The Culture War in Ukraine

The rationale for America’s participation in the proxy war in Ukraine rarely articulates itself with the language of national interests or security concerns. Instead it’s sold as a war over “our values” and the maintenance of a “rules-based liberal international order”. In the words of Joe Biden, “We are engaged anew in a great battle for freedom. A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression.” Rather than a regional territorial dispute, it’s a cosmic struggle for freedom and democracy. But in this grand battle, democracy might not mean what you think.

Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country that has banned rival political parties, shut down television news stations, and passed a law to drastically limit press freedom. The very meaning of democracy has been silently reconceptualised. If once it meant non-fraudulent voting and a free press, now it means something altogether different. Italians voting, democratically, for Giorgia Meloni, was viewed by President Biden as a threat to democracy:

Democracy is at stake… You just saw what’s happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. And the reason I bother to say that is we can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here either.

Biden expressed a similar view about Poland and Hungary while giving an assessment of then-President Trump’s foreign policy: “You see what’s happened in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary, and the rise of totalitarian regimes in the world, and as well, this president embraces all the thugs in the world.” This way of speaking of Poland and Hungary is far from unusual in the English-speaking media.

Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin summed up what’s being fought for in Ukraine. Accusing Moscow of being “a world center of antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans hatred, as well as the homeland of replacement theory for export” he concluded “In supporting Ukraine, we are opposing these fascist views.” Framed in this way it is unsurprising that the proxy war finds its most rabid adherents among Democrats. Homosexuality is entirely legal in Russia and yet Western liberals will use gay rights, trans rights and feminism to foment a surreal new jingoism that bolsters support for spending billions to fund a proxy war against a nuclear-armed power.  “Nation building” means teaching Afghans about the artistic merit of latrines, “democracy” means trans rights, and “a rules based international order” means America doing whatever it wants.

For Richard Moore, the head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, gay and transgender rights are the dividing line between Russia and the UK. “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine”, he tweeted at the start of the war, “we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights”.

In the 1960s political radicals opposed America’s military-industrial complex. Today they donate to it. Judith Butler, the primary originator of radical gender ideology, donated to Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign. Harris is now the primary saleswoman for arming Ukraine and escalating the conflict.

A professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews expressed some typical delusions of Western liberals:

Just as the ability to absorb information is better than lunkhead hypermasculinity in a modern army, diversity and societal integration also bring major advantages. As Ukraine has become more diverse and tolerant, its army has benefited. In contrast with Putin’s homophobic military, the Ukrainian armed forces include LGBTQ soldiers who have incorporated “unicorn” insignia into their uniforms. The valor of these soldiers, and the rallying of the Ukrainian people around a vision of a tolerant and diverse society, have led to an overall increase in Ukrainian support for gay rights.

American commentators have painted the conflict in Ukraine as a literal culture war and Putin is happy to reciprocate. In the midst of the conflict he expressed support for Harry Potter author JK Rowling, comparing her “cancellation” over trans issues to the sanctions meted out against Russia by Western nations. In an Address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow, Putin promised to “protect our children from degradation and degeneration” emanating from the West:

Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children… They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages… Reportedly, the Anglican Church is planning to explore the idea of a gender-neutral god. What is there to say? …Millions of people in the West realise that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy.

In his sermon on Forgiveness Sunday, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia spelt out the nature of the ideological cleavage between NATO and Russia:

In the Donbass there is rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power. Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government, a kind of pass to that “happy” world, the world of excess consumption, the world of visible “freedom”. Do you know what this test is? The test is very simple and at the same time terrible. … In order to enter the club of those countries, it is necessary to hold a gay pride parade. Not to make a political statement “we are with you”, not to sign any agreements, but to hold a gay parade. And we know how people resist these demands and how this resistance is suppressed by force.

This is, continues Kirill, “a test of loyalty to that very powerful world.” He isn’t wrong. Writing in The Atlantic, Dominic Tierney, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, wants to fight Russia so that a pride parade can be held in Mariupol:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is the antithesis of everything the left stands for. Not only did he launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign democratic nation, but he has also disparaged LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, and immigration, and claimed that “the liberal idea” has “outlived its purpose.” … LGBTQ protesters in Berlin also demanded that Germany step up arms shipments to Ukraine, so that a Pride parade can, one day, be held in the Russian-occupied city of Mariupol.

The LGBT community has become a strange proxy of US power. Kyiv Pride is sponsored by the United States embassy in Ukraine and by the United States Agency for International Development, alongside the Canadian and German governments. In 2021 the Kyiv Pride account tweeted “KyivPride invades eastern Ukraine. The KyivPride: going East project aimed at mobilizing the LGBT+ community in Donbas started in May. In other words, let’s make Donbas queer”.

One typical apparatchik of the American empire in the current year is the “non-binary” lesbian Masha Gessen, who has said of marriage:

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the United States of spreading “a cultural revolution” around the world that consisted of political correctness “taken to the extreme”. Opposition to the American war machine is the only sensible response.

Anti-Racism Comes for the Church: The Case of Thomas Achord

A year or two ago, I received a large, unsolicited and apparently self-published book in the mail: Who Is My Neighbor? An Anthology in Natural Relations, edited by Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow. Neither name was familiar to me. Since my available reading time is somewhat constrained, I did no more than leaf through it at first. But I kept it on my shelf because the idea of “an anthology in natural relations” sounded worthwhile. The editors clearly felt that relations in contemporary America had become unnatural (in some sense), and in response they had assembled hundreds of short, simple texts on proper human relations from antiquity to the present day. Their anthology emphasized the Classical and Christian traditions, but included some material from Egypt, China, India, the Jewish tradition and more. There were chapters on God (or the gods), marriage, family and household (including slavery), local and political community, economics, education, literature, and other matters—much of the very stuff of human life.

I was sympathetic to the project. Contemporary man has no idea how unusual his moral notions appear within a broad historical context. This characteristically modern form of ignorance has been called the “provincialism of time,” and one of the purposes of education is overcoming it to some degree. Browsing such an anthology might even have therapeutic value for some of our contemporaries.

But I had mostly forgotten about this book when, browsing a dissident website a couple weeks ago, I came across an appeal to help the family of a man who had lost his livelihood due to thought crime. I made a small donation and searched the internet for further information on the case. This quickly led me to a number of posts about a certain Thomas Achord, an alleged “white supremacist” who had also been dismissed from his employment in November, 2022. That name rang a bell, and a quick check of my bookshelf confirmed that this second cancellee was indeed the co-editor of Who Is My Neighbor?

Until November of last year, Mr. Achord served as the headmaster of a small private school in Louisiana that is part of the Classical Christian Education movement. This is a traditionalist movement which stresses exposing the young to the Bible and other classic texts, in part through the study of Latin (and sometimes Greek). It provides pupils with an understanding that the world did not begin the day they were born, that their own generation is merely one link in a chain spanning centuries. This helps transmit to them a sense of identity and roots, as well as protecting them from faddish thinking. I have been sympathetic to the movement since it first came to my attention in the 1990s.

Late last year, an Englishman and Christian theologian named Alastair Roberts discovered that Achord had maintained a pseudonymous blog between January 2020 and August 2021. As is the way with pseudonymous writings, much of this material was more forthright in language than what Achord had published under his own name, although not inconsistent with it. Roberts criticized some of the pseudonymous posts, but his language was measured and he explicitly disavowed any desire to threaten Achord’s employment.

Roberts’ post was soon spotted by columnist Rod Dreher, however, whose children had attended Achord’s school. In addition to the material uncovered by Roberts, Dreher took exception to a chapter of Who Is My Neighbor? containing texts in support of the common-sense ideas that diversity promotes conflict and erodes social capital, while good fences make good neighbors. Dreher quickly decided such ideas made Achord a “vile racist” (as well as anti-Semite and misogynist) and “doxxed” him to the school, which panicked and promptly fired the father of four. Dreher acknowledges that Achord is quiet, modest, friendly, and talented; his ideas are Dreher’s only justification for getting the man dismissed.

Some circumstances may make this dispute appear surprising. Dreher is perhaps best known as the author of The Benedict Option (2017), a book advocating the formation by like-minded Christians of small face-to-face communities capable of withstanding the onslaught of mass culture and cultivating the virtues among the rising generation. This is similar to the goals pursued by the Classical Christian Education movement, so it is not surprising Dreher enrolled his own children in such a school.

But it also seems to overlap rather largely with the aims of Achord and Dow in editing their Anthology in Natural Relations. In the “Introduction” they write:

The subversion of natural and organic connections (family, nation, etc.) has spiritual implications. The goal is the subversion of Christian nations and the culture produced by Christendom. The way forward means recognizing that the world into which we are born includes families, institutions and nations that are structured hierarchically. Likewise our duties within those structures (i.e., justice) are hierarchical in nature. To live with piety is to accept our place in that structure of reality, favoring the near over the far.

Achord’s “racism” is presumably related to his advocacy of “favoring the near over the far.”

Achord and Dow drop a broad hint as to where the contemporary “subversion of natural and organic connections” such as nation and family is coming from by printing three quotes from the founders of communism on the back of their book:

Even the usual differences within species, like racial differences . . . can and must be done away with historically.—Karl Marx

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves.—Friedrich Engels

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them—V. I. Lenin

Marx speaks of races, Engels and Lenin of nations and nationalities, but the basic idea is the same: communism represents a form of universalism, a type of thinking which elevates the universal over the particular, extending even to outright hostility toward more particular forms of human association.

Speaking generally, each of us forms the center of a concentric series of spheres of attachment beginning with our immediate family and running through our extended family to our community (if we are still fortunate enough to live in one), and thence to nation, race, and the human species as a whole. Like communism, Christianity has a universal aspect, as illustrated by Christ’s Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations.” The parable of the Good Samaritan also makes clear that our rightful sphere of moral concern may include even perfect strangers. But unlike communism, neither Christ nor the Church ever expressed hostility to particular attachments as such, nor advocated abolishing the institutions on which they rest. It is compatible with Christianity to love your own wife more than your neighbor’s wife. The same principal applies to one’s children, and even extended family (for extended family was an important social fact in the ancient Near East where the Bible originated).

But what about race? This, of course, is the locus of disagreement between Dreher and Achord. So we must ask: do the Bible or Christianity view it as illegitimate to feel a greater attachment to one’s own race than to the other races of mankind?

In fact, the Bible does not have a great deal to say about race in the sense commonly intended today, viz., the three-to-seven major continental races of mankind, a sphere of belonging intermediate between the nation and the human species. There is not even any word for “race” in this sense in Biblical Hebrew or Greek. That is not surprising. The known world of Biblical times did not cover the entire terrestrial globe, so appreciation of the racial differentiation of mankind was limited.

What the Bible does refer to—in countless passages—is “nations.” And no Biblical author ever condemns patriotism or devotion to nation: “make disciples of all nations” obviously does not mean “abolish nations.” The same goes, historically, for the Christian church. Within living memory, e.g., Bishop Fulton Sheen used to remind his vast American television audience that one could not be a good Christian without also being a patriot. This was viewed almost as a truism at the time.

Any Christian serious about developing a Biblical view of race or race relations must proceed by careful study of what the Bible says about nations, adjusting it (if and where appropriate) to the broader category of race. What would be the likely result of such a study? Well, if we accept Steve Sailer’s definition of a race as “a very extended family that is inbred to some extent,” it is hard to see how anyone could simultaneously affirm family attachments as natural and good while condemning all racial attachment. Such is the view of “Kinism,” a nationalist- and racialist-compatible tendency within the contemporary church which seems to me consistent with scripture, church tradition and common sense.

Until recently, of course, there was no need of a special word like “Kinist” to refer to those Christians who believe in the legitimacy of particular attachments, because such belief was universal. But “antiracism” has long since invaded the church in force. Christians, like everyone else, grow up surrounded by shrill and sanctimonious denunciations of “racism.” This term, which is never defined, only dates back to the 1930s. It is variously ascribed either to Lenin’s sidekick Leon Trotsky or to Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish sexologist and early promoter of transsexualism who was also a strong communist sympathizer. The very least we can say about such men is that their thinking was not inspired by Christianity. Yet millions of white Christians like Rod Dreher assume that the communist-inspired notion of antiracism is not merely compatible with, but an actual requirement of, their faith! In effect, they believe an essential doctrine of Christianity, the “sinfulness of racism,” went unmentioned in the Bible or by any church leader for nineteen hundred years before being revealed to Christendom by some Jewish radical less than a hundred years ago.

Such extreme historical illiteracy is the perfect example of that “provincialism of time” and faddish thinking which, as I noted above, a proper education should help protect us against. And the Achord case seems to indicate that it has now gained a controlling interest in the Classical Christian Education movement. Thomas Achord realizes better than anyone what a tragedy this represents for both the church and our people. On his pseudonymous blog he lamented that those involved in Classical Christian Education

are scared, they’re aware that things are against them as Christians, as Westerners, perhaps they sense that things are against them as whites, but they don’t admit it. My concerns are that . . . they’ll be hoodwinked and guilted into tolerating Diversity, nonwhites [and] Marxism. I want to provide formal help, tools, resources for white-advocates to take back the West for white peoples by recovering a classical education.

But this is already disallowed in today’s church. If you feel any secret loyalty to race or nation, white man, Christian morality demands you be sniffed out, hunted down, professionally destroyed, and see the bread stolen from your children’s mouths.

After all, Christ commanded us to love one another.

*   *   *

You can assist Thomas Achord’s family here [link to: https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1]. But hurry: “antifascist” Christians are already pressuring the site to disallow donations to a “white supremacist.”

Quand Samuel Untermyer & Cie faisaient chanter Woodrow Wilson: Chantage, Loi Monétaire, Guerre Mondiale

23 janvier 2023 de Karl Haemers


Wilson et sa maîtresse, la sulfureuse Madame Peck

Woodrow Wilson (Président Américain de 1913–1921)

C’est bien simple, l’élection de Woodrow Wilson à la présidence des États-Unis est l’exact pendant en importance et en nature de la révolution bolchévik en 1917:  c’est la prise de pouvoir des Juifs à la tête des deux puissances émergentes amenées à dominer le monde jusqu’à nos jours.

