Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?) Part Two

/24 Comments/in , /by

Stephen Wolfe

Go to Part One.

Nations and Ethnicity

When discussing the meaning of nationhood, Wolfe rejects “the so-called creedal nation concept” according to which a nation is “united around a set of propositions that creedalists consider universally true or at least practically advantageous for all and so readily acceptable by all.”  His target is the “egalitarian themes and rights-talk” characteristic of mainstream American political discourse.”  He concedes, however, that his argument “does not preclude political or social creeds that serve to unite a people.”  He gives as an example of a “universally true statement” the proposition that “Jesus is Lord,” claiming that it “certainly serves to unite the people of a Christian nation.”  Wolfe claims that “Christianity is the true religion” as another example of a universally valid spiritual proposition.[1]  One wonders whether and how that spiritual truth was recognized during the religious wars of the seventeenth century in Europe or the American Civil War during the nineteenth century.

Wolfe acknowledges that such Christian propositions cannot and do not serve as the “foundation for nations.”[2]  The question then, of course, becomes: What is the foundation or basis for nationhood, Christian or otherwise?  Unfortunately, Wolfe never provides a clear answer to that question.  The cover of Wolfe’s book with the image of a cross radiating beams of light superimposed upon a map of the lower forty-eight United States suggests that his project will be focused upon an American version of Christian nationalism. But, as one of his critics observes, “the interior of his 478-page tome tells a very different story.  Indeed, America hardly comes up in the first nine [of ten] chapters, and much of what he writes could be applied to any Christian (by which he means Protestant) nation.”[3]

For Wolfe, it is axiomatic that every “Christian nation acknowledges God as the author of nations in general and as the providential author of their particular nation.”  But the “universal truths of Christianity do not nullify national particularity.  Each Christian nation has a distinct way of life.”  It is true, he says, “that fellow Christians, regardless of nationality, are united spiritually, as fellow members of the kingdom of God.” But this “is chiefly a heavenly or eschatological relation, made possible by grace, not nature.”  The spiritual brotherhood making man “fit for a heavenly kingdom” is not well suited to provide the practical tools (such as a common language) enabling the everyday cooperation between individuals and families necessary “to procure the full range of goods required for living well in this world.”[4]

While Wolfe recognizes the particularity of every nation, he locates the sources of that particularity in a “lived experience” shared by everyone, a “sense of familiarity with a particular place and the people in it.”  This “sense of we,” is not “rooted…in abstractions or judicial norms (e.g., equal protection) or truth-statements.”  He appears not to notice that he grounds his own argument in a general “truth,” applicable to all nations, tribes, and peoples, before and after the fall.  All of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, share “a pre-reflective, pre-propositional love for one’s own, generated from intergenerational affections, daily life, and productive activity that link a society of the dead, living, and unborn.”  Particularity, for Wolfe, is a property attached “to a people in place.”  He describes his concern for the “lived experience” of particular peoples in particular places as a “a sort of phenomenological topography.”[5]

He admits that the “idea of a nation is notoriously difficult to define, and identifying true nations is equally challenging.”  But he is careful to deny that nationhood can or should be identified “on the basis of a modern racialist principle.”  He disavows any suggestion that his position is “a ‘white nationalist’ argument.”  On his view, “the designation ‘white,’ as it is used today, hinders and distracts people from recognizing and acting for their people-groups.”  Having rejected the concept of race, Wolfe then uses “the terms ethnicity and nation almost synonymously,” if not necessarily very consistently.  His use of the terms as synonyms is especially confusing when he announces that he will use “nation…to emphasize the unity of the whole” since “every people-group has internal differences” (e.g. those based on class) “though no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.”[6]  Most readers, I suspect, would take the latter observation to imply that there can be no American nation.  After all, is not the United States today composed of a patchwork of different ethnicities (not to mention “races”)?

But Wolfe almost immediately begins to fudge the issue of ethnic and national identity.  “Ethnicity, as something experienced,” he declares, “is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.”  All of these permit communication and completion of common projects.  What about blood ties?  According to Wolfe, while a “community of blood” may be “crucial to ethnicity.  But this should not lead us to conclude that blood ties are the sole determinant of ethnicity.”  He prefers to think of ethnicity or nations as a function of “soul” or “spiritual principle.”[7]

Accordingly, “the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity.  Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place.”  In other words, if a Southern White man’s kin lived in a particular place alongside the extended families of Black slaves or sharecroppers, together they would leave “behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices.”  Both groups, White and Black, could then be said to share a common Southern or even American ethnicity because their collective kinfolk “belonged to this people on this land,” and were bound together by a common Volksgeist.[8]

Wolfe never specifies his own ethnicity.  Instead, he waves the issue away with the commonplace observation that “white Americans” often assign their ethnicity “to some distant European ancestry.”  The closest he comes to coming out of the closet is when he writes that “I might say that I’m Italian, German, and English” without making it clear whether that is an autobiographical fact or, instead, just a hypothetical example of a typical White American response to the question of personal “ethnic identity.”[9]  Perhaps Wolfe actually is just some random Euromutt castaway.  On the other hand, he could be related somehow to the prominent Anglo-Irish family of the eighteenth-century English Major General James Wolfe.

Once upon a time (not so very long ago), every English-Canadian schoolchild literally sang the praises of General Wolfe as “the dauntless hero” who “planted firm Britannia’s flag on Canada’s fair domain.”  Wolfe died on the Plains of Abraham near Quebec City, having defeated the French General Montcalm.  British North America was thereby rid (for a time) of a dangerous imperial rival.  Ironically, Wolfe’s victory smoothed the path of rebellious American colonists ready to break with the British Crown to create a continental empire of their own.

Many English-Canadians, including myself, would be proud to claim General Wolfe as an ancestor.  (Indeed, though I can boast no such connection, I have a large print of Benjamin West’s famous painting of Wolfe’s death hanging on the wall of my library).  Wolfe of West Point, however, prefers to believe that one’s genetic origins, while “not entirely irrelevant…say little about who you are, at least with regard to your everyday life.”  At most, they provide little more than “some mildly interesting fact you use in small-talk.”[10]

Relating ethnicity primarily to the topography of lived experience has the effect of obscuring the intertwined significance of history, biology, and culture.  Wolfe has no apparent interest in either in the historical origins or the “ethnic genetic interests” of his own people, whoever they might be.  Indeed, he writes that “Given my friendships and associations with people of different ancestry, I can say that being ‘white [much less of British ancestry] is unnecessary both to recognize themselves in what I describe and to cooperate with someone like me in a common national project.”[11]

Remarkably, in Wolfe’s mind, ethnicity can cross racial lines.  According to Neil Shenvi, Wolfe has affirmed in a personal conversation that “People of different ancestral origins can be part of the same ethnicity.”[12]  How else can Wolfe entertain the hope that an American Christian nationalism will emerge?[13]  Kevin DeYoung remarks that “the all-important concept of ‘nation’ sometimes operates in Wolfe’s thinking more organically like an ethnicity, sometimes more loosely like a culture, sometimes more locally like a love of people and place, and sometimes more traditionally like a nation-state with a recognizable set of laws, a governing magistrate, and the power of the sword.”[14]

Wolfe argues that all nations can be Christian nations seeking “their temporal and eternal good through their own civil arrangements.”  He devotes a chapter to defend the proposition that a Christian nation has “a natural law right to revolution against tyrants to that end.”  Of course, so long as “a legitimate ruler uses civil power to command what is just and the people disobey this command, they are disobeying God himself…because the law itself, though human, is an ordinance of God.”  But God does not bestow civil authority “to command what is unjust…for God’s ordinances to man are always just.”  It follows that no unjust command can bind the conscience.  A tyrant, “though he may have the appearance of civil authority, is but a man ordering fellow men to great evil.”  If necessary, forcible resistance to such commands may be justified.  Even a Christian minority may “revolt against a tyranny directed against them and, after successfully revolting, establish over all the population a Christian commonwealth.” [15]

In Wolfe’s Christian political theory, it is axiomatic that “although civil administration is fundamentally natural, human, and universal” it “was created to serve Adam’s race in a state of integrity, as an outward ordering to God.”  In our redeemed state of grace, “those who are restored in Christ are the people of God.  Thus, civil order and administration is for them.”  This raises the question of the political status of non-Christians in a Christian commonwealth.  Any answer to that question is a matter of prudence, recognizing, of course, that the civil administration “must guarantee equal protection and due process with regard to human things for all people…But this does not entail equal participation, status, and standing in political, social, and cultural institutions.”  Non-Christians cannot “be expected to take an interest in conserving the explicit Christian character and ends of these institutions and of society.”[16]

Wolfe invokes the Anglo-Protestantism practiced in Puritan New England as a source of inspiration in shaping any future Christian commonwealth.  There and in the new nation during the founding era, liberty of conscience was to be respected.  No one could be compelled to believe or profess the Christian faith.  The civil power dealt with heresy or dissent with a view to “practical considerations” relating to the “public harm caused by public error and on the limitation of civic action for spiritual reformation.”  Accordingly, the civil power acted not to wreak vengeance on the enemies of God but “as a means to safeguard the souls of those under the magistrate’s care.”  Punishment was meted out only to those who publicly sought to promote heresy and unbelief, to subvert the established church, to denounce its ministers, or to instigate rebellion against Christian magistrates.  The fundamental Anglo-Protestant view was “that the Gospel and religious belief cannot be coerced; it is a matter of persuasion, and one must decide for oneself.”[17]

What went wrong?  Why did the American republic not remain as a Christian nation, on the Anglo-Protestant model?  Wolfe’s answer in a nutshell is: modern R2K theory.  That is to say, the mainstream Anglo-Protestant view still rests upon a two kingdoms theology distinguishing church and state but the radical two kingdoms view is that only pastoral vocations in the church are part of God’s kingdom while the state rests on a natural law that applies in a neutral fashion to all men everywhere, Christians and non-Christians alike.  This, of course, begs the question: how did the R2K position come to dominance in the church?  To answer that question requires a realistic political ethnotheology of Christian nationhood, one willing to confront a number of highly-charged issues that Wolfe is at pains to avoid and obfuscate.  What was it about the Anglo-Protestant tradition that led to the erosion of its earlier determination to create and preserve a Christian nation in America?

