of all was named Benjamin Fink. When the Boers threatened the flow of gold from the Transvaal into the Hebrew’s coffers, Australia sent its men side by side with the British to correct Oom Paul’s impudence[3] — there is a compelling case to be made that by Federation year, Jewry was calling many of the shots in Britain. No matter where in our history books you look, they can be found.

Now all European nations at some point in their history made use of Jewish moneylenders and financiers — Australia is not unique in this regard. The difference is that the Old European developed without them and can draw from a well of national identity long before these Semitic peoples were dumped on the continent by the Roman Empire and spread across its face. Excluded by virtue of their faith, they were cut off from residing in the halls of power and scuttled around the antechambers, whispering in the ears of Barons and Princes who were sympathetic to their cause or just short on funds and willing to make a Faustian bargain. Over 1000 years of social, cultural and economic conflict made it clear to both sides that Judaism and European Christendom were diametrically opposed entities. Jewry were guests in these nations, displaced foreign interlopers who could be removed by will of the sovereign and whose bloodlines could always be traced to foreign shores. Australians do not have this historical luxury.

If Australia is to confront the Jewish Question, we must admit that we have no means to fight with if we come armed only with our ‘Australianity’, for they possess this weapon in the same fashion we do. The first Jew came to Australia at the same time and in the same manner as the first White man, on the crowded convict ships from London. Their descendants were born here and they grew up speaking with the same Australian tongue. During the colonial period, they concurrently acquired all the same political rights and civil liberties we possess, for no law ever distinguished between native-born White man and Jew, and our post-enlightenment country, late on the stage of world history, has never known any religious test for office, nor any establishment of religion.[4] We racially otherised the external threats — the ‘Kanaka’ and the ‘Chinaman’ — and the Jew was on our team, accepted as citizen without debate. Our forebears understood this all, which is why when the time came in the late nineteenth century to racially classify the Jews in Australia, they were quietly allotted into the ‘White’ category and nobody — not even the Jewish community themselves — raised any objections. Like two evenly matched swordsmen, our possession of Australian-ness is negated if we deny this to Jewry, for what basis is there to deny them this claim that would not also backfire on us?

As Australia rolled into Federation and the twebtieth century, the question “Are Jews members of White Australia?” was answered — if it was ever asked at all — in the affirmative. Isolated flare-ups, in particular on the character of Russian Jewry as migrants and around the events of the Bolshevik Revolution raised some early dissent, but Australians remained tolerant in their racial categories. Only in the lead-up to the Second World War did this categorisation come under scrutiny and Australians were confronted with questions they had never needed to confront before. No-one in Australia (including local Anglo-Jewry, who feared these caricatures of the Jewish stereotype could undermine their accepted status) was keen to take in radicalised ghetto dwellers from Eastern Europe, but the government struggled to exclude a people whom the White Australia Policy ostensibly classified as ‘White.’ Were they a race? Just a religion? If they are a race apart, how did this apply to the Anglo-Jews who were already agreed to be completely assimilated Whites? It was ultimately this confusion on the identity of Jewry — a debate which continued post-war, that created a discursive rupture in the whole notion of White Australia and made it all the more possible for the government to throw the policy in the bin.

As the storm of conflict in Europe grew, it was apparent to local Nationalists that the interests of Jewry and the wider Australian nation were well and truly diverging. In response, they began to programmatically confront the Jewish Question and how this related to White Australia. For the Australia First Movement (AFM), the Kimberly Scheme — the proposed establishment of a Jewish ghetto-state in north-western Australia — was an affront to our sovereignty and the country had no legitimate interest involving itself in the dispute with Germany. Local Jewry and their friends in the political establishment of course thought otherwise and the nation was, to quote Stephensen, “…flooded with Prosemitic propaganda.”