Wilson a été choisi par eux pour s’opposer au Président Howard Taft qui refusait l’abrogation d’un traité commercial des USA avec la Russie Tsariste honnie, un traité qui, il est vrai, avait pris la précaution dans ses dispositions d’exclure de son champ d’application les hommes d’affaires Juifs d’origine russe récemment établis en Amérique, considérés, d’ailleurs à juste titre, comme une menace pour le pouvoir tsariste; la position de Taft était simple, il n’allait pas pénaliser 98% des Américains pour faire plaisir à 2% qui se sentaient lésés dans leurs droits: la minorité juive.

Erreur fatale de sa part, les «frères circoncis» comme il les appelait, constituaient une minorité, certes, mais seulement en nombre, pas financièrement, pas médiatiquement, pas politiquement. La victoire de Wilson aux élections signifiait non seulement un coup porté à la diplomatie et à la puissance du Tsar par la fameuse petite communauté – en effet internationale – mais aussi une victoire de cette communauté aux États-Unis même.

La victoire était aussitôt magistralement exploitée: le 23 décembre 1913, Wilson signait le décret de création de la Federal Reserve, le Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Acts. Attention, le fait que les USA se dotent d’une grande institution monétaire centrale n’est pas en soi une mauvaise chose pour eux, bien au contraire, ce qui est contestable, c’est qu’elle soit créée en tant qu’institution privée sous contrôle du secteur bancaire privé largement aux mains de qui on sait, c’est un peu comme de privatiser la dissuasion nucléaire en la confiant à un cabinet de conseil.

Ce n’est pas tout, le début du deuxième mandat sera l’occasion d’engager tout autant, si ce n’est plus, tout l’avenir des États-Unis et du monde avec la décision d’entrer en guerre aux côtés de l’Entente, contre l’Allemagne, entrée en guerre obtenue en échange de la déclaration de Balfour sur la création d’un foyer national juif en Palestine.

La fin du mandat sera dans la même veine, c’est la signature du Traité de Versailles sur lequel il a énormément pesé avec son aréopage de conseillers Juifs et qui conduira presque mécaniquement à la Seconde Guerre mondiale et, en fin de compte, à la réalisation complète de la promesse de Balfour avec la création de l’État d’Israël.

Et à l’origine de tout ça, un bon petit chantage bien placé.

Samuel Untermyer fait chanter le Président

En 1910, Wilson vient de démissionner de son poste prestigieux de président de l’université Princeton pour se consacrer pleinement à sa campagne pour être élu gouverneur du New Jersey. Les Juifs fortunés ont pris fait et cause pour lui et le financent, ils l’accompagneront aussi dans sa course victorieuse à la présidence des États-Unis.

Sans doute savent-ils qu’un scandale menaçait d’éclater dans la presse: Wilson, derrière les murs couverts de lierre de l’université, avait eu une liaison avec la femme de son voisin de palier, le professeur Peck. Wilson, bien entendu, était marié de son côté. Or, le beau-fils de l’ex-madame Peck (entre-temps divorcée et remariée – mais pas avec Wilson!) avait imprudemment contracté une dette de 40 000 dollars qu’il était incapable d’honorer, l’ex- madame Peck non plus, mais elle avait quelque chose qui pouvait valoir 40 000 dollars: les lettres que lui avait adressées Wilson [tout au long de cette affaire, il ne faut jamais s’attendre à ce que la morale retrouve à un moment ses droits, bien au contraire, on s’en écarte à chaque étape de plus en plus …].

L’ex-madame Peck et ex maîtresse de Wilson, donc,  est allée voir Samuel Untermyer avec ces lettres et Samuel est allé voir Wilson, devenu président, pour lui proposer un marché tout simple: il effaçait la dette, mais en échange, Wilson devait nommer un Juif à la Cour suprême dès qu’un siège serait vacant.

Pour se faire une idée de la situation dans laquelle le pauvre Wilson se débattait, il faut bien comprendre qu’en un siècle, le dollar comme la morale publique se sont fortement dévalués: 40 000 dollars de l’époque représentent au bas mot 1,25 million maintenant, quant à une liaison extraconjugale, complètement démonétisée aujourd’hui, elle aurait suffi à ruiner sa carrière en un instant si jamais la presse s’en était emparée.

Comment est-ce que nous connaissons l’épisode? Par Benjamin Freedman, une sorte de Juif repentis. Freedman était jeune à l’époque, mais déjà, il avait la responsabilité de faire la liaison entre le Comité des Finances du Sénat dirigé par Henry Morgenthau Sr. [autrement dit, le père du sinistre Henry Morgenthau Jr., qui préconisera un plan d’extermination de l’Allemagne] et Rollo Wells, le Secrétaire au Trésor. En 1974, Freedman donne une conférence devant les cadets de la Marine dont voici le passage concernant Wilson:

Nous avions donc d’un côté ce président à Washington, Howard Taft, qu’il s’agissait de mettre par terre. De l’autre, Mr. Jacob Schiff, de la Kuhn, Loeb & Co., la branche new-yorkaise de l’internationale Rothschild à la tête de la ploutocratie mondiale. Mr. Schiff (qui en plus était à l’époque à la tête de l’American Jewish Committee), accompagné de deux jeunes loups, est parti voir Mr. Taft [pour le mettre en demeure d’abroger le traité commercial russo-américain]… En rentrant à New York, Schiff et sa camarilla se mettaient en ordre de bataille. J’étais à l’époque un protégé de Mr. Bernard Baruch… On plantait le décors pour faire perdre les Républicains et leur président, Taft, candidat à sa propre réélection. Mais ce n’était pas si facile … On avait placé Mr. Baruch à la manœuvre, c’était le plus habile! … On s’est mis en quête d’un candidat démocrate, ce fut Wilson. De son côté, Mr. Jacob Schiff apportait les fonds pour créer un parti bidon destiné à disperser le vote républicain … Il fallait quelqu’un à sa tête, on ressortait Théodore Roosevelt de la naphtaline (Il était devenu rédac-chef d’un petit magazine). On lui a dit «vous êtes l’homme de la situation, le seul capable de sauver les États-Unis» et ça a marché comme sur des roulettes. Le «Bull Moose Party» était mis sur pied avec le financement collecté par Mr. Jacob H. Schiff auprès de toute la diaspora, notamment de Londres. C’en était fait des Républicains, leur électorat se répartissait entre Roosevelt et Taft et Wilson raflait la mise sans même avoir la majorité. …

C’est une constante de la politique, chaque fois qu’un candidat est choisi pour être mis sur le devant de la scène, c’est parce qu’on dispose de munitions à son encontre. On savait que Wilson couchait avec sa voisine de palier à Princeton, que cette femme était l’épouse du professeur Peck et que pour tout Princeton, Wilson était l’âme damnée de Peck. Ayant obtenu le divorce [alors que c’est elle qui avait une liaison!] la vertueuse ex-madame Peck trouvait à se remarier à Washington, il faut croire qu’elle avait des arguments. Mais, justice divine ou loi de la nature, ce nouveau mari avait un fils encore plus vertueux que sa belle-mère: il avait emprunté 40 000 dollars à la banque sans leur en parler, il était incapable de rembourser la somme, et ça commençait à sentir sérieusement le roussi pour lui. Il en fallait plus que ça pour prendre au dépourvu notre aventurière à l’entregent décidément si conséquent. Elle avait entendu parler de Samuel Untermyer (du célèbre cabinet d’affaires, Googenheim, Untermeyer and Marshall), un gros contributeur du Parti démocrate (le parti de Wilson) et un de ses membres influents. Elle n’y est pas allé les mains vides, son charme n’aurait peut-être pas suffi, mais chargées d’un petit paquet de lettres … Ensemble, ils ont concocté un chantage en bonne et due forme sur Wilson. Elle a persuadé Samuel Untermyer d’aller le voir en sa qualité d’avocat. C’était facile, Untermyer avait déjà ses entrées auprès de Wilson et, pour la faire courte, Wilson n’avait pas l’argent, Untermeyer l’avait et le fils a pu rembourser sa dette. [passage de l’exposé difficile à saisir, autant on peut comprendre qu’un avocat serve d’intermédiaire dans une transaction «à l’amiable», autant on ne voit pas en quoi un avocat serait particulièrement bien placé pour mener une transaction illicite comme l’est un chantage, mais nous sommes sans doute trop naïfs]

Mais Mr. Untermeyer n’était pas qu’un simple intermédiaire et sa générosité avait ses limites, il faisait cette proposition qu’on ne peut pas refuser au Président Wilson: «Je vous avance l’argent si vous me faites une faveur. La prochaine fois qu’un siège se libère à la Cour suprême, c’est moi qui vous souffle le nom du successeur». Il précisait où il voulait en venir: «Il n’y a jamais eu de Juif à la Cour Suprême, et je pense qu’il serait temps qu’il y en est un». «Marché conclu» lui répondit Wilson et les $40,000 furent payés. Bientôt, en 1916, un siège se libérait et Mr. Untermeyer recommandait Mr. Brandeis. Mr. Brandeis était le sioniste numéro 1 aux États-Unis, leur chef de file, et il devenait un proche parmi les proches de Wilson.

Quelques précisions pour compléter et corroborer cette histoire: Wilson a entretenu huit années durant une correspondance intime avec Mary Hulbert Peck. Cette correspondance a débuté en 1907, alors qu’il était président de Princeton, s’est poursuivie durant son bref mandat de gouverneur du New Jersey, et s’est achevée en 1915 au milieu de son premier mandat présidentiel. On retrouve les lettres sur le site de l’American Heritage. Durant les sept premières années de cette période, Wilson est resté marié à Ellen Axton Wilson, laquelle est décédée en août 1914.

Louis Brandeis: une grande première à la Cour Suprême

Le 28 janvier 1916, Wilson nommait Louis Brandeis à la Cour Suprême. Mais ça n’a pas été facile. La nomination était si controversée que le processus de confirmation s’est étalé sur quatre mois – du jamais vu – et a été l’occasion de la toute première audition publique de la commission juridique de l’histoire du Sénat. Les plus farouches opposants à l’arrivée de Brandeis à la Cour se trouvaient parmi les conservateurs du Parti républicains et ils étaient bien entendu taxés d’antisémitisme. Bien des années plus tard, William Douglas, dans le New York Times , disait de Brandeis, qu’«il était dangereux parce qu’il était incorruptible et parce qu’il était un défenseur intraitable de la justice sociale».

Lorsque la commission sénatoriale demandait au procureur général, Thomas Watt Gregory, les lettres de parrainage de Brandeis, ce dernier annonçait qu’il n’y en avait pas. C’est Wilson en personne qui se dévouait en donnant le sien en ces termes: «Je le sais particulièrement apte à occuper la place, de par ses qualifications, son talent et sa personnalité». S’emballant dans sa plaidoirie, Wilson ajoutait lyrique:

… Il est exceptionnellement compétent. On ne saurait exagérer son impartialité, son désintéressement, son esprit méthodique, sa puissance d’analyse, sa profonde humanité, sa connaissance approfondie des fondements historiques de nos institutions et de leur esprit, ni ignorer à quel point il est imprégné de tout l’idéal américain de justice et d’égalité des chances, ignorer sa connaissance des conditions économiques modernes et la façon dont elles pèsent sur les masses, ignorer son génie à faire s’unir harmonieusement dans l’action, à faire se comprendre et respecter entre elles, les personnes les plus antagonistes qui soient. Cet ami des hommes et de la justice sera le joyau et le couronnement de l’institution dont nous sommes si justement fiers. Je suis heureux d’avoir pu lui rendre ce témoignage de mon admiration et de ma confiance …

C’est curieux, on en oublierait presque que c’était surtout l’occasion de s’acquitter d’une petite ardoise envers son créancier, Samuel Untermyer, lequel détenait des lettres au sujet d’une coucherie avec la voisine de palier …

Mais soyons juste, Brandeis était déjà un fervent soutien de Wilson lors de sa première campagne, lui rédigeant les lignes les plus importantes de son programme économique au sujet de la «régulation de la compétition». Wilson reconnaîtra la contribution de Brandeis à la victoire et en fera son principal conseiller économique de1912 à 1916, c’est-à-dire de l’accession à la Maison-Blanche de Wilson à la nomination de Brandeis à la Cour Suprême. Durant ce bref laps de temps, cet «ami des hommes et de la justice» aura le temps de se faire la cheville ouvrière de la création de la Federal Reserve, une plaie pour le peuple américain et un siphon de richesse et de pouvoir pour les banquiers Juifs. En tout, Brandeis aura passé 23 ans à la Cour Suprême, toujours aussi moteur dans tous les mauvais coups «progressistes», on lui doit aussi une impulsion décisive dans la création de la Tchécoslovaquie, un véritable poignard dans le dos de l’Allemagne, à l’origine de la première crise internationale grave précédant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Que Brandeis soit imprégné à cœur de l’idéal américain, il faudrait donc en déduire que cet idéal est sioniste, car Brandeis, dès les débuts du mouvement aux USA, en est un fervent militant. Le 20 août 1914, il est élu président du Comité exécutif provisoire aux affaires sionistes qui siège à New York. Dans son livre, The Jewish Problem: How to Solve It, il soutient l’idée d’un foyer national juif, le livre contient le texte d’un discours qu’il a prononcé devant une assemblée de rabbins en 1915 où il expose l’essence de ses conceptions sionistes:

Le sioniste cherche à établir ce foyer en Palestine parce qu’il est convaincu que c’est l’aspiration profonde des Juifs depuis toujours et que cette aspiration est un fait d’une importance primordiale; elle est la manifestation même de la volonté de survivre d’un peuple conscient de son existence depuis trois mille ans, trois mille ans de foi, de civilisation, de culture, parsemées de figures illustres qui sont autant de gages des progrès futurs de la civilisation: ce n’est pas simplement un droit, mais un devoir pour la nation juive que de perdurer et de se développer. Le sioniste pense que seule la Palestine peut lui offrir un sanctuaire contre les forces de désintégration, que c’est là seulement que l’âme juive peut atteindre à sa plénitude, il pense qu’en offrant un refuge aux Juifs qui choisiront de s’y installer, cela ne profitera pas seulement à eux, mais à l’ensemble des Juifs de par le monde en réglant une fois pour toute le lancinant problème juif.