The Elephant in the Room

One scholar suggests that WASPs were their own worst enemy.  According to Eric Kaufmann, the decline of Anglo-America was not due to external factors; in particular, it did not follow an organized campaign by rival ethnic groups seeking to challenge WASP hegemony.  He contends that the decisive “forces of dominant-ethnic decline” emerged instead “from within Anglo-Protestant America.”[18]  There is a large element of truth to the Kaufmann thesis. The modern American corporate capitalist society that emerged in the late nineteenth century was the unique product of the interaction between a kind of person, a kind of economy, and a kind of religion.[19]

Brian Gatton suggests that the most significant psychological and spiritual force driving WASPs to commit hari-kari was the other-directed nature of the “social self” fabricated by the corporate system.[20]  In the early modern period a God of Will was worshipped by the bourgeois individual of the Protestant ethic, whose enterprising ways helped the modern capitalist economy to take off.  But while the driven personality of the inner-directed Protestant supplied power on the runway, once in flight the economy relied on technique, not on character, to keep itself aloft.  As Donald Meyer put it in his study of the American gospel of positive thinking, “if at the center of nineteenth century social imagination stood a man, in the twentieth he was replaced by a system.”[21]

The dominant ethos of the Anglo-American corporate system depends upon a novel blend of psychology, economics and theology.  The economy became an object of religious devotion for the managerial and professional classes.  Today, in all sectors of society and culture, economic development has become an occasion for dependency rather than belonging.  Our abject subjection to the mysterious movements of the global economy parallels the relationship of Protestant believers to their “hidden God, the God of Will” who can be known “only in His works, not in His nature.  In an awful recurrence, we are returning to the situation of the early Protestants as an abyss opens up between us and an economy invested with all the attributes of divinity.  Its inner workings surpass ordinary human understanding. Among our elites and opinion leaders, insight, knowledge, and intelligence can do no more than serve the disembodied forces animating the society of perpetual growth.  It is not the courage or the strength of our political and corporate leaders, nor our respect for tradition that sanctifies the system.  It is faith alone.  Awesome and inscrutable, spectacular and self-propelling, the system invites adoration.[22]

No doubt the emergent other-directed character of the WASP middle-class was a uniquely Anglo-American adaptation to the organizational imperatives of corporate capitalism.  But if the home-grown “corporate self” provided the seed-bed for the cosmopolitan spirit of the Progressive Era, the WASP clerisy had plenty of help from other ethnic groups, especially Jews, in nurturing a full-blown cult of the Other.  Indeed, Kaufmann credits Felix Adler, a leading Jewish intellectual, with a leading role in awakening Progressive reformers to the possibilities inherent in this new pluralist vision of American national identity.[23]  In his own recent book, Whiteshift, Kaufmann, too, is remarkably sanguine about the demographic, cultural, and political impact of mass third world immigration on the future of the White majority in Anglo-American society.[24]

An interesting comparison can be made between Eric Kaufmann and Stephen Wolfe on the issue of immigration-induced cultural change.  In principle, Wolfe advocates limits on immigration from culturally alien sources, even though they might be Christian.[25]  Kaufmann, on the other hand, treats “white opposition to mass immigration as a problem to be solved, not as an expression of legitimate ethnic interests or democratic will.”  Both are confident, however, that, so long as the rate of change is less than alarming, assimilation of cultural outsiders will be possible.  Kaufmann merely cautions that whites must be allowed “some social space to express their identity.”[26]

Both are what Frank Salter describes as “ethnic traditionalists” in the sense that “they support immigration so long as the immigrants assimilate, regardless of the impact on [White] ethnic identity, even if [the White majority] eventually disappears.”[27]  It may be that the differences between them with respect to the scale of immigration reflect differences in their respective racial and ethnic identities.  Whatever the precise weight any given European ethnicity may have contributed to Wolfe’s identity, he is unquestionably White.  Kaufmann’s ancestry is noticeably more exotic: part-Jewish, part-Chinese, and part-Hispanic.  Perhaps that explains why Kaufmann promulgates the ideal of a “whiteshift” over the next century or two when he expects (and hopes) most Westerners will become “what we now term ‘mixed-race.’”[28]

For his part, Wolfe certainly does not actively promote race-mixing as an end in itself; nor, however, does he accept that a “community in blood” is “the sole determinant of ethnicity.”  Sensitive to accusations of “racism,” he is not opposed to intermarriage in principle.[29]  Nor does he approve inter-ethnic or inter-racial marriages merely as particular exceptions to a general rule requiring respect for ethnic and racial boundaries.  Hannah Arendt, by contrast, frankly accepts that “every mixed marriage constitutes a challenge to society.”  While opposing the legal prohibition (but not social disapproval) of interracial marriage, Arendt preferred to treat mixed marriage as a private matter between individuals “who have so far preferred personal happiness to social adjustment that they are willing to bear the burden of discrimination.”  On Arendt’s realist view, such discrimination is a necessary evil.  If people (and, presumably, churches) are not free to shun those whose private lives, social mores, or ethnic identity they disapprove, “society would simply cease to exist and very important possibilities of free association and group formation would disappear.”[30]  By contrast, Wolfe treats race-mixing as a positive good which, over time, will create the “bonds of affection” that will enable the formation of “various brotherhoods and tribes and shared or public pastimes.”  Nationhood, for Wolfe, is a spiritual phenomenon, not a matter of hematology.[31]

Despite their differences, however, neither Wolfe nor Kaufmann examine the role of ethnic rivalry (much less antagonism) between Jews and WASPs as a major contributing factor to the decline of Anglo-Protestant “cultural Christianity.”  Such reluctance to tackle the Jewish question directly is noteworthy given their joint preoccupation with the immigration issue.  After all, Jews led the long campaign to overturn the national origins regime (adopted in 1924), designed to radically restrict the numbers of immigrants to the USA from areas outside northwestern Europe.  Elsewhere in the Anglosphere, too, Jews have been active in promoting non-White immigration, especially after the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act in the USA.

A secular, part-Jewish, cosmopolitan such as Kaufmann cannot be expected, perhaps, to highlight the prominent role played by Jews in undermining the institutional supports for Christian nationhood.  But, given the prominence that Wolfe gives to his discussion of “the good of cultural Christianity,” it seems strange that he completely ignores the issue.  Wolfe understands cultural Christianity as “the force that normalizes Christian culture,” even for many who neither attend churches readily nor publicly profess Christian beliefs.  It is a “social power” which “directs people to activities wherein they can procure the things of eternal life, both inside and outside the instituted church.”[32]

Much to the amusement of cosmopolitan urban sophisticates (“cloud people”), Wolfe holds up the fictional North Carolina town of Mayberry (home to the “dirt people” of the 1960s’ Andy Griffith Show) as the avatar of cultural Christianity.  This folksy, small town was “a community of few and small concerns, high social trust, and an ease of life.”  Wolfe remarks that “any American” watching that show today “cannot but feel nostalgia for an America lost by negligence and malevolence.”[33]

Note that Wolfe attributes the destruction of the world of Mayberry, a place where everybody went to church and probably “all the kids were above average,” to both negligence and malevolence.  But, surprisingly, even West Point graduate Wolfe declines to identify the foremost enemy of American cultural Christianity.  This reflects the fatal flaw in Anglo-Protestant political theology: the absence of an explicit ethnoreligion anchored in the history and destiny of the Anglo-Saxon peoples.  Jews are far more ethnocentric than even the ethnic traditionalist minority among WASPs.  The most important difference between Jews and Anglo-Protestants is the propensity of the former community towards a high level of what Salter labels “ethnic nepotism.”  In other words, Jews are much more likely to exhibit a strong belief “in the unity of family and racial kinship.”  Jewish parents are much more likely than WASPs to see their children as an essential “contribution to the immortality of their race.”[34]

Arguably, Jewish elites believe that it is in their ethnic genetic interest to dismantle the institutional supports for Christian nationhood and have pursued legal, political, and cultural strategies to achieve that end.  This campaign included a battery of legal challenges which successfully ended school prayers and bible reading.  A famous book entitled The Authoritarian Personality, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, appeared in 1950 and inspired a multi-pronged attack on the Christian family which continues down to the present day.  Mass third-world immigration, feminism, pornography, contraception and abortion, and, more recently, transgender rights have all been weaponized by Jewish activists waging a concerted war on cultural Christianity.[35]

The reconstitution of Christian nations in the USA and the rest of the Anglosphere will require the emergence of a counter-elite ready, willing, and able to contest the Jewish Ascendancy, not just within the state, but also on the terrain of civil society, in the corporate sector, the media, academia, and the legal profession.[36]  Any such counter-elite must be driven by an ethnoreligious spirit if it is to have any chance of success.  The greatest weakness of Wolfe’s vision of Christian nationhood is that he treats the particularity of each people and place as adiaphorous, a thing indifferent, not affecting the universal spiritual unity of the kingdom of God.