Nevertheless, P.R. Stephensen and the AFM were cautious in their position towards the anti-Semitic parties of Europe. Though there were undoubtedly things to be admired in the German and Italian systems, theirs was not a style of politics that transposed itself neatly onto Australia, and the designation of the Japanese — the loudest foreign opponents of White Australia — as “Honorary Aryans” did not elicit much local sympathy. War in Europe did however present an opportunity to the AFM and so when the fighting broke out, they took the precarious stance of neutrality towards Germany and neither provoking nor appeasing Japan, a stance for which they paid dearly. Access to the German archives has ultimately proved that the Third Reich did not care for the project of White Australia, considering our small nation to be (somewhat understandably from the German perspective) an Anglo-Saxon geopolitical irrelevancy in ranks with the British, and advocated a kind of proto-multiculturalism, telling Australians of German blood to resist assimilation, though this was unknown to Nationalists at the time.[5] What was known to the Nationalist was that Hitler’s threat to uproot Jewry from Europe should another world war emerge was an implied threat to Australia, for our nation was (and indeed became) a natural destination for those expelled elements.

Percy Reginald Stephensen in 1934

Responding to all this, P.R. Stephensen encapsulated a nationalist position in A Reasoned Case Against Semitism, first published in the Australian Quarterly in March of 1940, clearly outlining their racial separateness and without any resort to the partition of ‘Good’ (White, non-Zionist, non-Communist, assimilated) Jews and ‘Bad’ (non-White, Zionist, Communist, pluralist) Jews that had largely defined earlier patriotic and Nationalist rhetoric. As Stephensen noted, the Jewish side of the deal in the quid-pro-quo of Jewish emancipation — the expectation that in exchange for full civil equality, the Jewish community would politically ‘disappear’ — was no longer being upheld by Australian Jewry, especially now that they were agitating so strongly on behalf of their European counterparts:

Jews cannot “have it both ways.” They cannot expect to be listened-to with respect when they preach to Gentiles the Universal Oneness of Mankind, while at the same time they, as Jews, remain a Race Apart. … [W]e are faced with a defiance, by Jews, of the fundamental biological principle of Fused-European Homogeneity which it is the basic aim of Australian national policy to establish and maintain. They claim the right, not only to settle here, but to maintain themselves, in perpetuity, as a self-segregated minority, of different and distinct racial stock from the rest of the Australian community.

This conflict between the desires of a homogeneous White Australia and Jewish insistence on toleration of their exclusivity was of course resolved in the interests of our post-war conquerors: the dissolution of the nation with a policy that now goes by the name multiculturalism.

To conclude, Nationalists in the year 2026 must pick up from where Stephensen left off in 1940. In mind of our conquered position, an Australian Nationalist response in the twenty-first century must be an explicit redefinition of Australian nationhood. Stephensen, always far ahead of the curve, articulated it (using what are now antiquated words) thusly: “For Aryanism; against Semitism”, further noting that it was “…an attempt to make even more precise the principle of racial homogeneity implied in the “White Australia” doctrine.” For many decades, Nationalists shied away from Stephensen’s words; the baggage of the concentration camps that our opponents would inevitably foist upon us was too much to deal with. With the benefit of hindsight and a much-improved knowledge of how the twentieth century played out, we can now only concur with Stephensen’s remedy. When we stand as Nationalists, we have to stand for more than Australian-ness, more than just White Australia, but a recasting of Australian nationhood that asserts its independence from the conqueror, just as much as our predecessors stood for the creation of a new nation-state to the exclusion of the Asiatic races and asserted our independence from Britain.

The Task Ahead

“The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” — Sun Tzu

Australian nationalism, when it first emerged during Australia’s cultural springtime of the late nineteenth century, dared to dream of a radical break with the ‘Old Ways’ of Europe and Empire. It had a vision of a new nation, the ideological vocabulary to articulate it, and a radical impulse to put these ideas into practice. We live — or lived — in a world created by their successes, until the forces arrayed against Australia undid them all. If the Australian people are to survive on this continent, we must reclaim this radical impulse. Just as those Nationalists once set out to break with the ways of the old continent, in the twenty-first century we must break from Pax Americana, from our conquerors, and with all that has come since 1942. This requires of us to envision a new iteration of Australia. A new chapter in the history of the European peoples on this continent: one that draws from core mythic qualities, casts aside that which can no longer work for us, and builds upon what is still to come.