Il est incontestable qu’Israël n’a pas cessé de faire l’actualité mondiale depuis sa création en 1947, mais que cela soit dans le sens de l’une ou l’autre des augures de Brandeis, cela reste quand même à démontrer, surtout lorsqu’il ajoute:

Dans les colonies juives de Palestine il n’y a pas de place pour les criminels, tous, jeunes ou vieux, se montrent à la hauteur de la gloire leur race, de son idéal et des devoirs qui en découlent. La Palestine est en train de devenir un foyer de scientifiques, d’inventeurs, de fondateurs et d’artisans …

Ce n’est pas pour faire inutilement de la peine à Brandeis, mais ce n’est pas l’avis de tout le monde, voir Israel: A Refuge for Swindlers, ou Israël, Terre d’Asile de la Grande Arnaque.

Rabbin Stephen Wise, agent d’influence

Même un bref aperçu de l’anneau enserrant Wilson ne peut faire l’impasse sur Stephen Wise. L’entrée le concernant dans Holocaust Encyclopedia le montre assez bien:

Contrairement à la plupart des rabbins et fidèles réformés de l’époque, Wise s’est résolument engagé en faveur de la création de l’État d’Israël. Cela faisait suite, disait-il, à sa première rencontre avec Theodor Herzl lors du second congrès sioniste en 1898, congrès durant lequel Wise était élu au Comité Sioniste d’Action Générale. En 1914, il devient l’adjoint de Louis Brandeis lorsque celui-ci prend la tête de l’American Zionist movement. L’action conjuguée des deux hommes aura une influence déterminante sur  la décision du président Woodrow Wilson de soutenir la déclaration de Balfour en 1917, déclaration par laquelle la Grande-Bretagne s’engageait à faciliter l’établissement d’un foyer national juif en Palestine. Wise fondait l’American Jewish Congress en 1920, devenait président de la Zionist Organization of America en 1936 et continuant de jouer un rôle clé au sein de la communauté juive en Amérique jusqu’à la fin de sa vie.

 

Ce soutien de Wilson à la déclaration de Balfour n’avait pas seulement pour but de forcer la Grande-Bretagne à tenir sa parole, mais elle était aussi implicitement un appel aux sionistes américains à retourner en faveur de l’entrée en guerre une opinion publique américaine encore largement isolationniste: les sionistes contre les isolationnistes, en quelque sorte. Un rôle central dans ce lavage de cerveau à grande échelle sera tenu par Edward Bernays, le neveu de Freud, tenez-vous bien, à double titre:

– son père, Ely Bernays (1860-1923), est le frère de Martha Bernays, l’épouse de Freud,

– sa mère, Anna Freud (1858-1955) est l’une des sœurs de Freud

(et c’est ce genre d’individus qui viennent nous dire qu’on veut tuer notre père pour coucher avec notre mère).

Paul Warburg met sur pied la Federal Reserve, la «Money Trust»

La loi portant création de la Federal Reserve est promulguée le 23 décembre 1913. Comme nous l’avons évoqué, Brandeis, en tant que premier conseiller économique de Wilson, n’y était pas pour rien, mais il n’était pas le seule de la «bande» à avoir porté sur les fonts baptismaux ce véritable «Money Trust» de droit privé, le premier nom qu’il faut avoir à l’esprit, c’est celui de Paul Warburg, né à Hambourg dans une famille de banquiers juifs allemands: c’est lui l’architecte de la FED.

La FED est une machine à création monétaire et à dette, mais attention, en soi, c’est une bonne chose, c’est la clé de voûte d’une économie monétaire et sans monnaie, il n’y a pas d’économie du tout, la dette n’est pas un trou noir dans lequel on va tomber, ce n’est pas une hypothèque sur les générations futures, chaque génération ne consomme que ce qui est disponible à un moment, s’il y 100 bananes disponibles, il n’y a aucune façon «monétaire» d’en consommer 101.

Ce qui pose problème, c’est à qui on confie les clés du camion et qui tient le volant, qui contrôle la création monétaire et à qui elle profite en premier. Le véritable scandale de la FED, c’est que cette banque centrale est en réalité une institution privée, un consortium de banques principalement aux mains de qui on sait. L’institution est vaguement encadrée par le Treasury Department, mais ce Department est souvent aux mains des mêmes et ce «contrôle» ne fait en réalité qu’amplifier le bénéfice qu’ils peuvent tirer de la FED en leur donnant par avance les orientations de la politique monétaire.

Pour savoir «qui mais qui» autour de Wilson ont mené le bal de la création de la FED, nous nous appuyons sur le travail de référence d’Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve  En premier lieu, il convient de relever les indices selon lesquels c’est justement la position de Wilson en faveur de la création de la FED qui lui a permis de gagner l’élection présidentielle:

Le sénateur LaFollette faisait observer dans ses mémoires que son discours contre le Money Trust lui avait coûté la course à la présidence, tout comme à l’inverse, le soutien de Woodrow Wilson au plan Aldrich (premier projet de banque centrale en Amérique) lui a valu d’être pris en considération pour le bureau ovale. (p 16)

Comme l’opinion publique américaine était en grande partie opposée à ce «Money Trust», la Chambre mettait en place le comité Pujo pour enquêter sur la puissance des banquiers de Wall Street.

L’homme qui à lui seul s’est occupé de mener les auditions n’était autre que Samuel Untermyer, l’un des principaux donateurs de la campagne présidentielle de Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential …

Les banques internationales telles que celles d’Eugene Meyer, Lazard Frères, J. & W. Seligman, Ladenburg Thalmann, des frères Speyer, M. M. Warburg, et celle des frères Rothschild n’ont pas éveillé la curiosité de Samuel Untermye, et ce, bien qu’il soit parfaitement connu des milieux financiers new-yorkais que toutes ces dynasties bancaires avaient soit des établissements, soit des filiales sur la place de Wall Street. Lorsque Jacob Schiff s’est présenté devant le Pujo Committee, les questions adroites de Mr. Untermyer lui ont permis d’esquiver tranquillement toute révélation sur les opérations bancaires de la Kuhn Loeb dont il était le principal associé et que le sénateur Robert L. Owen avait identifié comme la branche américaine des Rothschild. (p 17)

Les auditions du Congrès ont montré qu’au sein de la Kuhn Loeb, Felix Warburg soutenait Taft, Paul Warburg et Jacob Schiff Wilson. Résultat des courses, un Congrès et un président démocrate étaient élus en 1912 avec mission principale de faire passer la loi de création de la banque centrale. … Col. Garrison, agent à la Brown Brothers bankers, par la suite Brown Brothers Harriman, rapporte dans son livre que «le Federal Reserve Act était l’œuvre de Paul Warburg et qu’il avait été adopté après l’échec du plan Aldrich qui avait suscité une véritable levée de bouclier à l’échelle nationale. Le cerveau des deux plans étant de toute façon le Baron Alfred Rothschild depuis Londres». (p 18)

(Plan Aldrich de 1912 du nom du Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich de Rhode Island. Il aurait également institué un cartel bancaire, mais n’a pas réussi à passer, c’est le fameux Glass Act de 1913 qui parviendra enfin à créer la Fed.)

Non seulement tous ces banquiers étaient Juifs,  mais tous — les Warburgs, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb et Rothschild — comme chez les Freud, entretenaient des liens familiaux croisés et faisaient tous partie de la même famille élargie. Il ne fait aucun doute qu’ils ont tous travaillé conjointement à l’élection de leur candidat, Woodrow Wilson.

La vitesse à laquelle le Federal Reserve Act a été passé par le Congrès durant ce qu’on a appelé le «Christmas massacre» a même pris au dépourvu Woodrow Wilson: comme d’autres, il s’était entendu dire que le vote ne pourrait pas intervenir avant Noël, au dernier moment il tentait de ralentir le mouvement et refusait de signer parce qu’il n’était pas d’accord avec les dispositions prévues pour l’élection des directeurs de classe B. … Bernard Baruch, autre gros contributeur de la campagne de Wilson, en était abasourdi, il se précipitait à la Maison-Blanche pour dire à Wilson qu’il s’agissait d’un problème secondaire qui serait facilement résolu par «voie réglementaire», l’important c’était de passer coûte que coûte le Federal Reserve Act. Wilson cédait et signait in extremis, le 23 décembre 1913.  L’histoire montrera que ce jour-là, la constitution avait cessé d’être le pacte régissant le peuple américain et que ses libertés avaient été remises entre les mains d’un petit groupe de la finance internationale. (pp 28-9)

Et une banque centrale, ça sert à faire la guerre, Napoléon avait créé la sienne le18 janvier 1800 (la Banque de France), c’est d’ailleurs ce Bernard Baruch (Juif), si pressé de faire signer Wilson, qui va diriger l’industrie de guerre américaine comme nous allons le voir maintenant.

La déclaration de Balfour précipite l’Amérique de Wilson dans la guerre

Reprenons le discours de Freedman là où nous l’avions laissé:

… Les Juifs étaient bien contents quand l’Allemagne gagnait la guerre, ils ne voulaient pas que la Russie sorte gagnante aux côtés de la France et de l’Angleterre parce qu’ils pensaient que cela aggraverait la situation de leurs coreligionnaires dans le pays. Ils étaient donc tous pro-Allemand au départ, alors que s’est-il passé? C’est quand les Allemands ont commencé à sortir leurs sous-marins … Panique à Londres, le général Haig alertait les  Anglais de la situation: «Nous n’avons plus que deux semaines de réserves alimentaires devant nous pour un pays de 55 000 000 d’habitants»… Et alors l’Allemagne s’amenait avec son traité de paix … Le traité était sur le bureau du British War Cabinet, il n’y avait plus qu’à le signer…. De nouveau, que s’est-il passé? Les Khazars de New York et de Washington, emmenés par Brandeis, ont fait cette offre en passant par la Fleischman & Sockloff de Londres. Ils sont allés au War Cabinet et ils leur ont dit: «Pas besoin de signer une paix de capitulation, il y a un moyen de gagner la guerre, mais il vous faudra, une fois que vous aurez vaincu l’Allemagne et dépecé l’Empire Ottoman, nous donner la Palestine. Et ils ont conclu le marché par écrit, c’était la déclaration de Balfour. … La contrepartie de la Palestine, c’était la promesse d’user de leur influence pour jeter les États-unis dans la guerre. C’est ainsi qu’ils vont remercier les États-unis, de la même manière qu’ils vont remercier l’Allemagne, après tout ce qu’elle avait fait pour eux depuis 1822, en les faisant se battre entre eux, ce qui signifiait évidemment la défaite de l’Allemagne alors qu’elle était en train de gagner et pouvait espérer une paix avantageuse.

Wilson avait pourtant fait sa campagne sur le slogan «nous n’irons pas à la guerre». Mais à peine un peu plus d’un mois après le début de son second mandat, le 12 avril 1917, Wilson lançait un appel vibrant devant le Congrès pour qu’il fasse une déclaration de guerre officielle. Quelques jours plus tard, les deux Chambres votaient la guerre à une écrasante majorité. Ils n’ont été que quelques-uns à dire non, parmi eux, George Norris (R-Neb.), qui dira «nous allons à la guerre sur l’ordre du Dieu d’Or». Et au-dessus du Dieu d’or, il y avait les financiers juifs de Wall Street, et ils en voulaient plus par la guerre.

[la principale réserve qu’on peut adresser à la théorie de la déclaration de Balfour en échange de l’entrée en guerre des USA, c’est qu’elle ne correspond pas tout à fait avec la succession des dates, voir plus bas en annexe, la déclaration date du 2 novembre 1917, or, Pershing arrive à Paris le 13 juin 1917, le 4 juillet, la première brigade américaine débarquée à Saint-Nazaire est passée en revue à Paris par Poincaré. Cela dit, les négociations ont pu avoir lieu et aboutir avant leur officialisation, il est clair que les Anglais avaient à l’époque d’autres chats à fouetter que de s’occuper de la Palestine, l’Entente étant effectivement en difficulté du fait du transfert massif des troupes allemandes et autrichiennes du front Est vers le front Ouest suite à la révolution russe, dans ce contexte, la déclaration tombe un peu comme un cheveu sur la soupe, sauf s’il y a eu le marchandage dont parle Freedman, du reste, ce que nos Américains ne savent pas et qui n’est pas tellement passé dans l’histoire universelle, c’est que la France avait fait le même type de déclaration que Balfour, mais 5 mois plus tôt:

Le 4 juin 1917, Jules Cambon, alors secrétaire général du Quai d’Orsay, signe une lettre adressée à Nahum Sokolow,un dirigeant du mouvement sioniste qui soutenait publiquement l’établissement d’un foyer national juif en Palestine. Cette lettre précède de cinq mois la déclaration devant le Parlement de Lord Arthur Balfour, ministre britannique des Affaires Étrangères, à laquelle la France s’associe le10 février 1918, par l’intermédiaire de son propre ministre des Affaires étrangères, Stephen Pichon et qui est consacrée officiellement par le traité de Sèvres du10 août 1920. Comme quoi, le brouillard de guerre, ce n’est rien à côté du brouillard diplomatique …]

Bernard Baruch, le «Shtadtlan» du Nouveau Monde

Bernard Baruch avait amassé une fortune en jouant à la bourse de New York. En 1916, Wilson le plaçait à la tête de la Commission consultative du Conseil de la défense nationale, puis, au moment de l’entrée en guerre, il passait président du conseil des industries de guerre. Anthony Sutton nous raconte la suite:

En mars 1918, le président Wilson agissant sans l’aval du Congrès, avait doté Baruch de pouvoir comme jamais aucun autre dans l’histoire des États-unis. Le War Industries Board, avec Baruch à sa tête, était chargé de la construction de toutes les usines, de l’approvisionnement de toutes les matières premières, des produits, de leurs transports, et dans le Conseil, c’est Baruch en tant que président qui avait le dernier mot. En résumé, il était devenu le dictateur économique des États-unis …

Il y a une logique dans la trajectoire du bonhomme: il enjoint Wilson à créer la Fed, la Fed peut financer la guerre, il se fait nommer à la tête de l’effort de guerre américain, et il passe à la caisse avec ses petits copains.