Conclusion

For Wolfe, Christ redeemed humanity as a whole; the constituent elements of mankind’s transient life in this world were to be perfected by ordering the various Christian nations/ethnicities to Christ.  Wolfe takes it for granted that humanity has a telos in common, already known to Christian theology.  But what if race is not just a social construct but also possesses an intractably biological dimension?  What if the phenomenology of place is ultimately grounded in the evolutionary history of distinctive biocultures?  Race is a trinitarian phenomenon: race-as-biology, race-as-culture, and race-as-theology, all develop together within a complex differentiated historical process.  Every “people-group” (the tender-minded synonym for tribes, nations, and races) possesses its own language, culture, patterns of experience, and goals; they cannot all be squeezed together into the simplistic schematic structure of a neo-Augustinian metanarrative.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to situate themselves within a theologically informed ethnohistory.  Such an ethnotheology must come to grips with biocultural science, with genetic similarity theory, and with a consciousness of the importance of ethnic genetic interests to the physical and spiritual well-being of their people.[37]  Only in that way can Anglo-Protestants hope to understand the rise, decline, fall, and possible restoration of Anglo-Saxon Christendoms throughout the Anglosphere.

As things stand now, Anglo-Protestant theology bears a large share of responsibility for the deformation of Christian nationhood.  Perhaps the most telling symptom of the present crisis is Wolfe’s claim that there can never again be a chosen nation or people.  No Christian nation today, he writes, can be “a holy nation in the sense that Israel was holy when under the Mosaic Covenant.  No nation today is God’s nation by some special divine command or by exclusive divine favor.”  Wolfe acknowledges that a people can only become or maintain themselves as a Christian nation “in an explicit sense, [by] an act of national will.”[38]  But here he is intellectually crippled by the idealist, other-worldly character of his historical and political theology.  A more realistic account of the origins of the Mosaic Covenant might understand it as a product of a historical process in which both divine command and national will were involved.

As one writer, who goes by the name of Jung-Freud, contends, “if Jews believed in many gods for different peoples as pagan folks did, then there would have been no need for the Covenant.”  Instead, Jews took a different path “out of boldness, imagination, arrogance, megalomania, or whatever,” they “came to believe in only one God for themselves.”  But they also taught their children that no other gods were real and that it was a grave sin to worship them.  But why would that one God favor the insignificant small-time people of Israel over all other tribes?  That seemingly insoluble puzzle made it necessary for the Israelites to come up with the Covenant.  Without it, “there was no guarantee that God would stick with the Jews.”[39]

In light of the heroic role of Anglo-Protestants in the foundation of the nations of the Anglosphere, why should they, too, not feel in their bones that they can and should enter into a special covenant with God?  After all, the process by which a people enter into covenant with the divine must be akin to what has long been known to the Orthodox Christian tradition as the experience of “theosis” or “deification.”  Perhaps, a “stateless” people, such as the ancient Israelites on their exodus journey to the Promised Land, is more receptive to communion with the divine.

But the Jews are not the only people to experience “statelessness.”  In our own time, the “nation-states” of the Anglosphere have been subordinated to the hidden hand of globalist plutocracy.  As a consequence, the Anglo-Saxon peoples, both “at home” and in the diaspora, are now de facto, if not yet de jure, “stateless.”  Perhaps providentially, certainly ironically, such political and cultural dispossession may have created the conditions for a spiritual renaissance.  WASPs may yet rediscover the ethnoreligious spirit that once moved Alfred the Great to look to Covenant as the essential medium for the collective deification of his embryonic Angelcynn nation.[40]

Given that possibility, it is no wonder that organized Jewry does everything in its power to demonize the ethnoreligious spirit of Christian nationalism throughout the Anglosphere.[41]  But let us not forget that such cultural subversion also successfully targeted once-great Christian nations such as Germany as well—with the active cooperation of the Anglo-Saxon nations.  Anglo-Protestant theology happily sanctified the thirty-year war waged on Germany.  Now re-educated, guilt-tripped, and thoroughly demoralized by a systematic process of Überfremdung, Germany remains securely under the thumb of the globalist American regime overseeing its proxy war on Orthodox Christian Russia.  “Our” phony victories in those wars should be sources of shame rather than pride.  Compare the negative, dysgenic, maladaptive impact of Anglo-Protestant Woke political theology with the positive, eugenic, and adaptive success of the Jewish political theology grounded in the Holocaust Mythos. In the one case, blasphemy laws are conceived as a violation of human rights; in the other, “condoning, denying, or downplaying” Jewish suffering is a shocking offence against the laws of God and man, alike.

It is long past time for Anglo-Protestant political theology to identify and clearly distinguish friend from foe in the holy war we are compelled to wage for the earthly survival and spiritual salvation of the Anglo-Saxon race worldwide.  God save the King.

Andrew Fraser taught constitutional law and history at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia for many years.  He is the author of The WASP Question (London: Arktos, 2011) and Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology (London: Arktos, 2017).

[1] Ibid., 119-120, 186.

[2] Ibid., 120.

[3] Mark David Hall, “The 500-Year-Old Case for Christian Nationalism” https://providencemag.com/2022/11/the-500-year-old-case-for-christian-nationalism/

[4] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 176, 199.

[5] Ibid., 120, 134.

[6] Ibid., 119, 135.

[7] Ibid., 136, 140.

[8] Ibid., 139.

[9] Ibid., 136.

[10] Ibid., 136

[11] Ibid., 119.

[12] Neil Shenvi, “Of Gods and Men: A Long Review of Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism, Part III-Objections” https://shenviapologetics.com/of-gods-and-men-a-long-review-of-wolfes-case-for-christian-nationalism-part-iii-objections/

[13] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 431, 475.

[14] Kevin DeYoung, “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/christian-nationalism-wolfe/

[15] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 329-330, 334, 345.

[16] Ibid., 346, 392.

[17] Ibid., 390-392, 414-415.

[18] Kaufmann, Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, 4.

[19] Donald Meyer, The Positive Thinkers: A Study of the American Quest for Health, Wealth, and Personal Power from Mary Baker Eddy to Norman Vincent Peale (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1966), 177.

[20] Brian Gatton, “Hari-Kari of the Anglo Elite,” (2006) 25(4) Journal of American Ethnic History 181.  For more on the distinction between inner-directed and other-directed character types, see David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Emerging American Character (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001 [original ed. 1961]).

[21] Meyer, Positive Thinkers, 177.

[22] Ibid., 177-178.

[23] Kaufmann, Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, 91-95.

[24] Eric P. Kaufmann, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities (London: Penguin, 2018).

[25] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 199-204.

[26] Frank Salter, “The Ethnic Predicaments of the Shrinking White Majority,” (September 2019) 63(9) Quadrant 31, at 34-35.

[27] Ibid., 33.

[28] Kaufmann, quoted in Salter, “Ethnic Predicaments,” 33.

[29] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 139.

[30] Hannah Arendt, “Reflections on Little Rock,”[originally published in 1959] in Peter Baehr, ed. The Portable Hannah Arendt (New York: Penguin, 2000), 238-239.

[31] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 139-140.

[32] Ibid., 213..

[33] Ibid., 226.

[34] Salter, “Ethnic Predicaments,” 32-33.

[35] Simple internet searches for material on “the Jewish role” in each of those movements will yield ample evidence to support this proposition.  A more systematic academic introduction to these issues can be found in Kevin Macdonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Long Beach, CA: 1st Books, 2002 [originally published by Praeger in 1998]).

[36] Andrew Fraser, Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital: How Honourable WASP Elites Could Rescue Our Civilisation from Bad Governance by Irresponsible Corporate Plutocrats (London: Arktos, 2022).

[37] Good introductions to these fields can be found in Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (London: Routledge, 2006); J. Phillipe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective Third Edition (Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000); and Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos, 2011).

[38] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 176.

[39] Jung-Freud, “Why the Euraces (Or European Races) Need Their Own COVENANT(s) in a One-Truth and One-Power World” https://www.unz.com/jfreud/why-the-euracesor-european-races-need-their-own-covenants-in-a-one-truth-and-one-power-world/

[40] I deal with this question in Andrew Fraser, “Anglo-Republicanism and the Rebirth of British History: Why Virtuous WASPs Must Challenge the Corrupt Globalist Plutocracy Misgoverning the Anglosphere,” (Fall 2021) 21(3) The Occidental Quarterly 3-58.  Available online at: https://mq.academia.edu/AndrewFraser

[41] See, e.g., Rabbi Deborah Waxman, PhD, “Ethnonationalism is a Grave Threat to Democracy” https://www.reconstructingjudaism.org/news/ethnonationalism-is-a-grave-threat-to-democracy/

Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?) Part One

/66 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Weak-willed Anglo-Protestants in Canada meekly acquiesced in official recognition by their federal government of Jewish political theology in the form of the Holocaust mythos.  This is hardly surprising in light of their failure a few years earlier to resist repeal of a milquetoast Criminal Code provision prohibiting only the most egregiously vulgar displays of blasphemous libel.[i]  Having already surrendered the historical theological hegemony of Protestant Christianity in English Canada, Anglo-Protestants hardly seem likely to resurrect the ethnoreligious mythos which inspired the Old English church of their medieval ancestors.  Such Protestant pusillanimity stands in stark contrast to the aggressively ethnocentric political theology of organized Jewry, not just in Canada, but across the entire Anglosphere.  If contemporary WASPs had any self-respect, they would rush to remedy the absence of a spiritually compelling, bioculturally adaptive, Anglican/Anglo-Protestant ethnotheology.

Optimism on that score is probably unwarranted, however.  Few WASPs know or care much about their ethnoreligious origins.  Even most members of the Anglican church believe that it came into being with the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation.  It was then that Henry VIII formally broke with Rome for reasons of state.  Before then, the ecclesia Anglicana had been absorbed within the institutional framework of a papal monarchy asserting universal jurisdiction.  Allied with a French-speaking, Anglo-Norman ruling class, the Roman Catholic papacy had no reason to preserve the explicitly ethnoreligious character of the Old English Church.  Nor did the break with the papacy precipitate an Anglo-Saxon ethnoreligious revival; beyond replacing the Pope with the King as the formal head of the Church of England, the new state religion retained its traditional commitment to the catholicity of the Three Creeds enshrined in the Thirty-Nine Articles.  But, whatever the intentions of those who set the Protestant Reformation in motion, over the next few centuries, the combined impact of English and American Protestantism deformed beyond recognition the very idea of Christian nationhood.