And what exactly will this new Australia look like? Nationalists say that is for us to figure out. This is a conversation that all who dream of liberation are obliged to have given the current state of affairs, so let’s start to move beyond ‘Australia’ as we currently understand it. At this very moment, the State and the conquerors are mapping out an entirely different Australia as well, only one in which the Australian people are no longer required — that is, an Asian Future. We must return the favour. Imagining a Nationalist victory throws everything into question, just as much as a victory for our enemies will. Should we succeed, it will undoubtedly be a completely different country. A majority White nation without American control; a state absent the corrosive forces of Capitalism; a country minus the all-conquering authority of Jewry — making this an utterly foreign land to the one that all living Australians are familiar with.

It probably won’t be called the Commonwealth of Australia. Maybe there will be a new name that better suits us and signifies the radical break with the past. Maybe the borders will look different, the results of some unknowable conflict or compromise. Maybe we will have new symbols, new anthems, new dates of remembrance that take pride of place alongside our ancestral ones. To take but one example, what does our national flag currently represent? In the top left corner, the flag of a foreign nation, of an Empire that no longer exists and which was the prime cause of our lack of independence. To the right a celestial arrangement in the shape of a religious symbol that few among us still hold dear, if it ever truly was in this secular, multi-denominational country. What is more important: clinging desperately to the national anthem and the blue ensign, or keeping the racial character of our nation? As long as we keep to the essential ideological components, there is nothing that can’t be re-imagined.

Australia in the  twenty-first century is a different world to that which confronted the first nationalist movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Back then the European peoples weren’t yet conquered (though the signs were already showing) and the opponents of nationalism were ideologically wayward members of our own race, or in the case of the Japanese, could still be counted on to act honourably. The link with Britain was undoubtedly strong, but it cannot be equated with the sheer one-sided dominance of America and the conquerors on our nation. Nor is it comparable to the circumstances present when nationalism re-emerged after the public burial of the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s, economic Asianisation was only beginning, Hawke and the Labor Party had yet to fling the doors open to international finance, and the post-war consensus which regulated the economy and guaranteed the working class a decent life was still intact. It was an uphill battle to convince people that Australia’s racial composition was under threat — a majority non-White country was still an outlandish proposition. Technology has moved quickly as well. Nationalists back then didn’t have to deal with the internet, the tech oligarchs Ellison, Musk and Zuckerberg, nor the Five-Eyes spying apparatus. The world of AI and surveillance companies like Palantir was the stuff of nightmares, not a lived reality.

Taken together, this necessitates new political strategies, new ways of approaching the situation. The nationalist fight today is not one where our message struggles to be relevant to the Australian people, but where we struggle to organise and get the message out. The State recognises the appeal of nationalism and is becoming ever more repressive in its approach to dissent. Crucial as well for us to understand is that our conquerors are not honourable and they operate with impunity. Those who pay attention to the behaviour of organised Jewry know they will use every craft available to achieve their ends — just look at what has occurred in Palestine. Don’t for a second believe that the empire is not perfectly capable of inflicting on us the same death and suffering they inflict on Palestinian children. Worst of all is when they tell us — with an earnest face — that they are doing European civilisation a favour: the multiracial chaos is being inflicted on our societies for the sake of Healing the World (Tikkun Olam), that they are the Light unto the Nations bringing tolerance and moral guidance to the gentiles.