Henry Ford notait dans son livre The International Jew (TiJ)

l’ampleur de l’influence juive sur Woodrow Wilson: «Ils l’enserraient dans un solide anneau de fer». Analysant les accès privilégiés à Wilson des journalistes juifs, en particulier de David Lauwrence, le TiJ déclare: «il est arrivé un moment où il ne s’adressait plus au pays qu’à travers eux». Le TiJ donne des exemples de Juifs impliqués dans des affaires de corruption,  attribuant ces affaires au pouvoir discrétionnaire de Bernard Baruch.

Conclusion

De nos sources historiques, nous pouvons conclure que Woodrow Wilson, 28e Président des État-unis de 1913 à 1921, était sous l’emprise de Juifs puissants qui le tenaient par le chantage, les dettes, l’intimidation, la corruption, la flatterie et la subversion idéologique. Wilson avait de gros soucis d’argent, tout particulièrement, comme le montrent ses lettres à Mary Peck, durant son premier mandat. Les Juifs ont su tirer parti de ses faiblesses pour en faire un pion dans leurs jeux de pouvoir et d’argent.

Wilson lui-même avait fini par se rendre compte qu’il était la marionnette et non pas le marionnettiste, voici ce qu’on trouve dans le recueil de ses discours, The New Freedom publié en 1913:

Aux États-Unis, même les plus grands hommes d’affaires sont effrayés par quelque chose, par quelqu’un. Ils savent qu’il existe une puissance occulte qui gît quelque part dans l’ombre, discrète, mais puissamment organisée, elle voit tout, elle sait tout, sa toile s’étend partout, c’est à peine s’ils osent s’en plaindre en chuchotant à demi-mots.

Adaptation française, Francis Goumain

Source

Jewish Control of US Presidents #1: Woodrow Wilson – The Occidental Observer

Annexe

la principale réserve qu’on peut adresser à la théorie de la déclaration de Balfour en échange de l’entrée en guerre des USA, c’est qu’elle ne correspond pas tout à fait avec la succession des dates, la déclaration date du 2 novembre 1917, or, Pershing arrive à Paris le 13 juin 1917, le 4 juillet, la première brigade américaine débarquée à Saint-Nazaire est passée en revue à Paris par Poincaré. Cela dit, les négociations ont pu avoir lieu et aboutir avant leur officialisation, il est clair que les Anglais avaient à l’époque d’autres chats à fouetter que de s’occuper de la Palestine, l’Entente étant effectivement en difficulté du fait du transfert massif des troupes allemandes et autrichiennes du front Est vers le front Ouest suite à la révolution russe, dans ce contexte, la déclaration tombe un peu comme un cheveu sur la soupe, sauf s’il y a eu le marchandage dont parle Freedman.

Voici la chronologie qu’on trouve dans les mémoires de Poincaré:

4 février 1917:

Jules Cambon téléphone à l’Élysée que M. Sevastopoulo a reçu de l’ambassadeur de Russie à Washington avis que le président Wilson a réuni une commission composée de quelques amis et qu’il y a examiné trois points:

1 – négociations entre les États-Unis et l’Allemagne

2 – attente d’un nouveau torpillage avant toute décision

3 – rupture immédiate des relations diplomatiques.

Wilson aurait choisi  ce dernier parti. Des télégrammes de presse disent qu’il aurait envoyé un nouveau message au Sénat et déclaré qu’il allait remettre ses papiers à l’ambassadeur d’Allemagne en faisant appel aux neutres. Si ces nouvelles sont exactes, le concours des  États-Unis va être pour nous  un appoint moral inappréciable.

[FG, dommage, Poincaré ne nous donne pas le nom des «amis» en question, mais d’après l’article ci-dessus, on peut songer à quelques pistes … ]

31 mars 1917, rencontre avec le prince Sixte qui a remis un message de l’Empereur Charles (d’Autriche) à Poincaré et à Cambon (secrétaire général du Quai d’Orsay), il leur laisse aussi une note personnelle faisant allusion au changement de régime à Petrograd:

«Jusqu’au changement de régime qui vient de se produire à Petrograd, l’opinion russe paraissait, en effet, unanime à réclamer la possession de Constantinople comme une condition essentielle  du développement de l’Empire moscovite. Mais les sentiments du gouvernement russe actuel marquent dès maintenant  des divergences à cet égard. Si le ministre des Affaires étrangères M. Milioukov, garde le point de vue précédent, qui était celui d’une annexion de Constantinople à la Russie, son collègue, M. Kerensky, reflète l’opinion nouvelle que la Russie doit renoncer à tout agrandissement: dans ce cas, la Turquie pourrait garder sa capitale dont il suffirait de combiner le régime avec un statut international européen».

5 avril 1917, échange de télégrammes entre Poincaré et Wilson:

La chambre des députés a adopté une résolution analogue à celle du Sénat. Pour protéger les Américains contre les attentats dont ils restent menacés, Wilson a fait armer des torpilleurs qui ont été dirigé vers les eaux américaines. L’un deux vient d’être coulé dans la Manche par un sous-marin allemand.

Ribot prononce à la Chambre sur la détermination américaine  un discours très applaudi.

Je télégraphie, de mon côté, au président Wilson. M. William Martin communique le télégramme que j’ai rédigé à Ribot, qui y donne sa pleine adhésion:

«Au moment, dis-je, où sous la généreuse inspiration de votre Excellence, la grande République américaine, fidèle à son idéal et à ses traditions, s’apprête à défendre par les armes la cause de la justice et de la liberté, le peuple français tressaille d’une émotion fraternelle. Laissez-moi vous renouveler, monsieur le Président, à cette heure grave et solennelle, l’assurance des sentiments dont je vous ai récemment adressé le témoignage et qui trouve dans les circonstances présentes un accroissement de force et d’ardeur. Je suis sûr d’exprimer la pensée de la France tout entière en vous disant, à vous et à la nation américaine, la joie et la fierté que nous éprouvons à sentir nos cœurs battre, une fois encore, à l’unisson avec les vôtres. Cette guerre n’aurait pas eu sa signification totale, si les États-Unis n’avaient pas été amenés par l’ennemi lui-même à y prendre part.

Dorénavant, il apparaît plus que jamais à tout esprit impartial  que l’impérialisme allemand, qui a voulu, préparé et déclaré la guerre, avait conçu le rêve insensé d’établir son hégémonie sur le monde. Il n’a réussi qu’à révolter la conscience de l’humanité. Vous vous êtes fait devant l’univers, en un langage inoubliable, l’éloquent interprète du droit outragé et de la civilisation menacée. Honneur à vous, Monsieur le Président, et à votre noble pays.

Je vous prie de croire à mon amitié dévouée.                                                                                                            Raymond Poincaré»

Réponse de Wilson:

«His Excellence Raymond Poincaré, President of the Republic, Paris.

In this trying hour when the destinies of civilized mankind are in the balance, it has been a source of gratification and joy to me to receive your congratulations upon the step which my country has been constrained to take, in opposition to the relentless policy and course of imperialistic Germany. It is very delightful to us that France who stood shoulder to shoulder with us of the western world in our struggle for independence, should now give us such a welcome into the lists of battle as upholders of the freedom ant the rights of humanity. We stand  as partners of the noble democraties whose aims and acts make for the perpetuation of the rights and freedom of man  and for the saveguarding of the true principales of human liberties in the name of the american people. I salute you and your illustrious countrymen.

Woodrow Wilson»

Le journal officiel  du 11 avril 1917 a donné dans les termes suivants la traduction française de ce télégramme:

«Son Excellence Monsieur Raymond Poincaré, Président de la République, Paris.

En cette heure critique où les destinées de l’humanité civilisée sont en suspens, cela a été pour moi un sujet de satisfaction et de joie de recevoir vos félicitations à propos de la conduite que mon pays a été contraint d’adopter, en opposition  à la politique impitoyable et aux procédés de l’Allemagne impérialiste. Il nous est très agréable que la France, qui s’est tenue coude à coude avec nous autres, hommes du monde occidental, dans notre lutte pour l’indépendance, nous souhaite ainsi la bienvenue aujourd’hui dans les rangs de ceux qui combattent pour la défense de la liberté et des droits de l’humanité. Nous voici debout comme champions des nobles démocraties dont les desseins et les actes contribueront à perpétuer les droits de l’indépendance de l’homme et à sauvegarder les vrais principes des libertés humaines.

Au nom du peuple américain, je vous salue, vous et vos illustres compatriotes.

Woodrow Wilson»

[FG: remarque, à la date du 4 juin, il n’y a rien sur la lettre de Cambon à Nahum Sokolow – l’équivalent de la déclaration de Balfour pour la France –  mais Poincaré n’est jamais très franc dès qu’il s’agit des Israélites]

13 Juin 1917 Pershing arrive à Paris:

Le général américain Pershing est arrivé à Paris à la fin de l’après-midi. Le colonel Renoult, de ma maison militaire, est allé au-devant de lui à la gare. Il me dit que l’accueil a été très chaleureux.

4 juillet 1917, revue d’un premier bataillon américain le jour de la fête nationale américaine:

Dans la matinée, cour des Invalides, revue d’un bataillon américain, qui vient d’arriver à Paris. Painlevé vient me chercher à l’Élysée et nous partons tous deux en victoria. Le général Duparge, le colonel de Rieux et le commandant Helbronner nous suivent en landau. Sur le pont Alexandre III et sur l’esplanade, foule très dense et unanimement enthousiaste.

Nous arrivons devant l’Hôtel des Invalides et nous mettons pied à terre. Nous sommes reçus par le général Pershing et le général Dubail. Nous entrons dans la cour, autour de laquelle sont rangés les soldats américains et une compagnie française.

Sous les arcades et au premier étage, dans les galeries, beaucoup de spectateurs et spectatrices qui applaudissent. Nous passons devant les troupes qui ont très bon air dans leurs uniformes kaki.

Israel, the American left, and the Emerging Multipolar World.

The new Israeli government is by far the most radically right in its history—and that’s saying a lot. As a result, there have been a number of protests against Israel and Zionism both in Israel and on American college campuses recently. These are likely to increase in number and intensity because of the new government which is the result of a long process of demographic change resulting from the high fertility of Orthodox and strongly ethnonationalist Jews. As we are well aware, demography is indeed destiny.

Recently there was a large protest against Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Washington. Since the new government was installed, there has been increased settler and IDF violence, and “Smotrich called for the Palestinian village of Huwwara to be ‘wiped out.’ His remarks have received widespread condemnation. The U.S. State Department called them “disgusting,” but approved Smotrich’s visa.”

This is a typical U.S response to Israel—big on words but no action. Smotrich also told an audience in Paris that “there’s no such thing as “Palestinian people”—again the U.S. complained but again, nothing will change. Smotrich outlined his belief that Israel has exclusive Jewish, God-ordained rights to the land, and the lectern was adorned with a map of Israel that included the occupied Palestinian territory and the country of Jordan as part of Israeli territory.” And after Jordan, all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates as promised in Genesis. After the speech, Jordan says it is reviewing its relationship to Israel

This is having repercussions in the U.S., at least among liberals. What Israel is doing is the direct opposite of the Wokeness promoted by the left in the U.S.:

For the first time in Gallup’s polling, going back to 2000, Democrats said they sympathized with Palestinians more than with Israelis in the long-standing conflict between the two: 49% of Democrats said they sympathized more with Palestinians, 38% with Israelis and 13% said they favored neither side.

Overall, a majority of Americans, 54%-31%, sympathize more with the Israelis, the poll found, but the gap between the two in U.S. opinion has narrowed significantly. Much of the shift in U.S. opinion has come from millennials, whose sympathy for the Israelis has dropped sharply over the last decade.

The old guard in the Israel Lobby and the big money are still on the side of whatever Israel does. But over time, the skepticism many younger Americans have about the use of U.S. power overseas will likely change American policy as Israel becomes an increasing embarrassment to the woke West.

A particular focus of the protests is the attempt to have the Knesset, which is decidedly on the right, be able to override Supreme Court decisions which have “repeatedly defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel, including Arab Israelis, LGBTQ people, non-Orthodox Jews and women.” So progressive American Jews in the U.S. are furious:

The Progressive Israel Network, a coalition that includes J Street, Americans For Peace Now, T’ruah, and the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, organized a demonstration outside [Smotrich’s] hotel that also targeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul. “This is a moral emergency,” said National Council of Jewish Women CEO Sheila Katz during a speech at the event. “We must name this deep pain that so many of us feel for what’s happening in Israel right now, a place that we love.”

Various Reform rabbis are calling it an existential crisis for American Jews (the word ‘existential’ will appear quite a bit in this article), and Israel’s president has warned “He who thinks that a real civil war, one that costs lives, is a line we won’t reach, is out of touch. In this moment, of all moments, in the 75th year of the state of Israel, the abyss is within reach.” Moreover, the protests are

taking place without a constitution. This means, for instance, that the government can decide to hold elections once every ten years instead of the standard four-year limit still in effect, and no one can override it; or it could pass laws granting the government total control over the media, or it could put LGBTQ people in jail. But the true crisis will emerge when the Israeli High Court of Justice repeals the judicial reforms and regards them as illegal — that is when the state will enter a constitutional crisis without a solution. Who will the Israeli security apparatus obey: the government or the judiciary?

Ironically, Biden called Netanyahu urging some kind of compromise, even though many in his own party want to pack SCOTUS to achieve permanent dominance of the left in the U.S.