As James Kurth writes, the doctrinal base of the Anglo-Protestant Reformation “protested against the idea that the believer achieves salvation through a hierarchy or a community, or even the two in combination.”  Of course, the reformed Church of England “accepted hierarchy and community for certain purposes, such as church governance and collective undertakings [but] they rejected them for the most important of purposes, reaching the state of salvation.”  Protestant reformers held that “the believer receives salvation through an act of grace by God.”  It is divine grace that “produces in its recipient the faith in God and salvation that converts him into a believer.”  Hence, “reformers placed great emphasis on the Word, as revealed in the written words of the Bible.”  They denied that only a priestly hierarchy could deliver the right interpretation of the Bible to individual believers.  Indeed, authoritative hierarchies were more likely to impede the work of divine grace upon individual believers seeking a direct relationship with God through personal study of the Holy Scriptures.[ii]

The initial “Protestant rejection of hierarchy and community in regard to salvation spread to their rejection in regard to other domains of life as well.”  From the beginning, “some Protestant churches rejected hierarchy and community in regard to church governance and local undertakings.”  Nowhere were such anti-institutional tendencies more pronounced than “in the new United States, where the conjunction of the open frontier and the disestablishment of churches in the several states enabled the flourishing of new unstructured and unconstrained denominations.”[iii]

Over the past five-hundred years, the Protestant faith gradually lost its spiritual intensity, a process which began when salvation by grace was replaced by the “half-way covenant” in which grace could be evidenced by works.[iv]  Then, even “the idea of the necessity of grace began to fade.”  Once “work in the world was no longer seen as a sign of grace but as a good in itself,” good works offered the promise of personal salvation.  The transformation of religious experience into a personal relationship to God was an early expression of Anglo-Protestant individualism.  In our own time, the transformation of religion into a personal and private matter has culminated in the recognition of universal human rights as the sacred birthright of every individual.  According to Kurth, “this means that human rights are applicable to any individual, anywhere in the world.”

Thus, “the ultima ratio of the secularization of the Protestant religion” has become an “expressive individualism” in which the imperial self is free to express his/her/its “contempt for and protest against all hierarchies, communities, traditions, and customs.”  In other words, Kurth writes, “the long declension of the Protestant Reformation has reached its end point in the Protestant Deformation,” producing a religion without God, “a reformation against all forms.”[v]

Expressive individualism in America was inspired by the romantic-humanistic ethic prevalent among Progressive reformers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most of whom were middle-class WASPs.  But it was the massive wave of immigration from southern and central Europe which provided the raw material enabling the WASP clerisy to manufacture the cosmopolitan spirit characteristic of urban America during the Progressive Era.

Confronted with the tightly-packed masses of immigrants in New York and Chicago, middle-class reformers learned “to interpret Protestant Christianity in a very peculiar, almost secular way.”  In adapting “the tenets of egalitarian humanism to their polyglot, culturally-charged context,” the reform movement established “settlement houses” to assist alien newcomers in adjusting to life in America.  Anglo-Protestant reformers such as Jane Addams and John Dewey led the campaign to recognize and accept immigrant cultures “as a ‘gift’ to the American amalgam.”  They implored the American nation “to shed its Anglo-Saxon ethnic core and develop a culture of cosmopolitan humanism, a harbinger of impending global solidarity.”[vi]  Other Anglo-Protestant reformers such as William James urged their fellow WASPs to embrace a pragmatic approach to religious experience, choosing whichever “type of religion is going to work better in the long run.”  It did not matter much whether God was dead, so long as “we form at any rate an ethical republic here below.”[vii]

An American century later, Kurth notes that, by then, almost every nation with a Protestant religious tradition has “by now adopted some version of the human rights ideology.”[viii]  One might add that the many manifestations of Anglo-Protestant humanism in various corners of the Anglosphere do not always maintain logical consistency.  In Canada, for example, the offence of blasphemous libel was removed from the Criminal Code in the name of the universal human right to free expression just four years before the decision to criminalize anyone who condones, denies, or downplays the Jewish Holocaust.[ix]  No-one should be surprised to learn that organized Jewry overwhelmingly approved both pieces of legislation.  After all, Jews are now held up as exemplary victims of those who would deny or abuse human rights.  At the same time, however, neither measure appears to have encountered any serious opposition from Anglo-Canadian Protestants, even though both (especially taken together) would have been interpreted as deformations of Christian nationhood by earlier generations of Protestants in English Canada.  Almost everywhere in the Anglosphere, such Protestant deformations of traditional Christian mores have been consecrated, sooner or later, by globalist churches with the full support of the Holocaust industry.

All too often, either the Church of England or its Anglican successors in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States have been in the vanguard of that moral declension.  We need to understand the historical roots of such dysgenic institutional behavior.  Unfortunately, even the recent rise to prominence of “Christian nationalism” in the USA is unlikely to reverse the Protestant Deformation.

Christian Nationalism, American-Style

A recent book by Stephen Wolfe making The Case for Christian Nationalism has much to recommend it.[x]  As an unapologetic paleoconservative, the author blames the postwar Global American Empire (GAE) for undermining Christian nationhood at home in the USA, perhaps terminally.  “In the New America,” he observes, “the ground of patriotic sentiment is away from the Old America.  Thus, civic holidays, national heroes, memorials, and patriotic events are all colored according to the grand narrative of progress.”  Even mainstream conservatives are committed to the progressivist narrative of US history, so much so that they are the staunchest supporters of the military which, they believe, fights to defend “the American way of life.”  But, despite his experience as a West Point graduate serving in the U.S. army in the world-wide “fight for democracy,” Wolfe now advises young men not to get “blown up in the name of liberal imperialism; shed blood to open up markets for Netflix and Pornhub; [or to] make the world safe for dudes in dresses.”[xi]

He holds the GAE responsible for undermining the moral and cultural foundations of Christian nationhood.  Not only has the imperial regime imposed homosexual marriage upon all the states by judicial fiat, it also steeps young minds in critical race theory and gender-bending ideology.  Meanwhile, the floodgates have been opened to a tidal wave of non-Western immigration, further eroding the once-dominant Anglo-Protestant character of American national identity.  Nevertheless, in opposition to the relentless onslaught of nihilistic disenchantment, Wolfe holds out the hope that Christian nationalism could inspire a “true revolt against the modern world.”  He believes in the possibility of “the pursuit of higher life—both the life to come and a life on earth that images that life to come.”  Indeed, he insists that Christians can still regard the world as their “inheritance in Christ.”  With undisguised passion, Wolfe presents Christian nationalism as “a collective will for Christian dominion in the world.”[xii]

But what prevents Christians from exercising the biblical mandate to exercise dominion over this world?  The problem, as Wolfe sees it, is essentially psychological.  American Christians “have been so conditioned to affirm what we feel to be good that the feeling determines for us what is true.  Conversely, we deny any thought that we feel is bad.”  Some beliefs, notably Christian nationalism, are psychologically more difficult for churchgoers to entertain than others.[xiii]

Most Anglo-American Protestants, for example, have long been conditioned, by both church and state, to regard religion as a private and personal matter.  Wolfe’s vision of Christian nationalism cuts across the grain of those habits of religious privatism.  For example, Wolfe calls upon civil government to protect and preserve the exclusively Christian identity of the nation by penalizing “open blasphemy and irreverence in the interest of public peace and Christian peoplehood.”  Few mainstream Christians will be “comfortable” with his argument that “Sabbath laws are just, because they remove distractions for holy worship.”[xiv]

Similarly, Wolfe’s case for upholding the legitimacy of traditional gender hierarchies has already attracted accusations of “misogyny.”  On this issue, however, Wolfe pulls no punches.  He declares that Americans “live under a gynocracy—a rule of women.”  He concedes that this “may not be apparent on the surface, since men still run many things.  But the governing virtues of America are feminine vices, associated with certain feminine virtues, such as empathy, fairness, and equality.”  Any such defense of “toxic masculinity” runs contrary to feminist norms eagerly enforced by the established secularist regime.  But Wolfe remains unrepentant, declaring flatly that the “rise of Christian nationalism necessitates the fall of gynocracy.”[xv]

Inevitably, therefore, the very idea of Christian nationalism represents an existential threat to the Woke liberal regime.  Wolfe bluntly characterizes “the secularist ruling class” as “the enemies of the church and, as such, enemies of the human race.”[xvi]  At the same time, he recognizes that to resist the moral and political consensus enforced by a godless regime, Christians must summon the hitherto absent strength of will necessary to affirm what is true even when it causes them enormous psychological discomfort.

To his credit, Wolfe admits that many Christian leaders deliberately undermine political action in opposition to the secularist regime.  Instead, they “advance a sort of Stockholm syndrome theology” which excludes “Christians from public institutions” but requires them “to affirm the language of universal dignity, tolerance, human rights, anti-nationalism, anti-nativism, multiculturalism, social justice, and equality.”  Wolfe deplores the fact that any Christian who “deviates from these dogmas” faces exclusion from the ranks of respectable churchgoers.[xvii]  What, then, is to be done?  Wolfe turns to Christian political theory in search of an answer.  Unfortunately, the result, even for many of his Christian readers, leaves much to be desired.