But things are not going swimmingly for the conquerors anymore; their agency is under threat, as their increasingly frenzied actions since October 7 indicate. The long-expected crisis of legitimacy that we have held out for, that moment which calls forth a Nationalist movement, is fast approaching. As has become clear over the last few years, the American Empire is in permanent decline, and it no longer even pretends to uphold international law, presently settling old scores in its own hemisphere with a brazen abduction of the Venezuelan president and having bombed seven separate countries in 2025 alone, largely to no real effect. We have already seen one unsuccessful (from the Zionist perspective) war with Iran, and more wars in the Middle East will likely follow as the Zionist entity loses protection and the empire overextends itself.

In Europe, NATO threatens to go the way of SEATO, and in the Asia-Pacific, the new world power is China which has resisted all their attempts at financial colonisation. De-dollarisation is gaining speed as the rest of the world realises that an economy sustained only by usurious speculation and mountains of debt, should not have the power of world financial hegemony that they concocted for themselves at Bretton Woods.[6] As all the international edifices of Pax Judaica come tumbling down, this time it looks as if there is no other world power for Jewry to flee to, which means they will defend their position even more ruthlessly; one can only pray that the Samson Option will never be activated.

Politically strong, but also numerically weak, the conquerors power at the heart of the Empire is reliant on an unstable ‘Coalition of the Aggrieved’ to maintain control, and rifts in this coalition are emerging everywhere (the Nationalist can of course assist by furthering these rifts.) In America, Jewish privilege is so obvious and so omnipresent in everyone’s lives that the Jewish Question is undeniable: Epstein, Zelensky and Gaza; Paul Singer, Ronald Lauder and Larry Fink; Trump, Adelson and Iran; Hollywood and AIPAC. These frustrations — shared by all non-Jews in America — have no legal outlet so it’s all heading for a showdown and everyone knows that the American Empire will not go down quietly like the Soviet Union did.

This showdown, this confrontation, this contraction, this reaction, this collapse, whatever it may be, will not occur in Australia, though undoubtedly there will be forceful efforts to pull us in. It is difficult to predict how exactly this will play out in Australia, though one thing is certain: we’re too intertwined with the Empire for us to be able to simply wait things out. When Jews feel threatened, neutrality is out of the question: you’re either with them, or against them. But just like last time, when the Western world was thrown into chaos and the Jewish people were at the centre of it all, the end of Pax Americana — and therefore the decline of its ability to project its power in Australia — is an opportunity offered to Australian Nationalists. That is, if we are ready and prepared to take it.

The Zio-Populist Right taking a new shape? Pauline Hanson speaks to the crowd at Bondi after her pilgrimage to Trump at Mar-A-Lago

At this moment in history, before the situation in America properly deteriorates, and before the crisis hits Australian politics, our time is better spent in educating people and building defensive infrastructure. The moment is not ripe for launching any fruitless head-on assaults on the regime, and even if it were, nationalist consciousness is not at all in a healthy state. Our ranks are thin and the impostors currently using the label ‘Nationalist’ are an abysmally poor showing. On display is everything from creepy Tradcaths who scamper around the Liberal party, politically incoherent vaccine-sceptics, and unstable thugs who think they can punch their way out of every tough situation. We’ve got to get the basics right before we can even think about the herculean task ahead of us. Unfortunately, so much Nationalist knowledge has failed to transfer across the generations.

Looking to the next quarter century, nationalism needs a new generation of leaders composed of stable, educated individuals who are conversant with history and who know exactly what it means to stand for Australia. Such leaders must be fanatically ideological Nationalists untouched by associations with soon-to-be criminalised ‘hate groups’, a vanguard capable of holding the line against all false ideas and who have the ability to reach out to the ordinary Australian. They must develop resources to defend our people and have networks in place for when the opportunity arises. Take advantage of the failures of multiculturalism and liberalism — and the social alienation they both cause — to create real-life communities that can act as the counter-society, the seedbeds of the resistance. There are many problems to be worked through, and no single individual has all the answers; it has to be a collaborative effort. If that all that sounds good and proper to you, the established Nationalist party offers an ideal mechanism for this, so sign up if you itch to engage in direct party politics, but think outside the box too.