While all this is going on, the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China is another huge concern for Israel and its supporters because it portends an ever-wider coalition arrayed against the West—China and Russia (which are already allied), Iran (allied with Russia), Syria (the Saudis had been supporting the rebels, while Iran and Russia have been supporting Assad), other Arab countries (Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are reviewing the relations with Israel, undoing Jared Kushner’s work in the Trump administration), and quite possibly India—Prime Minister Modi recently spoke of India’s “unbreakable friendship” with Putin and pushed to avoid any joint communique because of disagreement about the war in the recent G7 meetings.

What this confrontation is really about is the globalist, woke West still tolerant of Israel versus nations that reject the Western model of exporting wokeness in defense of their own traditions and culture. Putin’s recent speech emphasizes this:

Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. Bless their hearts, let them do as they please. Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Adult people can do as they please. We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either. …

The Western imposition of wokeness is already happening in Ukraine. Christopher Caldwell of the usually neocon friendly Claremont Institute and author of The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020), notes that

Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests [of 2014]. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of [pro-Western] political correctness.

Opponents were driven out of public life. All of these countries have traditional cultures that are out of step with the West’s wokeness. Caldwell calls attention to Western NGOs pushing wokeness, such as George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Hungary requires that NGOs that get donations from abroad be publicly labeled as foreign funded, and Russia has banned several foreign NGOs linked to politics, including the Open Society Institute and Amnesty International. Because of the saliency of Soros as a funder of woke causes (including liberal-radical prosecutors, such as Alvin Bragg who indicted Trump) and the fact that he is well known to be Jewish, the activist Jewish community has attempted to ban any mention of Soros as funding the left.  When Trump highlighted Soros’s support for Bragg, the JTA wrote that he had “once again invoke[d] the name of a Jewish billionaire who is at the center of antisemitic conspiracy theories.”

Putin emphasizes U.S. warmongering since 9/11 and its support for imposing neoliberal totalitarian values on the rest of the world.

According to US experts, almost 900,000 people were killed during wars unleashed by the United States after 2001, and over 38 million became refugees. Please note, we did not invent these statistics; it is the Americans who are providing them. They are now simply trying to erase all this from the memory of humankind, and they are pretending that all this never happened. However, no one in the world has forgotten this or will ever forget it.

None of them cares about human casualties and tragedies because many trillions of dollars are at stake, of course. They can also continue to rob everyone under the guise of democracy and freedoms, to impose neoliberal and essentially totalitarian values, to brand entire countries and nations, to publicly insult their leaders, to suppress dissent in their own countries and to divert attention from corruption scandals by creating an enemy image. We continue to see all this on television, which highlights greater domestic economic, social and inter-ethnic problems, contradictions and disagreements. …

Russia is an open country and at the same time, a distinct civilisation. There is no claim to exclusivity or superiority in this statement, but this civilisation of ours — that’s what matters. Our ancestors passed it to us and we must preserve it for our descendants and pass it on to them….

This message of preserving traditional cultures is obviously at odds with the woke values that the West is attempting to impose on the rest of the world. It’s a message that undoubtedly resonates with many societies with unwoke cultures that would like to preserve and may well be one of the main reasons we are seeing the new alignment mentioned above.

Putin continues:

Step by step, they proceeded to revise the existing international order, to dismantle security and arms control systems, and plotted and carried out a series of wars around the world. To reiterate, all of that was done for the sole purpose of dismantling the post-WWII architecture of international relations. This is not a figure of speech. This is how it all unfolded in reality. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they sought to perpetuate their global dominance regardless of the interests of modern Russia or other countries for that matter.

The Western elite make no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, “Russia’s strategic defeat.” What does this mean to us? This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country.

An existential threat. I take him at his word, and that means that the feel they cannot lose this war, which could lead to a nuclear Armageddon because the West apparently also sees it as existential given their full-on, ever-escalating support of Ukraine. What our elites really hate is Putin’s claim that “There is no claim to exclusivity or superiority in this statement, but this civilisation of ours — that’s what matters. Our ancestors passed it to us and we must preserve it for our descendants and pass it on to them.” This is an anti-globalist manifesto. Combined with Russia’s attitudes on LGBTQ+, it’s easy to see why Western elites are furious.

Recently Putin complained that NATO is proposing to expand to countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, further exacerbating Russian paranoia.

Putin’s claim that the West has sought to perpetuate its dominance resulting from the fall of the Soviet Union is quite correct. In the 1990s Jewish neoconservatives saw a unipolar world as in the interests of Israel, surrounded by hostile countries in the Middle East. From a paper I wrote in 2004, “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement”:

With the end of the Cold War, neoconservatives at first advocated a reduced role for the U.S., but this stance switched gradually to the view that U.S. interests required the vigorous promotion of democracy in the rest of the world. This aggressively pro-democracy theme, which appears first in the writings of Charles Krauthammer and then those of Elliot Abrams, eventually became an incessant drumbeat in the campaign for the war in Iraq. Krauthammer also broached the now familiar themes of unilateral intervention and he emphasized the danger that smaller states could develop weapons of mass destruction which could be used to threaten world security. A cynic would argue that this newfound interest in democracy was tailor-made as a program for advancing the interests of Israel. After all, [despite the reality of Israel as an apartheid state], Israel is advertised as the only democracy in the Middle East, and democracy has a certain emotional appeal for the United States, which has at times engaged in an idealistic foreign policy aimed at furthering the cause of human rights in other countries. …

Krauthammer was on the cutting edge of neocon thinking on how to respond to the unipolar world created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Krauthammer has consistently urged that the U.S. pursue a policy to remake the entire Arab world—a view that represents the “party line” among neoconservatives (e.g., Michael Ledeen, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Richard Perle). In a speech at the AEI in February 2004, Krauthammer argued for a unilateral confrontation with the entire Arab-Muslim world (and nowhere else) in the interests of “democratic globalism.” He advocated a U.S. foreign policy that is not “tied down” by “multilateralism”: “the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to, dependent on, constricted by the will—and interests—of other nations. To tie down Gulliver with a thousand strings. To domesticate the most undomesticated, most outsized, national interest on the planet—ours.”

Krauthammer’s claim that this is in “our” interests is clearly an attempt—common among neoconservatives—to present themselves as American patriots, but his declaring war on the Islamic world is clearly far more in the interests of Israel than it is in the interests of the United States. Continuing from my 2004 paper:

Democratic globalism is aimed at winning the struggle with the Arab-Islamic world [quoting Krauthammer]:

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries…. Today, post-9/11, we find ourselves in an … existential struggle but with a different enemy: not Soviet communism, but Arab-Islamic totalitarianism, both secular and religious.

“Existential.” Meanwhile, neoconservatives with their post-racial framing of the West welcome Third World immigration throughout the West from Muslim countries. Again, it’s hard to see how this is in “our” interests.,

This post-racial neocon interest in “promoting democracy continues today, except that once again, as in Soviet days when a formative influence on the neocon movement was that Jews were gradually being pushed out of the Soviet elite. But now the target is Russia. It’s interesting that Max Boot, formerly a self-described neocon, has recanted, tweeting: “I was wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of exporting democracy by force, underestimating both the difficulties and the costs of such a massive undertaking.” But he’s all in on the Ukraine war which has also been advertised as a war for democracy. In fact, he’s become a liberal interventionist typical of MSNBC and CNN and fits right in with The Washington Post, where he puts out op-eds quite compatible with their far-left views. The neocons (or whatever they call themselves now that the term has come into disrepute because of previous disasters like the Iraq war) attempt to dominate both sides of U.S. foreign policy, as the Israel Lobby has always done. They are now well ensconced in the Biden Administration, the notorious Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (main operative in the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government), Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—all Jewish and all involved in masterminding the war in Ukraine.

The neocon interest in destroying the Arab-Muslim world intersects with their interest in destroying Russia via victory in the Ukraine war. As noted, Russia has supported both Iran and Syria, both of which, especially Iran, are seen as enemies of Israel. It’s thus no surprise that today’s neocons (including veteran neocon Bill Kristol) went ballistic when Ron DeSantis (along with the much-hated Donald Trump—who can forget neocon “Never Trump” hysteria in the 2016 election campaign when comparisons to Hitler abounded) stated that the dispute between Russia and Ukraine is a simple territorial dispute and not relevant to U.S. national interests. In the mainstream media, Tucker Carlson has also championed such views.

Chiming in with Kristol were other prominent Jewish neocons (Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg) and their gentile allies (Rick Wilson, David French, Adam Kinzinger, etc.). This list includes “ex-neocon” Max Boot who retweeted one of Bill Kristol’s meltdown tweets against DeSantis.

The Saudi-Iran deal is important because for decades Israel has been attempting to make peace with the Arab world while continuing to oppress the Palestinians. The agreement also signals that the Arab world is pulling away from the U.S. and the West, likely reasoning, like Russia and probably China, that aligning with the West intent exporting wokeness is definitely not in their interest. The U.S. is once again complaining about Israeli behavior, as they have done since the 1967 war, but this will have no effect on the fanatics now running Israel and the powerful Israel Lobby will continue to dominate US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history, as recounted in Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his 200 Years Together, and even under Bolshevism. Then there was Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs like Michael Khordorkovsky who dominated the Russian economy and media after the fall of the Soviet Union,  Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism as “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West. Recently White House spokesman John Kirby said that supporting LGBTQ+ is a “core part of our foreign policy,” presumably including funding drag queen shows in Ecuador.

It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West.

Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky is paradigmatic. This transformation is clearly top-down exactly like those that have occurred in all Western countries beginning with the elite media and academic culture. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.

In summary, there is quite a bit of evidence that U.S. hegemony has become intolerable for much of the world and this hostility is rapidly creating a multipolar world centered around the China, Russia, Iran and the Arab countries, and perhaps the emerging economic powers of India and Brazil at a time of U.S. decline. The BRICS coalition

has become the hottest ticket in geopolitics. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the BRICS) have been toying with the idea of forming a political/monetary counterweight to U.S. dominance since 2001. But beyond some aggressive gold buying by Russia and China, there was more talk than action.

Then the floodgates opened. Whether due to the pandemic’s supply chain disruptions, heavy-handed sanctions imposed by US-led NATO during the Russia-Ukraine war, or just the fact that de-dollarization was an idea whose time had finally come, the BRICS alliance has suddenly become the hottest ticket in town. [Brazil and China have agreed to trade in their own currencies, and Russia is using the yuan to trade with Africa, Latin America, and Asia.] In just the past year, Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt have either applied to join or expressed an interest in doing so. And new bilateral trade deals that bypass the dollar are being discussed all over the place.

Combine the land mass, population, and natural resources of the BRICS countries with those of the potential new members and the result is more or less half the world. …

  • If the BRICS have the commodities and the US and its allies are left with finance, pricing power for crucial things like oil and gold will shift to Russia, China, and the Middle East.

  • Falling demand for dollar-denominated bonds as reserve assets will send trillions of dollars now outside the US back home, raising domestic prices (which is to say lowering the dollar’s purchasing power and exchange rate).

  • The loss of its weaponized reserve currency will lessen the US’ ability to impose its will on the rest of the world (witness China as Middle-East peacemaker and India buying Russian oil with rupees).

None of these countries has any particular love for Israel.

What does this mean for White interests?

First, anything that weakens or discredits the U.S. establishment is good for us given that the system is completely broken and can’t be reformed at the ballot box. Granted the neoconservative disaster in Iraq did not result in them losing power, but this time, if U.S. hegemony is seriously weakened, it could be very different. The U.S. has benefited greatly from having the world’s reserve currency, for example by lowering borrowing costs and being able to impose economic sanctions on countries it doesn’t like. Quite clearly, this nascent alliance is motivated to end dollar supremacy, especially given the sanctions imposed on Russia and Iran, both of which have already been trading Russian oil in rubles. Such a transition would bring economic repercussions to the US addicted as it is to massive deficit spending that has allowed it to fund our foreign wars while funding the huge entitlement programs that keep millions of Americans reasonably content. But this transformation would affect all Americans negatively. Ideally, a sane America that was not spending trillions to export wokeness and impose it here could right the ship. But I can’t see that happening.

And since Israel is linked to the West, it would also hurt Israel, as it will remain an outsider in this rising alliance. The Israel Lobby remains in the driver’s seat because of its financial clout, but surely at some point, wiser heads will see that neoconservative foreign policy centered around wokeness and the interests of Israel is an ongoing disaster. Nevertheless, the U.S. political system runs on money, and there is no evidence that Jewish financial clout—~75% of Democrat money and ~ 50% of Republican money—is diminishing.

Luscious Lesbians with Female Phalluses: More on Transgenderism, Trans-Westernism and Jewish Subversion

“Preach equality, practice hierarchy.” That’s the hidden core commandment of leftism. It’s mendacious and malevolent, but so what? Like a clown offering to shake with one hand while concealing a cream-pie behind his back in the other, the left have defeated the right with it again and again, decade after decade. “We believe in equality!” say the left. “So do we!” say the right, extending their hands with bipartisan goodwill. And splat! The cream-pie of leftist hierarchy goes straight in the face of the right and the left roar with laughter, knowing that the right have fallen for the same stupid trick today as they did yesterday and will tomorrow.

WHAMs with Wings

Take the lie of racial and sexual equality. Leftists preach it and get the right to take it seriously, but they don’t practice it, because leftist governments privilege Blacks over Whites, women over men, and gays over straights. Leftists claim to believe, for example, that Whites and Blacks are equal in all ways: “There’s only one race — the human race.” But if Blacks are capable of the same high achievements as Whites, it automatically follows that Blacks are capable of the same low misdeeds attributed to Whites by the left. But leftists don’t accept that Blacks are imperfect like that. Instead, they believe that, because all races are the same under the skin, the innate evil and envy of Whites must be crushing the innate saintliness and cerebrality of Blacks. Otherwise Blacks would be perfecting cold fusion and proving the Riemann hypothesis. This leftist reasoning doesn’t make sense, of course, but so what? Logic is racist and all that matters to the leftist elite is power, which means, inter alia, the power to privilege the virtuous and punish the villainous. Preaching the lie of equality has been an excellent way for the left to win power and practice hierarchy.