Nationalism and Christianity

Wolfe’s book has attracted wide interest in a multitude of online reviews and podcast discussions.  Understood as a political program, Wolfe’s conception of Christian nationalism is often pronounced DOA, dead on arrival.  For example, Neema Parvini, author of The Populist Delusion, dismisses Christian Nationalism as a “political fantasy.”[xviii]  In fairness, however, Wolfe himself readily agrees that, on the national level at least, the idea has little chance of success.  He does not present the book as a viable “action plan.”[xix]  Instead, he sets out the principles that should guide any Christian nation.  Wolfe’s preferred model of Christian nationalism is grounded in a Reformed Presbyterian version of two-kingdoms theology which distinguishes between God’s redemptive work of salvation and his providential governance of earthly affairs.

Accordingly, he defines Christian nationalism in the following manner:

Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.[xx]

In other words, “Christian nationalism is nationalism modified by Christianity” which is to say that “the Gospel does not supersede, abrogate, eliminate, or fundamentally alter generic nationalism, it assumes and completes it.”  Apart from Christianity, therefore:

Nationalism refers to a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a nation as a nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good. [xxi]

According to Wolfe, “the specific difference between generic nationalism and Christian nationalism is that, for the latter, Christ is essential to obtaining the complete good.”  The ordering of people to heavenly life would have been “a natural end for even the generic nation” but for the fall.  “Had Adam not fallen, the nations of his progeny would have ordered themselves to heavenly life.”  Following the advent of Christ as the Redeemer, “the Gospel is now the sole means to heavenly life.”  If nations are to achieve their “complete good,” even “earthly goods ought to be ordered to Christ.”  Without Christ, pagan and secularist nations may be “true nations but they are incomplete nations.  Only the Christian nation is a complete nation.”[xxii]

Wolfe situates all nations and nationalisms, Christian or otherwise, within a Reformed Presbyterian vision of salvation history.  Wolfe describes his argument as a “Christian political theory” rather than a “political theology” grounded in his own biblical exegesis.  His understanding of Scripture relies instead upon the work of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theologians.  That Reformed tradition developed within a metanarrative framework established by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD).  Augustine and the later Reformed tradition posit a fundamental metaphysical distinction between the City of Man and the City of God.  Both interpret Scripture through the lens of a Hellenistic hermeneutic envisioning the creation ex nihilo and future destruction of the earthly world as the appearance and foreordained disappearance of corruptible material existence following the Day of Judgement.[xxiii]

Augustine’s neo-Platonic cosmology presupposed the absolute dependence of both mankind and the material world itself upon an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God.  Following in Augustine’s footsteps, Wolfe believes that modern Americans seduced by the delights of mortal life in Mammon have wandered far from heavenly goods, thereby losing sight of “the invisible things of God.”  Given the inherent difficulty mortal beings experience in apprehending such invisible divine “objects,” Wolfe, too, recognizes our spiritual debt to the revealed Word of God.  He holds fast to the Augustinian doctrine that, guided by the light of the Gospel, Christian nations should view their entire existence as a journey towards the unchangeable heavenly life, and their affections should be entirely fixed upon that.[xxiv]

It follows that “politics” in every Christian nation must be understood as “the art of establishing and cultivating necessary conditions for social life for the good of man.”  The point of a Christian political life comes from God; it must aim to create civil governments capable of shoring up the social order “for man’s complete good.”  In other words, the difference between generic nationalism and Christian nationalism is that the latter “expresses a Christian nation’s will for heavenly good in Christ and that all lesser goods are oriented to the higher good.” [xxv]

Presented in such universalistic, all-encompassing terms, Wolfe’s “Christian political theory” transforms “politics” into “public administration.”  Civil government, he says, must aim to identify the most effective earthly means within any given society to realize a heavenly destiny common to faithful believers in every Christian nation.

Action versus Behavior in Political Theory

In this context, the “totality of national action” is better understood as a socially ordered system of behavior premised upon the existence of one common interest, i.e., the interest of every Christian society not just in its own earthly survival and collective vitality but also in the heavenly salvation of every believer.  Public administration, as distinguished from politics, may become detached from natural persons and lodged instead in a social life-process which requires that human behavior conform to the developmental needs (both spiritual and material) of society.  Wolfe seems unaware that “politics,” strictly speaking, originally required the institutionalization of a realm of freedom in which civic action became possible.

The distinction between “action” and “behavior” was central to Hannah Arendt’s political theory.  In her view, “action” was the means by which the individual could distinguish himself from others in the public realm.  For a citizen to leave the private sphere of the household “to devote one’s life to the affairs of the city demanded courage” because entry into the “political realm had first to be ready to risk his life, and too great a love for life obstructed freedom, was a sure sign of slavishness.”  With the administrative victory of society over the public realm, the possibility of individual action gives way to the statistical regularities of human behavior, while the equality of men possessed of the acknowledged right to reveal themselves in their own distinctive public persona becomes degraded into conformism to the assumed common interest of society as a whole.[xxvi]

Not only does Wolfe’s “Christian political theory” fail to offer an “action plan,” it fails even to recognize the existential need for a public realm.  It is only in such a res publica that individuals, families, tribes, and nations are able to distinguish themselves, one from the other, through exemplary modes of civic action.  Such recognition of the distinctive character of political life has been the exception rather than the rule in human affairs.  Arendt may have been concerned primarily with the phenomenology of politics, but she well understood that the unique character of a civic mode of action was first discovered in ancient Greece, most famously in the Athenian polis.[xxvii]  To fully understand the early experience of politics and its decline in the totally administered societies characteristic of the modern transnational corporate welfare state, it is necessary to study, not just its biocultural preconditions but their historical development and the history of theological-political subversion.  Unfortunately, Wolfe’s argument treats Christianity, nationalism, politics, and civil government in generic, free-floating terms altogether detached from the biocultural history and theological presuppositions of any particular Christian nation.

Christian Meier observes that “ever since the Renaissance it has been possible to use the word politics to designate any action of which the state is capable.”  Wolfe simply assumes that this modern sense of the term effectively delimits its meaning, past, present, and future.  In classical Athenian democracy, however, the polis became identical with its citizens and “the majority of citizens gained supreme authority (with the help of those nobles who placed themselves in their service).”  For Aristotle, the word political meant “appropriate to the polis.”  His concept of politics denoted it as “the science of the highest good attainable through human action.”  Politics presupposed the unity of the citizenry as a whole: “the general civic interest…transcended all particularist interests.”  As a consequence, “there was no way in which anything resembling a state could establish centralized power or state institutions that were divorced from society.”[xxviii]

This great experiment in participatory politics rested on the “importance of familial and religious piety in Athenian democracy.”  Indeed, “those who failed in their familial, religious, or military duties” could be excluded from the polis.  The civic unity of the polis “was founded on family, patriarchy, community, military courage, common ancestry, and an intense patriotism.”  Indeed, it has been said that Athenian democracy was based upon a prototype of “racial citizenship.”  In contrast to other Greeks, “Athenians claimed to be racially pure…having supposedly sprung from the Attic soil as true autochtones.”  Bolstered by that myth of autochthony, the direct democratic politics associated with Athenian citizenship “was grounded in strong racial identity and pride in one’s lineage.”  In short, Athens was “a spirited and nativist democracy” in which even prominent residents not of Athenian blood (such as Aristotle) were excluded from citizenship.[xxix]

There was also an important geopolitical dimension to the character of the Athenian polity.  This can be seen in the contrast between Athens and Sparta.  In the eyes of an imperial power such as the mighty, multinational, military monarchy of Persia, Athens and Sparta represented a Greek power which “was that of patriotic, fractious little republics, defined by civic freedom.”  The particular forms of civic power in each city-state emerged out of very different geopolitical circumstances.  Sparta was a land power characterized by autarchy, hierarchy, community, and a rigorous military discipline organized to guard against the danger of rebellion by an enslaved population of helots.  Athens was a sea power in which international trade and a strong navy encouraged a commercial culture, democracy, individualism, and technology.[xxx]

Guillaume Durocher suggests that “Athens embodied the long-term superiority of dynamic commercial, democratic-individualist, and technologically advanced systems over static, austere, hierarchical-communitarian, and primitive ones.”  Like the modern, Anglo-Saxon thalassocracies in Great Britain and the United States, Athens was “dynamic and expansive in peacetime” while “able to adopt sufficiently hierarchical-communitarian characteristics in wartime.”[xxxi]

At the same time, the high level of social solidarity in both polities and its vital contribution to their respective war-fighting abilities gave the Greeks a sophisticated and distinctive understanding of the friend-enemy distinction.  A bright-line distinction was drawn between one’s enemies inside the polis and outsiders threatening society as a whole.  The modern German jurist Carl Schmitt identified the difference between friend and foe as the existential essence of politics.  He took note of the gradations in the Greek understanding of enmity encoded in the koine dialect of ancient Greek and later carried over into the New Testament.  Unfortunately, the linguistic precision of the Greek original was lost when translated into English or German.  As we have seen, Wolfe relies upon English versions of Reform theology for his rare forays into biblical exegesis.  He may never have recognized, therefore, that the (mis)translation of Matthew 5:43-44 conceals a fundamental fault line between idealist and realist political theologies.

When Jesus enjoined his followers to “love your enemies,” he was not laying the moral foundation of Christian pacifism.  Wolfe is no pacifist, however; he vigorously defends the martial virtues “as a necessary feature of masculine excellence.”[xxxii]  Nevertheless, like most Christians, Wolfe strenuously resists the temptation to build our identities by discriminating between “us” and “them.”  Having internalized the anti-discrimination ethos of the civil rights revolution, many Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus asked his followers to “love” their persecutors.  As a matter of fact, he merely urged them to “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt.5:44).  Carl Schmitt took a more realistic view of the Sermon on the Mount.  He tackled the translation issue, clarifying what Jesus meant when asking his audience to love their “enemies.”  In the Greek original, Jesus uses the word echthroi to denote persons who might be “private” or “personal” enemies of their fellow citizens (or, in this context, fellow Jews engaged alongside him in a spiritual battle to fulfill the law of Old Covenant Israel).  He was not talking about the “public” or “alien” enemies (polemoi) of the Jewish people as a whole.[xxxiii]

Unless one keeps that distinction in mind, Christian charity can easily degenerate into a pathological altruism incapable of addressing existential threats to one’s nation as such.  Christian nationalism should be based upon a realist political theology which, in turn, should ground itself in a multi-dimensional understanding of the history and biocultural foundations of every Christian nation.