A multiplicity of Nationalist regiments is a valuable asset in the struggle to disrupt the existing system: Build a thinktank; create a nationalist law firm or publishing outfit; set up a pro-White charity or an independent crowd-funding platform; start an honest business; run a private school; be an investigative journalist — the ideas are endless.

What good does yet another social media ‘influencer’ bring? Enough with the political hobbyists who see in Nationalist politics nothing more than a niche from which they can grab some attention on social media or make a quick buck. Nationalists can only scorn the collaborationist British Australian Community, but at least their plan isn’t running off into the bush to establish a commune.

Create art or make music; compose poetry or write an essay that builds knowledge; reclaim Australian culture from the anti-Australians. Do quite literally anything other than just practising your kick-boxing skills or wasting your time being a secret racist on Telegram, Discord or X with all the rest of the bots and shills.

Australian Nationalists — the vanguard of the national future — sit and wait until the rest of you catch up. What our conquerors fear the most are Australians who stand unyielding in the face of opposition; when enough people stand up to an oppressor, they have a chance at survival. Only once Australians have taken the Nationalist message to heart, and only once the political discussion around Australia’s future has been utterly and totally purged of the false ways of Conservatism and Hitlerism, can we move forward. Maybe that day never comes. Maybe we spread the message and wait in vain for backup that has long since expired. In which case, the next opportunity will come and go, maybe some new force takes the reigns in Australia, and eventually the White race dies out in the Antipodes. To pinch some famous last words, Such is Life, but at least Nationalists can say we were there ready to fight.

Fin

Selected sources and suggested readings:

• Bird, D (2012), Nazi Dreamtime — Australian Enthusiasts for Hitler’s Germany, Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty. Ltd., Australia.
• Levi, J & Bergman, G (2002), Australian Genesis — Jewish Convicts and Settlers 1788-1860, 2^nd Ed., Melbourne University Press, Australia
• Lopez, M (2000), The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• McQueen, H (2004), A New Brittania, 4^th Ed., University of Queensland Press, Australia.
• Munro, C (1984), Wild Man of Letters — The Story of P. R. Stephensen, Griffin Press Ltd., Australia.
• Norris, R (1975), The Emergent Commonwealth — Australian Federation: Expectations and Fulfilment 1889-1910, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• Palfreeman, A.C (1967) The Administration of the White Australia Policy, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• Price, C (1974), The Great White Walls are Built — Restrictive immigration to North America and Australasia 1836-1888, Australian National University Press, Australia.
• Rutland, S (1997) Edge of the Diaspora — Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2^nd Ed., Brandl & Schlesinger, Australia
• Stephensen, P.R (1936) The Foundations of Culture in Australia, 2^nd Ed., Allen & Unwin, Australia
• Tavan, G (2005), The Long Slow Death of White Australia, Scribe, Australia.
• Willard, M (1967) The History of the White Australia Policy until 1920, 2^nd Ed., Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.,U.K.
• Windschuttle, K (2004), The White Australia Policy, Macleay Press, Australia.

Notes

[1] MacDonald, K (2002), The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 2nd Ed.,1st Books Library, pp.xxviii-xxviv

[2]     Note that only the states which had origins as penal colonies (NSW, Tasmania and Queensland) lacked Jewish financial involvement in their foundation.

[3] The war effort organised by the very same Mr. Chamberlain who so strenuously opposed White Australia.

[4] The Oath of Abjuration for office holders, a sticking point for Jewish emancipation in Britain which required one to swear an oath as a Christian, technically applied in the colonies, but was not enforced and by 1858 both Victoria and NSW had introduced their own oaths that lacked a religious element.

[5] See Saleam, J The Nazis and ‘White Australia’ (PDF file available on request) and Turner-Graham, E (2021) «Never forget that you are a German»: Die Bruecke, «Deutschtum» and National Socialism in Interwar Australia, Peter Lang AG, Frankfurt am Main.

[6] In this case, Henry Morgenthau Jr, Harry Dexter White and Edward M. Bernstein