Luscious Lesbians with female phalluses: some bearded and balding male perverts invade female territory on a lesbian dating-site

White heterosexual able-bodied men (WHAMs) are right at the bottom of that leftist hierarchy. Or most of them are, anyway. So perhaps it’s typical White male ingenuity that has enabled some WHAMs to hack the hierarchy and soar from the bottom of it to the top. These WHAMs with wings claim to be members of a persecuted and misunderstood minority whose welfare and concerns must be the first priority of leftism. They might look like men, but they’re not: they’re transgender women or transwomen, male on the outside, female on the inside. And transwomen, in orthodox leftism, must be accepted and treated as full and authentic women, even if they’ve retained their apparently male genitalia. That’s why the 21st century enjoys the hugely comic sight of ugly straight men with beards and male-pattern baldness on lesbian dating-sites. These White male perverts would normally be right at the bottom of the leftist hierarchy, but the magic of transgenderism has allowed them to soar to the top. They use female names, demand to be referenced with female pronouns, and are ready to denounce as “transphobic” any genuine lesbian who objects to their fully functioning female phalluses and refuses to have sex with them.

Bow before the female penis

But would these translesbians be happy to have sex with one another and use their female phalluses in tandem? Of course not. They’re straight men with the fetish of autogynephilia, that is, they’re aroused by the thought of themselves as women. That’s why they and their supporters promote such risible concepts as the “female penis.” I’ve argued elsewhere that this is a blasphemous parody of the Christian concept of transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at Eucharist whilst remaining indistinguishable from bread and wine by all sensory and scientific tests. Similarly, the penis on a transwoman is female according to leftists, although it remains indistinguishable from a male penis by all sensory and scientific tests. And so, when a tranny threatens to rape a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) with her “girl-dick,” this isn’t misogyny or an intimidating invocation of male violence. Not at all. It’s a light-hearted satirical rebuke of a bigoted woman who refuses to embrace transwomen as her oppressed and suffering sisters.

Pedo-promoting Professor Gayle Rubin, a Jewish giant in the cult of transgenderism

Trans-Western transwomen: the ugly Jewish perverts Jessica Yaniv and Eliana Rubin

That’s the magic of transgenderism. But is its parody of transubstantiation accidental or deliberate? It may be the latter, because in fact we don’t owe the lunacies and lies of transgenderism to the ingenuity of WHAMs, but to the malevolent subversion of Christophobic Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler. These Jewish charlatans argue that the binary sexual categories of male and female are a social construct, erected (as it were) to buttress and benefit the cruel and uncaring institutions of patriarchy and male supremacism. If you’re a kind and caring leftist, however, you must believe in compassionate gender-affirming care like cutting the breasts off teenage girls and sautéing the bodies of children in powerful puberty-blocking drugs that may render them sterile or psychologically handicapped for life.

“Borders are bad for you, goyim!” — the ethnocentric Jews Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill

After all, what kind of monster could object to such procedures and such drugs? As the smiling Jewish plastic surgeon Katherine Gast has said: “It’s a happy day for everybody” when she performs a double mastectomy on a teenage shiksa. Well, I think the monsters are those who support the mastectomies, not those who oppose them. I also think it’s no coincidence that Jews have been behind transgenderism just as they’ve been behind what I call trans-Westernism. Transgenderism is the lying claim that female identity is fully open to men; trans-Westernism is the lying claim that Western identity is fully open to non-Whites. When Laura Rosen Cohen, Mark Steyn’s “resident Jewish mother,” mocked “the schmaltzy poem on the statue [of Liberty]” for facilitating Muslim migration — “give us your poor, your expert headchoppers, etc.” — she failed to mention who wrote the poem and whose ethnic agenda it is intended to serve. Her failure was perfectly understandable, because the schmaltzy poem on the Statue of Liberty was written by the ethnocentric Jewish poetess Emma Lazarus (1849–87). Lazarus joined the ethnocentric Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill (1864–1926) in the highly successful Jewish campaign to falsely portray America as a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors.

Noble non-Whites vanquish villainy: Black actors invade White territory and seize White roles

Like transgenderism, trans-Westernism seems to promote equality but actually enacts hierarchy. In leftist eyes, groups that are lower in the leftist hierarchy have no right to maintain borders against groups that are higher. Ordinary women are lower in the hierarchy than transwomen, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of those ordinary women to protest when a transwoman with a penis triumphs over them in sport or enters “female-only spaces” like toilets and dressing-rooms. Similarly, Whites are lower in the hierarchy than non-Whites, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of Whites to protest when non-Whites enter Western nations and enjoy the unearned benefits of full citizenship. But the same hierarchy dictates that Whites cannot enter non-White territory. White actors are now forbidden to play non-White roles, while non-White actors can take on any White role they please. And so, just as the 21st century witnesses the ludicrous sight of bearded and balding transgender “lesbians,” so it witnesses the ludicrous sight of non-Whites playing White characters from literature and history. From Achilles to David Copperfield, from Guinevere to Anne Boleyn — the prestige and greatness of White characters is being seized by non-Whites.

“An entirely unbidden wave of pride”

This is part of the Judeo-leftist war on the West. Whites have to submit to cultural as well as physical colonization, because they’re villains who are lower in the leftist hierarchy than virtuous non-Whites. So-called conservatives, who conserve nothing and concede everything, often welcome this kind of “color-blind casting.” Even when they object to it as inauthentic and anti-historical, they fail to understand that it is part of a wider phenomenon. It is indeed ludicrous when a Black actress plays the White role of Anne Boleyn, but no more ludicrous than when a Black like Barack Obama plays the White role of American president or an Indian like Rishi Sunak plays the White role of British prime minister. I’ve sometimes praised the half-Jewish writer Peter Hitchens for repenting his youthful Trotskyism and refusing to follow his gasbag brother Christopher into neo-conservatism. But Peter Hitchens isn’t a true conservative and doesn’t truly understand the malignancy of the left. If he did understand it, he would never have written this self-indulgent (and self-pleasuring) celebration of the latest shabbos-goy to rise to the top of British politics:

I have no time for Rishi Sunak’s politics and I think he wrecked the economy while he was Chancellor. But even so I felt an entirely unbidden wave of pride when I saw him performing at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday. It is quite marvellous, and a disproof of all the lies the Left tell us about this country, that a British man of Indian heritage should be Prime Minister of this country. (Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday, 13th November 2022)

Rishi Sunak performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel

In pornography, White cuckolds experience perverted pleasure when they see Black men possessing their White wives; in politics, White cuckservatives experience perverted pleasure when they see non-Whites ruling Western institutions. Hitchens is clearly a cuckservative. It is not “marvellous” that Rishi Sunak has become prime minister: it is disastrous. If Sunak claimed to be female, Hitchens would quite rightly reject the claim as leftist nonsense. But because Sunak claims to be British rather than female, Hitchens stupidly and self-indulgently accepts it, failing to see that the two claims are equally baseless, equally leftist, and equally corrosive of sanity and morality. Rishi Sunak is no more British than balding men on lesbian-dating sites are female. Instead, Sunak is trans-British, with no roots in or loyalty to the four White nations that constitute Britain. He’s proved his rootlessness and disloyalty to Britain by possessing American citizenship at the same time. That is, Sunak is also trans-American and may well one day take up permanent residence in California with his trans-Western wife and trans-Western children.

The dam of lies is leaking and weakening

Peter Hitchens used a smarmy leftist phrase when he said Sunak is “of Indian heritage.” But Hitchens was right all the same. Sunak has a “heritage” of racially distinct genes selected in the distinct environment of India, not of Britain. If leftism and race-blind cuckservatism were correct, it wouldn’t have mattered in the slightest if all White babies after 1900 had been miraculously replaced by brown Indian babies or Black Somali babies. But leftism and race-blind cuckservatism are wrong and it would have mattered hugely. Although the non-White babies would have been raised by White parents, nurture would not have trumped nature. If the Western world had become racially Indian or Somali at such speed, it would have collapsed very quickly. Today the Western world is collapsing less quickly, but only because the racial replacement of Whites isn’t happening all at once and everywhere.

Britain’s first trans-Western prime minister: the ugly and ethnocentric Jew Benjamin Disraeli

But now racial replacement is quickening and so is collapse. Trans-Western Barack Obama as American president was one potent portent of doom; trans-Western Rishi Sunak as British prime minister is another. But Sunak hasn’t been the first trans-British prime minister. That honor went to someone in the nineteenth century: a Jew called Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), who served as prime minister twice from 1868. He had British citizenship and dominated British politics, but he wasn’t British. Instead, as Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, he was an ethnocentric Jew steeped in Jewish supremacism and in self-serving Jewish claims about millennia of unjustified gentile malice towards innocent Jews. Disraeli’s rise to the top of British politics had been predicted by a far-sighted anti-Semite decades before:

Sir Robert Harry Inglis was an English Conservative politician, noted for his staunch High church views. He was strongly opposed to measures that, in his view, weakened the Anglican Church. When Robert Grant, MP for Inverness, petitioned for Jewish relief in 1830, Inglis, who believed that British Jews had funded the philosemitic Napoleon during his war with Britain, was violently opposed. He alleged that the Jews were an alien people, with no allegiance to England, and that to admit Jews to parliament would “separate Christianity itself from the State. … Not content with admission to the profession of the law, to corporate offices, &c., the Jews appeared, by their Petition, to demand admission to the highest executive situations in the State. It was not enough to say their number was small; it was well known that a small number of men, acting in concert, might exercise considerable influence, beneficial or otherwise, over the State.” He also alleged that if they were admitted to parliament “within seven years … Parliamentary Reform would be carried”. Inglis was joined in his public opposition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Henry Goulburn, and the Solicitor General and future Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden. Although the Jews were not emancipated fully until 1858, Parliamentary Reform occurred in 1832, only two years later. (Adapted from Infogalactic and quoting Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXII, February 22nd, 1830)

Sir Robert Inglis was perfectly correct: a small number of Jews, acting in concert across national borders, have indeed exercised considerable influence over the West. And that influence had been “otherwise”: not beneficial but harmful. By admitting Jews to full citizenship, the White West welcomed in its worst and most vicious enemies. And just as Jews have been behind transgenderism, the false and pernicious claim that men can become full and authentic women, so Jews have been behind trans-Westernism, the false and pernicious claim that non-Whites can become full and authentic Westerners. The difference between the two trans-ideologies is that transgenderism is far less harmful: there are too few male perverts to swamp female territory and wipe out female identity.

But there are enough non-Whites to swamp Western territory many times over and wipe out Western identity forever. Even today, however, millions of Whites who reject the lunacies and lies of transgenderism are failing to reject the lunacies and lies of trans-Westernism. They fail to even see the parallels between perverted men claiming to be women and hostile non-Whites claiming to be Western. But this blindness will lift. When transgenderism is discredited and defeated, trans-Westernism will soon be discredited and defeated too. After the so-called Enlightenment, the left built a dam of lies to hold back reality. Today the dam is leaking and weakening. The weaker it gets, the more it leaks. Collapse isn’t far off. Leftism and its lies will not survive the catastrophic but cleansing flood that follows.

Home Sweet Home? The Southern Quest for Identity

Book Review of The Honorable Cause: A Free South (2023)
Padraig Martin, editor

From a faraway European perspective, it may sound odd to reminisce about the tragic history of the post-bellum South. College books in the US and EU still portray the South in an anecdotal, quasi–Wild West manner, the North being depicted as the eternal beacon of humanity and progress and the South as a territory of always lurking ugly White racists. The process of demonization of the South is well described by one of the contributors to the book, Jude Ruffin, who notes how the Empire subjected the South “to every form of degradation, from the mocking of our speech to the lampooning of our national character.”

The Honorable Cause: A Free South, is a collection of essays written by people active in the cause of Southern nationalism. It is valuable not only because of its throwing additional light on the rich Southern cultural heritage, but also because the contributing authors provide the blueprint for a better understanding of today’s racially polarized America in decline. These essays also serve well for a better understanding of the meaning of White identities, both in Europe and the U.S. An average Irishman, a Catalan or a Breton, who has never set foot in the US, let alone having any idea about the history of Southern culture, will better grasp the message of the present essays than an American resident scholar residing on the East or West Coast.

The book consists of twelve essays by contemporary Southern authors, each of them taking his own stand on the Southern heritage with the underlying message: the South is not the lost cause. It can live and it can survive despite the onslaught of liberal political debauchery and the leftist cancel culture.

When reading the book, what comes to mind is the manifesto, I’ll take my stand written by several Southern academics almost a hundred years ago in which they describe the efforts of the plutocratic North to despoil and brainwash the South. Does that sound familiar today? A hundred years later, the process of brainwashing the so-called “reconstructed South” was applied again by Northern world-improvers and their Soviet partners in Germany and Europe, in what was euphemistically called “reeducation.”

For this reason alone, this book represents a timely sequel to the prose of early Southern Agrarians. It should be read twice, not just by aspiring White nationalists in America, but also by the larger academic community in Europe and America. The beauty of each of those twelve essays, albeit also their difficulty, is that each essay could easily expand into a separate book.  What transpires from this book, however, is that the Southern cause stands not just for a specific geographic location or a limited time span of history. Being a Southern Nationalist today, however awkward this expression sounds, means first and foremost having a different mindset and being proud of a unique brand of Western civilization. Metaphorically speaking, one can be a good Southerner even if not born in the South. To a large extent, citizens of European ancestry, wherever on earth they now reside, are subject to a predicament similar to that faced by Southern Nationalists. We all face similar fake news, we are all subjected to a similar Great Racial Replacement project, and we are all undergoing a similar process of extinction at the hand of the Global Liberal Reconstructor. Fortunately, the number of Southerners with a strong sense of their identity as White Southerners and with a sense of their interests as White Southerners is growing.

America’s South, or what remains of it, appears in many aspects more European than Europe itself, a continent which has turned by now into its own cadaverous parody. In fact, many Southerners, even simple country folks from the Ozarks still display a sense of civic duty and decency, sincere compassion, unfaked smiles, and politeness that are long gone in Europe. The South still has its distinct taste and flavor, not just in its culinary achievements, but also in a way of communication, well noted in Dixie O’Hara’s essay, “Aprons of Resistance: The Role of Women in Southern Dissidence.” Home-grown black-eyed peas or roasted chicken are far more appetizing in a small restaurant in Alabama than at some generic Denny’s along US 101.