The Origins and Ends of Mankind in History and Christian Mythology

History can be understood as an intellectual discipline providing narrative or analytical accounts of past events based upon the empirical investigation of more or less reliable sources.  It is worth noting that “scientific” history in this sense was the product of two Greeks writing in the fifth century BC.  According to R.G. Collingwood, Herodotus and Thucydides “quite clearly recognized both that history is, or can be, a science and that it has to do with human actions.”  Their histories were not legends; they were research.  They were “an attempt to get answers to definite questions about matters of which one recognizes that one is ignorant.”[xxxiv]  Nothing could be further from this methodology than Wolfe’s universal, one size fits all, and thoroughly unscientific schema of salvation history.

Needless to say, the study of human biocultures is also a scientific enterprise which relies upon the empirical study of interactions between biological and cultural phenomena as they have evolved within various population groups.  By contrast, Wolfe’s account of Christian nationalism simply presupposes a neo-Augustinian vision of the divinely-ordained stages of the salvation history of mankind, a generic “Christian narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and glorification.”[xxxv]  This story presents the past, present, and future of humanity in general as it unfolds in four stages: a state of integrity; a state of sin; a state of grace; and, finally, the state of glory.

Wolfe’s speculative account of the prelapsarian state of integrity is truly breathtaking in what one critic describes as its intellectual irresponsibility.  He spends an entire chapter describing the sort of “civil fellowship” that Adam’s progeny would have arranged but for the fall.  As Bob Stevenson observes, Wolfe’s vision of the prelapsarian world rests on the biblical account found in

61 verses, comprised of 1,253 words describing the world before our first parents saw the goodness of the forbidden fruit, took and ate.  If we only include the parts where humanity exists—and thereby human society, sociability, diversity of gifts, normative roles etc.—that number is reduced to 36 verses, consisting of 764 words.[xxxvi]

It is impossible to construct an account of what a counter-factual prelapsarian world would look like on the basis of those 764 words.  Wolfe’s uses his own reason and imagination to reconstruct the structure of the unfallen world that might have been.  Wolfe contends that families, tribes, nations, and cultural diversity would all have been natural in the original state of integrity.  So, too, would have been hierarchy and the need for the masculine leadership and the martial virtues essential to self-preservation.  Wolfe’s portrait of the state of integrity calls to mind the image of the sinless noble savage and is equally devoid of evidence grounded in physical or cultural paleo-anthropology. Wolfe appears to be one of those Christians for whom it has long been “standard doctrine that every member of the human race is descended from the biblical Adam.”  How interesting, therefore, that it was a seventeenth-century “Calvinist of Portuguese Jewish origin from Bordeaux” who challenged Christian orthodoxy with the “beguilingly simple” claim “the human beings existed before the biblical Adam.”[xxxvii]

The impact of Isaac La Peyrère (1596–1676) on theological hermeneutics was such that many modern Christian scholars now accept that, in Hebrew hermeneutics, Adam need not be, and probably was not conceived as the first human being (see also Andrew Joyce’s comments, here and here).  On that reading, sin was in the world well before Adam.  Adam’s story was not about universal human origins but rather about the origins of Israel.  Having been created at the exodus and brought to the promised land of Canaan, Israel was bound by a law which it disobeys, suffering exile as a consequence.  In this way, “Israel’s drama—its struggles over the land and failure to follow God’s law—is placed into primordial time.”[xxxviii] In other words, the biblical Adam is better understood in mythical terms as proto-Israel.

In any case, after the fall, according to Wolfe’s rendition of the orthodox Reformed hermeneutic, the world becomes subject for the first time to sin, creating the need to augment the powers of civil government to suppress sin and maintain civil order.  With the advent of Christ, however, the redemption of mankind becomes possible and “Christians take up the task of true and complete humanity.”  Wolfe contends that “restorative grace sets the redeemed apart on earth—constituting a redeemed humanity on earth—and, on that basis, Christians can and ought to exercise dominion in the name of God.”  In that way, “grace perfects nature.”  Christians “are perfected for heavenly life but also restored in their perfection for obedience in earthly life.”[xxxix]  Wolfe never considers the possibility that the mission of the historical Jesus was limited in scope: i.e., the redemption of Old Covenant Israel, not humanity at large.

[i] Few people were ever prosecuted for blasphemous libel in Canada, the last in 1935.  This was probably a consequence of the giant loophole in s. 296(3) of the Criminal Code: “No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.”  There is a similar exemption [see, s. 319(3)(1)(c)] in the recently enacted law prohibiting denial, downplaying, or condoning of the Holocaust.  One might reasonably expect more vigorous efforts to be pursued by organized Jewry in contesting the application of that exemption clause whenever cases of public skepticism or outright denial of the Holocaust are deemed threatening to their theopolitical interests.

[ii] James Kurth, “The Protestant Deformation and American Foreign Policy,” (1998) 42(2) Orbis 221, at 225-226.

[iii] Ibid., 227.

[iv] Perry Miller, “The Half-Way Covenant,” (1933) 6(4) New England Quarterly 676.

[v] Kurth, “Protestant Deformation,” 229, 236.

[vi] Eric P. Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 95-98.

[vii] Eugen McCarraher, Christian Critics: Religion and the Impasse in Modern American Social Thought (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), 15.

[viii] Kurth, “Protestant Deformation,” 237.

[ix] For the common law background to s.296 of the Criminal Code (as it then was) and an illustration of the liberal conventional wisdom successfully calling for its repeal ten years later, see Jeremy Patrick, “Not Dead, Just Sleeping: Canada’s Prohibition on Blasphemous Libel as a Case Study in Obsolete Legislation,” (2008) 41 University of British Columbia Law Review 193.

[x] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022).

[xi] Ibid., 435-438.

[xii] Ibid., 443, 447-448.

[xiii] Ibid., 454-455.

[xiv] Ibid., 31.

[xv] Ibid., 448, 454.

[xvi] Ibid., 455-456.

[xvii] Ibid., 4-5.

[xviii] Neema Parvini, “Christian Nationalism Is a Political Fantasy” December 1, 2022 https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/christian-nationalism-is-a-political-fantasy/; see also, The Populist Delusion (Perth: Imperium Press, 2022).

[xix] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 433.

[xx] Ibid., 9.

[xxi] Ibid., 11.

[xxii] Ibid., 15.

[xxiii] Augustine, City of God Against the Pagans, ed. And trans. R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), bk. XX, ch.1, 965.

[xxiv] Cf., Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, (Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, 2013), 12-14, 22.

[xxv] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 89, 180.

[xxvi] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 36, 40-44; see also, Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Attack of the Blob: Hannah Arendt’s Concept of the Social (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

[xxvii] Christian Meier, The Greek Discovery of Politics trans. David McLintock (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

[xxviii] Ibid., 14, 20-21.

[xxix] Guillaume Durocher, “Athens: A Spirited and Nativist Democracy,” (Fall 2018) 18(3) The Occidental Quarterly, 74-75, 78; See also, Susan Lape, Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), ix, 59.

[xxx] Ibid., 72.

[xxxi] Ibid., 73, 80.

[xxxii] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 76.

[xxxiii] Cf. Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political trans. George Schwab (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 28-29.

[xxxiv] R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 17-18.

[xxxv] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 41.

[xxxvi] Bob Stevenson, “The Case for Christian Nationalism: A Review (Part Two).” https://bobstevenson.net/the-case-for-christian-nationalism-a-review-part-ii-84384e87eab1

[xxxvii] David N. Livingstone, Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 5, 26,33.

[xxxviii] Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012), 65-66.

[xxxix] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 100, 101, 110-111.

Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual? Review of “One Nation under Blackmail”

/50 Comments/in /by

One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2)
Whitney Webb
Trine Day, 2022

“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]

Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.

On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.

Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspaper articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. The intersection of sexual politics with Jewish power has long since been of interest to this writer, and the case of Jeffrey Epstein is easily one of the most damning instances, as evident by the large amount of popular interest in the story. A selection of other books on the Epstein/Maxwell case has appeared in bookshops over the past two years, but a cursory glance through their pages and at their appendices, where the words ‘Israel,’ ‘Jewish,’ and ‘Zionism’ are conspicuously lacking, shows you how surface-level they are in comparison to Webb’s book.

As Webb details extensively throughout the first volume, using sexual blackmail[3] to achieve political ends is far from being an Epstein innovation; it is almost certainly a tactic he learned from others in the murky world where crime meets intelligence. Nor is it something exclusive to Jews. But one can’t help but notice a consistent ethnic pattern in the known major perpetrators of this sort of behavior in Western countries. I have previously written about the Australian variety, where Jewish underworld figure Abe Saffron acquired compromising pictures of prominent Australians (more often than not with underage prostitutes) and leveraged this for his own nefarious ends. Webb (in Chapter 2: Booze and Blackmail) outlines in detail the blackmail operations run by mob-linked figures Lewis Rosenstiel and Roy Cohn from a bugged suite at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Other non-Jews that Webb identifies as running parallel schemes, such as Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi or Craig Spence, were likewise deeply enmeshed in the same circles (Khashoggi in fact worked for Israeli intelligence).