But the South is more than just Cajun cuisine or Dolly Parton’s songs.  Although now isolated and vilified, Southern Nationalists represent a peculiar breed of people that cannot be found anywhere else in the Western hemisphere. The word “honor” for instance and its verbal derivatives, used and abused by many in Europe and the U.S., retains for them its original old Latin honestas significance. It denotes constant self-inspection and an inborn character endowment that can neither be sold nor bought.  In her contribution, “Reconsidering Our Nation,” Anne Wilson Smith also adds an important insight on Southern character, namely “skepticism towards (all) authority.” Put more descriptively, many Southerners abide by unwritten rules that the interests of community, kinship bondage, as well as a sense of sacrifice for the common good that precedes the individual’s sense of self-interest.

Yes, the South had given birth to distinct people, and as James Edwards notes in his introductory essay, “There’s No Place Like Home,” “great men are never made except through great trials,” a feature that can less and less be detected in Europe today, even among many self-proclaimed White nationalists. In his contribution, Father O’Dabney seconds Edwards with his simple yet profound words that “greatness is born in humility.”

The Other and the Same

Many educated Europeans, especially modern high-culture White nationalists have rightfully and for decades been very critical of America’s mercantile mindset, fleeting human relationship, hyper-individualism and excessive Judeophile messianism in American foreign politics. This is not the case with Southern Nationalists. The American global Empire and Americanism (whatever the words ‘Americanism’ and ‘America mean in a so-called nation that has by now almost half of non-White non-European citizens) can find their sharpest critics precisely among Southerners,  as  exemplified by a well-researched Rick Dirtwater’s piece, “Americanism: Death of the South.”

Many critics of the South, especially in Europe, are mistaken when they assume that the whole of the South is run by contingents of Bible-thumping Christian Zionists. Unfortunately, lots of foreign outsiders have never made acquaintance with the Deep South. The irony of history is that early Southerners were far more successful in preserving many ancient European traits in their culture, such as chivalry and self-sacrifice than Europeans did. It is often overlooked, even by many conservatives and rightwing literati in France and Germany that the antebellum and postbellum South was at some point in its history the only speck  in the Western hemisphere that was not plagued by the ideas of the 1792 French Jacobins and their egalitarian delirium. Nor was it infected by the European 1848 Liberal Revolution  and its secular religion of  economic progress. Moreover, the South was fully spared from the 1917 Bolshevik nightmare and its subhuman creature homo sovieticus. This has now changed for the worse, as noted by Michael Hill’s succinct comment: “Liberal Democracy has become the civic religion of America and the West.”

Indeed, what communist utopia could not accomplish in East Europe, Liberalism is now carrying out in a far more sophisticated manner, fully enforcing its destructive transgender and paleo-communist ukases in the “reconstructed” South. The D.C. Deep State doxing and demonizing of Southern thinkers and academics, as the contributor Harmonica (pseudonym) notes in her “Adversaries of the South: The Left’s Failed Elites,” makes the entire American-imposed educational system in the South look like a carbon copy of the former Soviet People’s Commissariat for Communications. In her contribution, Rebecca Dillingham illustrates this Sovietization process of the System brainwashing, noting that America

is an amorphous blob composed of polyglot territories cobbled together by secular fictions, utopian fantasies, consumerism, covetousness, degeneracy, and hubris.

Frankly, I’ve never seen a more succinct, absolutely accurate description of contemporary America.

Southern nationalism can also stand as a shorthand for White nationalism worldwide. Can they be used synonymously? Yes and no. Let us face it. White nationalists have for centuries shown that they are their own worst enemies. Neil Kumar, who is himself of mixed racial origin, raises a haunting yet critically important question regarding the future of Southern (and) White identity. He states a very unpleasant truth for many Whites world-wide. “Far from joining hands as racial kinsmen, the kingdoms and then the nation-states of Europe have engaged in perpetual warfare against each other.”

After all, the war between Southern Confederates and the Northern Unionists was a war of people sharing the same gene pool. The list of inter-White wars, from mythical Troy to the Thirty Years War, from the Spanish Civil War to World War II and the recent Balkans wars, shows time and again that Whites enjoy killing each other on a grand scale. Witness the ongoing war between two closely related European peoples in eastern Ukraine (here).

The book raises more questions that it can possibly provide quick answers to. The co-editor of the book, Padraig Martin, offers some interesting  formulas as to how to proceed with Southern revival and building White identity. One must agree with him that we must first and foremost abide by the law of the land “and minimize communications that are “anti-others.”  This “anti-others” attitude is a typical feature of many White nationalists who build their national awareness solely on the hatred and exclusion of the Other, such as English vs Irish, Serbs vs. Croats, Flemings vs. Walloons, North vs South in the U.S. It’s a long list.  Such a form of “negative legitimacy” in the quest of identity has been over centuries self-destructive for all White peoples, serving only the interests of hostile global elites.

The book is a must read for every student dealing with the issue of identity in postmodernity. Does one become a Southerner by decree, by birth, or by his free will? Must one become in the future a levitating airborne and rootless White nationalist without his soil beneath his feet, like many Jews who have carried for centuries their identity in a suitcase? What happens when a mischling, i.e., a person of mixed race, a “half-breed,” for instance of combined Kurdish and German ancestry decides to look for his new identity in his new Middle Eastern or German homeland?  One must agree with modern sociobiologists’ claim that cultures can be learned and unlearned, homelands can be exchanged and swapped, mother tongues can also be fully forgotten and replaced by some weird global Sovietspeak or the virtue-signaling Liberal Volapuk.  One can also change citizenship and obtain half a dozen different passports. But the iron laws of heredity can’t be learned or changed. Man’s genes are given; they are transmitted through the bloodline stretching through countless generations. They are the inborn material of every man and every Southerner regardless whether he lives in Atlanta or in New York, or decides to relocate to somewhere in Europe. The future identities of Southerners and for all Whites worldwide will be based on their inborn racial identity, hopefully moving beyond parochial turf wars with a first-door White neighbor. With present storms of huge racial replacement, Southerners, along with White nationalists, must consider where in the South, or where else on earth they will establish their own sweet home.

Southern Nationalism and White Nationalism

Is Southern Nationalism the same thing as White Nationalism? The short answer is yes and no. This vexing topic is rarely if ever addressed, and the Southern cause is consequently reduced to a myopic, quaint subsidiary of a larger quest for a White ethnostate. Many racially conscious young Southrons, most of whom embrace their Southern identity, reflexively refer to themselves as White Nationalists. This is at least partially because they see their own Southern identity as lesser than and subordinate to their White identity. If Southern Nationalism is ever to capture a critical mass of these young men, the already racially awakened, then it is incumbent upon us to explain why, far from being a narrow, curious sect of White Nationalism, Southern Nationalism is an entirely different beast.

In the first place, we must acknowledge that the South is White. When we speak of the South, we speak of the White South. This is not debatable. It is simply a fact, one which is so self-evident that it is often taken for granted. In this respect, it can unequivocally be stated that Southern Nationalism is necessarily White Nationalism, but that White Nationalism is not necessarily—and is indeed often directly at odds with—Southern Nationalism. We are White and proud of it, but our racial identity does not, in and of itself, provide us with the nourishing fire which impels us forward. Our racial identity is a component of our primary, Southern, identity.

Our Christian identity is another component of our Southern identity. When we speak of the South, we not only mean the White South. We mean the White, Christian, South. Dixie is God’s Country, and we are God’s people—perhaps not His only people, but His people indeed. In this respect, one could state that Southern Nationalism is necessarily Christian Nationalism, but that, of course, Christian Nationalism is not Southern Nationalism. Here, we have our first major divergence from White Nationalism. Unfortunately, White Nationalism is afflicted with a deep antipathy for Christianity. To be sure, there is not much if anything about contemporary organized Christianity to recommend or endear itself to Rightists of any stripe. Jesus Christ Himself would abhor much of what today passes for “Christianity.” The subversion of Christianity, however pervasive, still cannot change the Word of God. Indeed, the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever.

Large numbers of White Nationalists, perhaps even constituting a majority, have no interest in reading or otherwise learning this truth. Instead, they nonsensically slander Christianity as “Jewish,” which would be news to the Jews who ordered the murder of Christ, the millennia of subsequent Jews who made and still make the annihilation of Christianity their highest mission, and the millennia of Christians who did their best to protect their people from Jewish corrosion. They create absurd cults, adopt pagan practices centuries removed from an idealized, obscure pre-Christian past, or rely on cold, dispassionate scientism. While we do not view these misguided, lost souls as our enemies, nor can we see them as our allies. We do not share any semblance of a common vision or mission with non-Christians.

Another major point of divergence for Southern Nationalists is that our cause is particular, while that of White Nationalists is abstract. Our goal, distilled to its purest, most essential form, is a free, independent Dixie, which one could see as a sort of reconstituted Confederate States of America. Our cause is rooted in one particular place—the South—and one particular people—White, Christian Southrons. Ours is an uncompromising and practically defined vision, one which is orders of magnitude more feasible than that of the inherently vague White Nationalist ethnostate. For example, where should such a state be? Even this simple question proves unanswerable with any degree of satisfaction by any great number of self-identified White Nationalists.

Furthermore, our identity as Southern is specific, corresponding to a real, historically defined, culturally, linguistically, and politically distinct population. While anti-White Leftists and egalitarian “colorblind” civic nationalists often make the ridiculous claim that White people do not exist (i.e., “I’m not White, I’m Italian”), while in the next breath uttering genocidal statements about those same White people whom they claim do not exist, there is a kernel of truth to the challenge.

Pan-European unity is a fiction; White people generally do not define their identities on purely racial grounds, but rather by their nationality. Far from joining hands as racial kinsmen, the kingdoms and then the nation-states of Europe have engaged in perpetual warfare against each other. When White men refer to themselves as such, their nationality subordinated to their race, it is typically limited to situations of oppositional ethnogenesis, where an external racial threat is involved—such as Amerindians, blacks, etc. And yet, even then, these expressions of White identity are often still expressions of national identity, the nation itself understood to consist of White people, rather than a conceptually White nation.

It is certainly true that, for all intents and purposes, America was intended to be and did function as a White nation for most of its history. Until the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act, America boasted a 90% White supermajority and a small black minority, with other racial groups demographically insignificant—though not politically insignificant, in the case of America’s numerically infinitesimal but politically dominant Jewish minority. But, while American men always saw themselves and referred to themselves as White, it is only after the triumvirate of desegregation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Immigration Act that what we now call White Nationalism began to emerge.

Thus, before the middle of the twentieth century, White identity was merely a component of, and thus subordinate to, American identity. But American nationalism itself was an invention of war propaganda, most clearly traceable in its contemporary iteration to the bloodthirsty tyrant Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Without delving too deeply into the historical thicket, however, it will suffice to say that White Nationalism is a thoroughly modern creation.

Southern Nationalism, by contrast, is premised upon a Southern identity forged by centuries of blood, fire, and siege. Southern identity predates any American identity, and, while Southern men did see themselves and refer to themselves as White, their sectional identity as Southerners was always first. This identity was so deeply ingrained in the Southern psyche that it survived well after desegregation. Indeed, even today, large numbers of Southerners, perhaps even constituting a majority, still see themselves as Southern, although this has become subordinated both to American and partisan Republican identities. Southern Nationalism per se emerged in the antebellum period, mere decades before the War for Southern Independence, primarily in response to Northern rhetorical political vitriol and economic aggression. But its antecedent, Southern sectionalism, predated even the American War of Independence.

While Southern Nationalism and White Nationalism both emerged in response to external pressures, the nature of these pressures were and are of a fundamentally different character.

At the outset, we must address the Jewish Question. Without a solution to this question, there can be no solution to any question. While Jewish influence dominates our world, the security of our existence and the future of our children will always remain in danger. Make no mistake: Jews are the avowed enemies of the White race. At the bottom of nearly every single ill which afflicts Whites as a people, you will find a cabal of Jews. Every aspect of White Genocide is Jewish, from top to bottom. Jews do control every center of institutional power in the whilom West. Jews—the Synagogue of Satan—are the root of much of the evil in our world.

Their goal is the extinction of the White race, of all that is good, pure, and holy on this earth. Their goal is to profane the sacred. The sicker, the filthier, the fouler, the better. Nonwhites, including American Blacks and the constellation of “refugees” and “migrants” from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Central and South America, are the primary shock troops utilized by the Jews in their war against Whites. Insofar as Jews and their non-White pets constitute the enemies of the White race, so too are they the enemies of the Southern people, who, again, are White.

But this is not the end of the story for Southern Nationalists. No, the Southern people have an additional enemy, one who has inflicted far greater material and psychic damage upon Dixie than the Jews or their puppets ever have: the Yankees. Northern Whites have been, and arguably still are, our most pernicious foes. While it is true that all Whites are under attack from a truly genocidal force, Southrons face a deeper hatred than any other White ethnic group—save perhaps Russians—including from fellow Whites. Indeed, many prominent White Nationalists today heap scorn upon the South and our Confederate heritage.

Before the Jews ever worked to destroy the South, the Yankees literally put Dixie to the torch and the sword in the War for Southern Independence and then enslaved her in the most humiliating fashion conceivable during Reconstruction. Federal soldiers committed atrocities against Southern civilians at an unprecedented scale, the first real example of total warfare waged by a nominally civilized power. The next example would be the Anglo-Boer War, to which historians have devoted far more sympathy.

After the Yanks razed and materially annihilated the South, they subjected her to a decade of negro domination, during which the same White Northerners squeezed every last drop of blood from the already despoiled Southern turnip. The descendants of these Carpetbaggers wreak the same havoc across the South today, occupying our hometowns and our wildernesses, emanating as locusts from the coasts they have already destroyed in order to devour our birthrights in a grand scheme of physical, economic, political, and cultural dispossession.