Ultimately what is most frightening about the Epstein case, and what makes it stands out from the rest, is the sophistication of the operation, the high profile of the targets—from sitting US presidents to senior members of the British Royal Family—and the extraordinary lengths gone to in order to protect Epstein and avoid the true nature of his activities being exposed. It was as if there was something important at the heart of it all, something worthy of being protected by those in power, with lots at stake lest it be brought into public view. On a number of occasions Webb points to the underreported comments attributed to Alex Acosta, the attorney who gave Epstein his infamous plea deal in 2007, who allegedly told the Trump White House transition team that he backed off upon being told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”[4] At every stage where Epstein came under scrutiny, from his first legal conviction, to his second arrest and the questionable circumstances of his death, and even in the post-mortem coverage of his indiscretions, forces seemingly moved in the background to obscure and obfuscate, to clean up the mess and avoid as much detail be allowed to come to light as possible.

Like many books published by small dissident publishers with limited resources, both volumes would have been improved with editing for a more streamlined narrative, as neither makes for easy reading. Without a familiarity with the major events and actors described throughout each densely-packed chapter, the connections and the significance of the interactions between people are sometimes difficult to comprehend. Webb’s sources are conveniently compiled in endnotes at the conclusion of each chapter, and she uncovers a level of detail that makes it a worthy resource for your bookshelf that you will inevitably return to when trying to remember a name or make sense of a connection. Nevertheless, as this review concludes, the book falls short of providing a satisfying answer to the questions that readers of The Occidental Observer would go into it having, and shies away from responding to the most glaring aspects of the Epstein case of all.

ONE NATION UNDER BLACKMAIL

The central thesis of the book is that there has historically been a connection between organized crime and intelligence agencies in America, where the two are in some cases so intensely interwoven in their activities that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. This thesis, Webb claims, allows us to understand the nature of Jeffrey Epstein and his mysterious life, and that Epstein is one of many such nefarious actors who have operated on the margins of legitimacy. Volume 1 begins in the first half of the twentieth century, where Webb argues that the first connection between intelligence and organised crime was forged in America during the midst of World War II, in an undertaking known as Operation Underworld. This collaboration, specifically between the National Crime Syndicate (an alliance between the Italian and Jewish mobs) and the forerunners of the modern intelligence apparatus, came out of a sort of national security necessity that reaped geo-political dividends and continued after 1945 and into the Cold War.

Though intriguing, many of the chapters of Volume 1 deal with events and personalities of more limited relevance to the main Epstein blackmail story, covering the web of intrigue and scandal surrounding things such as Watergate, the BCCI, the China Lobby, and more obscure events like Billygate and Koreagate. Those chapters dealing with the spiritual forebears of Jeffrey Epstein are the ones that provide the most context and are the most enlightening to read. Webb presents a wealth of information about the history of the Jewish mob and other powerful Jewish figures during the middle years of the twentieth century, when wider Jewish political and cultural influence was beginning to solidify within America and the West. The cast of Jewish characters implicated in major American criminal, financial and political scandals, especially those with a direct line of descent to the Epstein blackmail operation, is staggering: the Bronfman family, Roy Cohn, Bruce Rappaport, Meyer Lanksy, Lewis Rosenstiel, Marc Rich, Max Fisher, Edmond Safra, and Robert Maxwell.

In Chapter 3, “Organised Crime and the State of Israel,” Webb underscores that much of the support given to the Zionist paramilitary groups that operated prior to the foundation of Israel—in the form of smuggled arms and funding—came from criminal networks. Canadian-Jewish liquor barons the Bronfman family, who participated in bootlegging during prohibition, financed the purchase of weapons for Haganah troops. Other Jewish mob figures with Zionist sympathies donated large sums and aided the Zionist cause during Israel’s formative years. This criminal collusion was, in Israel’s case, ongoing throughout its history and was “baked in at the very foundations of, not only its intelligence services, but the origins of the state itself.”[5]

Chapter 9, “High Tech Treason,” introduces us to Robert Maxwell, British media mogul and Israel’s Superspy, another figure of importance in Epstein’s younger years, who jumped almost seamlessly between the roles of organized crime associate and intelligence agent. Webb explores Maxwell’s involvement with the Eastern Bloc mob, including when he lobbied Israel to grant Semion Mogilevich an Israeli passport, allowing him access to the US financial system, and the PROMIS scandal, whereby Maxwell helped Israeli intelligence sell bugged computer software to governments and corporations around the world.

When MI6 attempted to recruit Maxwell for the service, it concluded, after conducting an extensive background check, that Maxwell was a “Zionist—loyal only to Israel.”[6]

Chapter 10, “Government by Blackmail: The Dark Secrets of the Reagan Era,” brings Volume 1 to a close, where many of the cast of disreputable characters revealed in earlier chapters come home to roost during the Reagan administration and the Iran-Contra scandal. The familiar figure of Roy Cohn appears again as a “political fixer” for the Reagan campaign, but Webb notes that Reagan’s intimacy with powerful Jewish figures with organised crime links goes all the way back to the very start of his career, with his mentor Lew Wasserman, the long-time president of Hollywood’s MCA, Inc. and “arguably the most powerful and influential Hollywood titan in the four decades after World War II,” acting as a political patron.

Roy Cohn meeting with President Reagan and Rupert Murdoch in the White House, circa 1983

JEFFREY’S SHIKSES

Volume 1 sets the stage for Volume 2, where the interwoven networks of people introduced come together to contextualize the world that Epstein sprang from. Webb covers the underreported early years of Epstein’s financial career in the 1970s and 1980s, which are filled with just as much criminal intrigue as his later years as sex criminal, including his role as a “financial bounty hunter” allegedly working for Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi. His years as an investment banker at Bear Sterns, where he was seemingly brought directly into the company by Alan Greenberg,[7] sat for many years under a cloud of suspicion that he participated in an insider trading scheme carried out by the Bronfman-owned company Seagram. Epstein’s involvement with Steven Hoffenberg in what was at the time the largest uncovered Ponzi scheme in American financial history, Towers Financial Corporation, is yet another fascinating detail largely ignored elsewhere.

How and when Epstein was inducted into the world of intelligence cannot be accurately deduced, but Webb offers a number of potential scenarios, relating to his proximity to people such as Maxwell and Khashoggi. Elsewhere she points to the direct relationship Epstein seemingly had with the highest levels of the Israeli government. Former Israeli Prime Minister and military intelligence figure Ehud Barak, another close Epstein associate, claimed that he was first introduced to Epstein by none other than Shimon Peres.[8] Webb pins the beginning of the sexual blackmail scheme to some point in the early 1990s, around the time Ghislaine Maxwell latched onto Epstein following the death of her father.

Chapter 18, “Predators” deals with the nuts and bolts of the operation, exploring in detail the various methods both Epstein and Maxwell used to recruit and procure girls. Sometimes it was through friendships with the owners of modelling companies, other times it was as simple as Maxwell approaching a girl on the street and recruiting them for “massages.” Even literally purchasing underage Slavic girls from Eastern Europe was apparently a possibility for Epstein.[9] Their relationship with Les Wexner (Epstein was Wexner’s long-time money manager) also proved fruitful, using their connection with the popular Victoria’s Secret fashion chain—a brand owned by Wexner—to pose as recruiters.

Webb first came to my attention when she conducted an interview with Maria Farmer, considered the earliest Epstein victim to report him to the authorities. The interview is long, upwards of three hours, but well worth a listen, especially when Farmer begins to discuss how she was treated by the powerful Jewish figures surrounding Epstein:

I don’t know any White supremacists, but I know a lot of Jewish supremacists…They made is very clear that I was a servant [to them] because I was White.[10]

Farmer may be unfamiliar with the word shikse, but it perfectly describes how Epstein and Maxwell considered these young gentile girls ensnared in their net of abuse. The supposed “trope” of the Jewish man lusting after the shikse finds in Epstein yet another real-life example, with underage blonde girls being his victim of choice when satisfying his own urges. Former Ghislaine Maxwell friend Christina Oxenberg, quoted in the book from an at-the-time anonymous source, relayed a conversation she once had with Maxwell about who these women were that she was “recruiting.” Maxwell reportedly dismissed them with ease: “They’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.”[11]

On the other side of the operation was of course the hidden cameras and the recording equipment. The presence of these hidden cameras in Epstein’s properties is independently confirmed by a number of eyewitnesses, court documents and early newspaper articles that detail this curious addition to Epstein’s properties, and the existence of the CDs and hard drives to store the footage is a matter of public record, including from the latest FBI raid of Epstein’s New York mansion in 2019:

Per photographs taken at the time of the raid, hard drives were found inside a safe forced open by the FBI and numerous large black binders were found in a closet that contain “CDs, carefully categorized in plastic slipcovers and thumbnails with photos on them.” When shown in court, the “homemade labels” were redacted, as judge Alison Nathan had ruled that they contained “identifying information for third parties.” Did that information involve only the names of underage girls, the names of blackmail victims, or both?[12]

The FBI conveniently lacked the warrant to seize these items, and upon returning four days later with the correct warrant, the CDs and hard drives were gone. They were later handed over by Epstein’s lawyer, but having not had the chance to view what was on them, we can only assume that this was more than enough time to delete any incriminating files.

Epstein Schmoozing with elites. Left, from left: Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, unidentified man, and Larry Summers, presumably at Harvard. Right: with Ghislaine and Bill Clinton

Much has been made of the relationship that existed between Epstein and Donald Trump before they allegedly fell out with each other in 2004 over a property dispute in Palm Beach, Florida, but as Webb exposes in Chapter 16, “Crooked Campaigns,” Epstein and Maxwell had a far more politically intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton that coincided with his time in office and his early post-presidency years. Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times, and was apparently a prominent figure in the formation of the Clinton Global Initiative, which saw Clinton as a regular passenger on Epstein’s infamous plane, the “Lolita Express.” Webb refers to other attempts of sexual blackmail against Clinton, including in 1998 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apparently threatened Clinton with tape recordings Israel had obtained proving outright that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, using them to pressure Clinton to pardon Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard.[13] It seems the Clinton White House, which was seeking a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, was of key interest.