What is now happening to the White race writ large—genocide—was initiated in the South long ago. In other words, even leaving aside the fact that our first and worst tormentors were White Northerners, the Jews and their tools targeted the South for destruction first. We were the canaries in the coalmine. Nobody cared. Indeed, many Whites—including self-identified “patriotic, conservative” Whites—enthusiastically cheered, participated in, and spearheaded the defenestration of Dixie. Similarly, our forebears saw what the United States Government was becoming, the monster that the Federal Leviathan was transforming into, more than a century before the contemporary Right did. Again, nobody cared.

Here, we come to another major point of divergence. Generally speaking, White Nationalists envision a single ethnostate or multiple ethnostates functioning as a White homeland, along the lines of: (1) some reclamation of the entire landmass of the United States of America as the nominally singular polity it now purports to be; or (2) a combination of balkanized ethnostates operating as a loose confederacy. Complicating this picture is the attachment of some American White Nationalist intellectuals to the concept of a pan-European supranational project, something akin to a racially conscious European Union.

Southern Nationalists start from the premise that the United States of America as a political unit is dead, and has been since 1860. The quintessentially American spirit that animated our ancestors in 1776 and 1861 was slaughtered on the battlefield in 1865. We do not put “America” first, because America does not exist. We are Dixie first. Even if it were feasible to reclaim the entire landmass of the currently extant United States—and it most certainly is not—we have no desire to do so. We do not give one hoot about the fate of New York, or California, or Illinois, or Ohio, or any other State not represented by the thirteen stars on each of the national flags of the Confederate States of America. While the Southern Nationalist project involves a sort of balkanization of the currently extant United States, the prevailing locations contemplated by White Nationalists for their ethnostate invariably exclude the South. Many White Nationalists have even suggested giving large swathes of the South to negroes.

In Dixie’s land, we’ll take our stand. The South is nonnegotiable. We place no stock in a vague, abstract “homeland” dominated by deracinated Yankees, for our homeland has a single location. Southern identity, although inherently racially defined by White identity, is simultaneously deeper, narrower, and yet more expansive than bare White identity. My own heritage is instructive of the difference between Southern identity and White identity.

I am half-White, half-Indian. My maternal lineage is Scots-Irish. It’s through this side of my ancestry that I am a proud member of both the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. My earliest ancestors in this line emigrated to the Colonial South in the mid-to-late seventeenth century, perhaps even as early as Jamestown in 1616.

I have at least two ancestors who served South Carolina in the American War of Independence.

Glass Caston, my fifth-great grandfather, was born in 1732 in Essex County, Virginia, and became a carpenter and wheelwright. In 1754, he bought land in Orange County, North Carolina, where he quickly got involved in local politics, becoming constable in 1756. In 1763, Glass bought land in Craven County, in what is now Lancaster County, South Carolina. In 1765, he was appointed one of the County’s Justices. During our War of Independence, Glass served as Wagon Master for a supply train in Colonel Kershaw’s Regiment, supplying Patriots stationed at Purrysburg, near Savannah. After the War, Glass continued in public service; in 1784, he even ran against General Thomas Sumter, the Fighting Gamecock, for a seat in the State Assembly. He passed away in 1804.

Captain John Blakeney, my sixth-great-grandfather, was also born in 1732, in Mount Blakeney, Limerick County, Ireland. John came to the colonies around 1750, and by the early 1760s had settled in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. He became a substantial landowner and a successful planter. In 1775, he was elected Captain of the local militia. The next year, he received a Captain’s commission from the Provincial Congress and raised a regiment. John and his men were assigned to Colonel Benton’s Regiment, where he served as a Sergeant under the Swamp Fox, General Francis Marion. John passed away in 1832, at the age of 100.

I have at least eight ancestors who served the Confederacy in the War for Southern Independence.

Newman Robinson, my second-great grandfather, was born in 1841. He enlisted in the Confederate Army on April 8, 1861, just a few days before the Battle of Fort Sumter. He served throughout the War in the 5th Regiment of the South Carolina Volunteers, known as the Lancaster Greys. He was discharged from service a full four years after he had enlisted, on April 9, 1865, when General Lee surrendered at Appomattox. He passed away in 1924.

Newman’s father, Phillip, my third-great grandfather, served in the same company with him. Philip, born around 1815, was a plantation overseer. He was probably killed during the War. Newman’s brother, Warren, born in 1842, also served with the Lancaster Greys during the War. He passed away in 1916.

Lewis Rowell, another of my second-great grandfathers, was born in 1846. At age 16, he and his father, Henry, both enlisted in the Confederate Army, serving through the end of the War. At his death on June 15, 1944, at age 98, Lewis was the last surviving veteran of the War for Southern Independence in Lancaster County, South Carolina. On special occasions, like church service, Lewis wore his trademark white homespun suit. His birthday parties were the biggest event in the community each year, always attended by three to five hundred people.

My third-great grandfather, Jeff Ellis, was a Corporal in the 12th Regiment of the South Carolina Infantry. He was wounded at Manassas in 1862, and again the next year at Wilderness. In 1870, he passed away as the result of complications from those wounds.

My paternal line, as you likely surmised from my last name, is North Indian. Unfortunately, I don’t have as detailed knowledge of this side of my lineage. My grandfather, long since passed, was the genealogist of his family, and apparently took this knowledge with him to the grave.

My father came to North Carolina from India in 1984, joining several of his older brothers who had moved here before him. Interestingly, he had been reluctant to come to America.

In India, he had been involved with the RSS, a Hindu nationalist paramilitary organization which serves as the backbone of the Indian Right. The RSS is closely tied to the currently-ruling BJP government.

But his brothers asked him to join them, so join them he did. He waited until 2001 to become a citizen, not wanting to officially sever ties with his homeland. If it weren’t for my mother, he may well have returned to India in the 1980s.

Growing up mixed-race was interesting. In many ways, I had a traditional Southern upbringing. In other ways, I had a cosmopolitan upbringing. My parents loved to travel, and, being an only child, I always went with them. I’ve now visited nearly thirty countries on four continents.

My mom is a Southern Baptist, my dad a Hindu, but I was raised a Southern Baptist. All of my friends were always White. I never learned how to speak Hindi. I never identified as anything other than American. Beginning around junior high and high school, though, I began to experience identity issues.

By “identity issues,” I mean that I suddenly had a hard time fitting in and feeling a sense of belonging; part of this likely stemmed from being an only child, but I suspect that it was also at least partially driven by the fact that I had two cultures, two ancestries within me.

As I began to experience the alienation common to modern adolescence, I rebelled against my Southern roots and my Christianity. In this rebellion, I turned not towards my Indian heritage, but rather towards deracinated urban liberalism. I found my way home again, but I went through Hell to find my way back.

What had started as experimentation in high school developed into full-blown drug and alcohol addiction through most of my years at the University of Chicago. You name the drug, and I’ve almost certainly done it. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you how much liquor I drank on a daily basis, the copious quantities of hard drugs I did almost every night. I am blessed to still be alive. By the Grace of God alone, I overcame my addictions cold turkey. I’ve been fully sober now for four years.

My time at the University of Chicago also coincided with my awakening. Growing up in 90% White Bentonville, Arkansas, I bought the egalitarian hogwash hook, line, and sinker. It wasn’t until I moved to Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago, that this veil was pierced. You see, I witnessed racial reality for the first time—this was the first time that I had really had any dealings with blacks in their natural habitat. I also encountered Jews in significant numbers for the first time.

While I noted that there were no Southerners among the students or faculty, I found it strange that such a vast majority of faculty members were Jewish, and that Jews, who make up such a tiny minority of the American population, actually made up the majority of students in many of my courses. I had at least one Jewish roommate for most of my first two years, and I was astounded at how their behavior verified every single negative stereotype I had heard about their race.

My racial awakening also occurred almost simultaneously with the 2016 election. Seeing every single center of institutional power on earth align to destroy the Trump campaign really opened my eyes. Donald Trump was a totally non-ideological, pragmatic civic nationalist whose only real offense was speaking about issues that adversely affect Whites, giving life to the concerns of average White people. I’m under no illusions about Trump or his failed presidency, but his election was epochal; for the first time in many years, Whites began to feel that they had a voice. This was Trump’s crime.

I started systematically re-educating myself. Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is certainly the book most formative in my understanding of the Jewish Question that I read during this time, but it was Richard Weaver’s The Southern Tradition at Bay and Eugene Genovese’s The Mind of the Master Class, combined with Shelby Foote’s The Civil War, that set my long-dormant Southern blood ablaze. You see, it was not until I understood the truth about the South that I was able to understand the other truths that I have since come to learn.

I could go on—I read literally hundreds of books in a 3-year period, from 2016 to 2019. And I haven’t stopped. The point is that I returned home, both spiritually and physically. I read the entire King James Bible, for the first time in my life. I was saved, and then baptized. I gained a passion for my family history, my Southern ancestry, and joined SAR and SCV. I found my calling, my purpose, the reason for which God placed me on this earth at this time: to protect, fight for, and advance the interests of my people, the Southern people.

I’m not ashamed in the slightest of my Indian ancestry. I love and embrace all of my family, and of course I feel a kinship with India. It is only natural that I do. But I do not situate my identity there, nor do I situate my loyalty there. Though I am mixed-race, I am not mixed-identity. I am not an American, or an Indian. I am a Southron.

To those who believe that our day is done, that our cause is lost, I say: You know what they say about Southerners and Lost Causes. Our forefathers left their homes and their beloved behind, risking everything, laying down their lives and charging so bravely into the mouth of Hell because they knew that if they did not fight, their homeland would be lost, transformed into their worst nightmares.

They gave everything they possessed in order to transmit their inheritance, their Southern birthright, to generations yet unborn. They knew that, if they had stood by, their entire world would end, that the world which they had built for their children would be stolen from them and divvied into the hands of squatters not fit for the blessings of their civilization.

Pickett’s Charge, bloody as it was, should be the image etched in our hearts, the pool from which we draw our fortitude. These Southern heroes, common men only months before, fearlessly stormed an unassailable position, marching headlong into the impenetrable Yankee Leviathan because it was their duty. Union Colonel Frank Haskell described the Confederates thusly:

None on that crest now need be told that the enemy is advancing. Every eye could see his legions, an overwhelming, resistless tide of an ocean of armed men sweeping upon us! …Right on they move, as with one soul, in perfect order, without impediment of ditch, or wall, or stream, over ridge and slope, through orchard, and meadow, and cornfield, magnificent, grim, irresistible.

Let not our enemies need be told that we are advancing, immovable, magnificent, grim, irresistible.

We should also consider Edmund Ruffin, the greatest Fire-Eater of them all, a gentleman who spent most of his adult life laying the discursive groundwork for secession; who, at age 67, fired the very first shot on Fort Sumter from Morris Island. After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Ruffin chose to commit suicide rather than submit to Yankee rule, writing his famous last words:

And now, with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will [be] near to my latest breath, I here repeat, and would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule — to all political, social, and business connection with Yankees, and to the perfidious, malignant, and vile Yankee race.

It should go without saying that I am not advocating for Ruffin’s final course of action. But we should embody the principle: that, if we fail, life is not worth living. We have to understand this: everything that we love and cherish about our country, all that is pure and good on this earth, is directly tied to the reclamation of our Southern nation.

Remember, and never forget, what we are fighting for. The Andy Griffith Show has always been one of my favorite programs. Mayberry, North Carolina, the fictional town that it was set in, is a perfect image of midcentury Southern life. Our enemies tell us that Mayberry never existed. They’re wrong. Hundreds if not thousands of Mayberrys existed all over the South. My mom was blessed to have grown up in one.

My mother grew up in a tiny little town called Rich Hill, South Carolina. Her father was a sharecropper, and her mother was a homemaker. My mom lived next door to her grandparents, and every Sunday, after church, most of the extended family—more than fifty people—would gather there for a supper of fried chicken fresh from the coop, homemade biscuits, fresh vegetables from the garden, fresh churned butter, chess pie, pound cake, chocolate pie. On hot summer days, they’d sit under the oak tree churning ice cream.

Every year, her grandfather planted a garden, plowing it with a mule, walking behind in his worn leather brogans with this old iron plow. My mom would help the family shuck corn, hull peas, and string green beans. There was a lot of vegetable canning. They washed their clothes by hand.

After school, my mother would run next door and climb onto her grandpa’s lap under that oak tree. She’d reach in his pocket, and he always had a piece of gum or penny candy for her. Every day, he’d walk up the road to the corner store to visit with his friends and get his grandkids a treat. Her grandmother was always reading the Bible, rocking on the front porch.

That’s what we’re fighting for. Our posterity. A future for our children, a world in which that communitarian ideal isn’t just a memory, a world in which it’s a reality.

The blood of heroes courses through our veins. Through this ancestral blood, our forefathers commune with us. Their blood—our blood—calls out to us, challenges us, exhorts us, asking us why we allowed our enemies to drag us to this sordid, miasmic state of decay, commanding us to fight and to secure victory—not just to secure our existence and our future, but to triumph and fulfill the glorious plans they laid for us—to realize the future which they made possible for us.

Our duty is to take up our ancestors’ mantle, to preserve the birthright for which they sacrificed everything to bequeath to us, to stop squandering our inheritance and instead make ourselves worthy of their blood.

Our duty is to fill our descendants’ hearts with the admiration for us that we have for our forefathers, to give our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and their children after them a legacy to uphold, a name to honor, a kingdom to maintain and advance.

It will take everything that we have and all that we are, but we can and will reclaim our homeland. It is ours, and ours alone. It belongs to nobody else, and it never will. What other region of the raped and desecrated corpse that is the United States of Weimerika has managed to hold on to any semblance of an identity?

The South lives yet. The South shall survive, or we shall die with her. And as ever, the Lord will vindicate our blood.

This is an expanded version of an article that will appear in edited collection The Honorable Cause: A Free South, to be released on March 31.

Neil Robinson Kumar ran for U.S. Congress in Arkansas’s Third District in 2022, garnering nearly 17,000 votes. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and is now in his final year at the University of Arkansas School of Law. A member of both the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, his lineage can be traced to Jamestown. His next book is a history of the Reconstruction Ku Klux Movement.