Chapter 21, “From PROMIS to Palantir: The Future of Blackmail,” finishes off Volume 2 with the chilling insight that perhaps one of the reasons Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation collapsed was because it was allowed to collapse—it had become outdated and irrelevant. The advent of the permanent internet connection has brought about opportunities for far more widespread and even more intimate forms of blackmail, instead conducted and collected via electronic means. A technological panopticon whereby the cameras once placed by Epstein throughout his properties are instead now placed by big tech and social media companies in our own homes, omnipresent in our lives. After his 2008 conviction, both Epstein and Maxwell seemed to be shifting away from sexual blackmail and were making inroads in Silicon Valley and mixing with data-harvesting IT companies. Epstein’s previous ties with higher-ups at Microsoft and his financial support for John Brockman’s Edge Foundation gave him an in with plenty of big tech leaders, and he had re-branded himself as a tech investor, starting a company focused on collecting genetic data. Ghislaine’s siblings in the Maxwell family also have pedigree in the tech industry going back to the 1990s. As noted by Webb, “in a world where blackmail is overwhelmingly electronic, people like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell become liabilities to be silenced, rather than assets to protect.”[14]

WHO, WHAT AND WHY?

Upon finishing Volume 2, I found that many of the questions raised by Webb still remained open. Who or what is “the system” that enabled Epstein and protected him from justice? If so many people knew, why was there such an institutional resistance to speak out about Epstein? And the most important question of all: what was goal behind collecting this sexual blackmail? Why were Epstein and his benefactors trying to control these victims? Unfortunately, Webb’s book does not provide a satisfying conclusion.

Webb does not shy away from pointing the finger at Israel or from discussing wider Zionist motivations and groups like B’nai B’rith. However, she stops frustratingly short of the obvious conclusions. Granted the reluctance is one that all those knowledgeable on the Jewish question are familiar with, and perhaps she simply avoids the discussion for the sake of keeping her book on Amazon and appealing to a wider audience, rather than have it be relegated to the ADL’s banned book department. But for an answer to the questions most readers are likely after, we are given nothing more than a few measly sentences concluding that the Epstein operation was instigated by Israeli intelligence and that those in the “power structure” and “the system”—the same people that made Epstein untouchable—have now strengthened their stranglehold over America. Ultimately, readers are given the impression that this blackmail was collected as control merely for the sake of control, power merely for the sake of power, without a deeper underpinning goal.

Upon being challenged during an interview by Jewish podcaster Adam Sosnick on the obvious Jewish identity of the key players, Webb retreats to the safe position: By referring to Israeli intelligence or Jewish criminals, one is not referring to all Jewish people, and one cannot conflate the Epstein network or powerful billionaire Zionists with the whole Jewish community, or ascribe any wider group motive to them. Sosnick also exhorts the listener to avoid speaking of groups and instead only of individuals, lest it breed hate.[15]

One is of course allowed to speak of the Chinese or Catholics or Russians in general terms and in a political sense as behaving out a sense of group identity and a sense of group interests, and it is sophistry to claim that the speaker is referring to every single Catholic in the world or every single Russian in the world. Regardless of which sociological theory of power you ascribe to, what is clearly being referred to is the organized community, the power structure that represents the wider in-group and operates towards a unique ingroup goal. In the case of the Russians, this is currently Putin and the Russian state apparatus, supplemented by the Russian military, media and business elite that do not dissent from achieving Russian strategic interests as determined by the state apparatus. For Catholics, it is the Vatican and the international network of dioceses, bolstered by the Catholic Universities, think tanks and charities. People are not forced to declare “not all Catholics” when dealing with the allegations of a cover-up of child sexual abuse within the church.

When one speaks of the Jews, it stands to reason that the same scenario should apply. That is, it quite reasonably refers to the organized Jewish community, including organizations like the ADL; the powerful figures in Israel and in the diaspora, as well as the religious and intellectual leaders, the business figures and the lobbying groups. Sure there are dissenters and outsiders, and of course there is internal debate and a difference of opinion on the best means for meeting its goals, but the organized Jewish community exists just the same, and remains firm in its fundamental goal of ensuring the security and survival of the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

Herein lies the problem for Webb and the reason behind the demand to treat Epstein as a mere “Jewish individual.” The network of powerful Jewish figures and institutions chronicled throughout Webb’s book is a network that is intimately connected to Jeffrey Epstein or to his blackmail operation: Robert Maxwell, the Pritzker Family, Larry Summers and Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak and Israeli intelligence, the world’s wealthiest Jewish families that formed the Mega Group (the Bronfman, Lauder and Wexner families). The list goes on and on. These are not powerless fringe figures or outsiders who are scorned by Jewish leaders or the wider Jewish community. They are the leaders of the organized Jewish community, some of whom practically direct Jewish-American cultural, political and even religious life. To remove them from the equation of power would be the equivalent of removing half of the highest-ranking members of the Vatican from the Catholic Church or leading members of the Chinese Communist Party from the Chinese state.

Using the phrase “the Jews” cuts the Gordian Knot at the heart of Webb’s attempt to understand Epstein, whom he was working for, and how he so effortlessly moved among the elite strata of society, why it was covered up, who stood to benefit from this blackmail operation, and what its ultimate aim was. With those two words, all the jumbled euphemisms of “elites” and “Zionists” melt away, and the confusing mix of organized crime and intelligence, legitimate and illegitimate enterprises seemingly working in unison with each other starts to become intelligible. The ease with which Epstein and Maxwell abused and then dismissed these young girls as mere “trash” makes more sense when you know the meaning behind the word shikse (an unclean abomination). The reason for the legal cover-up and the inhibition of the mainstream media to run the story, even when they have no direct connection to the Epstein network, is obvious when you know who the proprietors of most mainstream American media outlets are, and with whom both cultural and institutional power in the US now lies. All this interwoven association is merely two sides of the same coin—a system constructed to ensure the security of Israel and the survival of the Jewish people. To talk openly about Epstein’s true activities is to talk openly about the nature of Jewish power, and for that reason alone most will not do so, for fear of the Jews. In all, Webb has picked up the puzzle pieces and assembled them neatly on the board, but she refuses to take that final step back and honestly contemplate the picture she has pieced together.

What are we to make of the institutional silence and protection, and the dishonest shifting of the narrative to a mere sex-trafficking ring? What can you conclude from the attempt to declare anyone who dares point out the clear ethnic goal at the heart of this vile sexual blackmail operation an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist? The only reasonable conclusion is that Epstein functioned with the support and backing of Jewry’s most powerful figures, and that the organised Jewish community is willing to conceal a criminal conspiracy of frightening proportions if it serves to benefit the Jews or would otherwise negatively affect them (by creating more anti-Jewish sentiment) if the American public knew the truth.

Had Epstein’s personal indiscretions not become too big to ignore and had it not all unravelled so spectacularly due to the pressure of the #MeToo movement, would Epstein also have been buried in honor like Robert Maxwell, with Israeli Prime Ministers and dignitaries lining up to give a tearful goodbye to yet another faithful servant to the Jewish people? If he had been released early from a prison sentence, would he also have been welcomed back to Israel with open arms like Jonathon Pollard? Epstein had already once been professionally rehabilitated by Jews after his first conviction, there’s no reason why it couldn’t have happened again.

[1] Webb, W 2022, One Nation Under Blackmail: The sordid union between Intelligence and Organised Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1), Trine Day, Oregon USA, p.IX.

[2] Webb does on occasion rely on interviews she conducted with figures close to the Epstein story such as Ari Ben-Menashe and Maria Farmer.

[3] As distinct from simply bribing someone with sex with a consulting adult, or honey pots traps, a tactic as old as time—think Samson and Delilah or modern versions such as the honeypot trap that captured Mordechai Vanunu.

[4] Vicki Ward, “Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight,” The Daily Beast (August 19, 2019). https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epsteins-sick-story-played-out-for-years-in-plain-sight

[5] Webb, Op. Cit., p.93.

[6] Webb, Op. Cit., p.382.

[7] Webb, W 2022, One Nation Under Blackmail: The sordid union between Intelligence and Organised Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 2), Trine Day, Oregon USA, p.6.

[8] Tarnopolsky, N 2019, ‘Ehud Barak: I Visited Epstein’s Island But Never Met Any Girls’, The Daily Beast, July 15, retrieved from: https://www.thedailybeast.com/israels-ehud-barak-i-visited-epsteins-island-but-never-met-any-girls

[9] Webb, Volume 2, Op. Cit., p.266-267.

[10] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtD02MeZU4o from 1:31 or so

[11] Webb, Volume 2, Op. Cit., p.276

[12] Ibid., p.58.

[13] Stoil, R. S 2014, ‘Netanyahu said to have offered Lewinsky tapes for Pollard’, The Times of Israel, July 23, retrieved from: https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-have-offered-lewinsky-tapes-for-pollard/

[14] Webb, Vol 2, Op. Cit., p.373.

[15] PBD Podcast 2020, The TRUTH About Jeffrey Epstein w/ Whitney Webb, Episode 198, retrieved from: https://youtu.be/GVVHWVoZ4kU?t=5978

Villains and Victims: An Unexpected Outbreak of Hate-Fact at the World’s Greatest Newspaper

/34 Comments/in /by

Here’s a nerdy question that packs a powerful political punch: What is the etymology of “slave”? Few people know the answer and that’s just the way leftists like it, because the answer derails one of their central projects. And the answer is this: The word “slave” is derived from the word “Slav,” because the pagans of Eastern Europe were once routinely enslaved by the Christians of Western Europe. So routinely that the name of the nation became the word for the status.

Fair skin and beauty

It’s easy to see how this history derails one of the central projects of the left: to assign all villainy to Whites and all victimhood to non-Whites. Blacks are not unique in being violently seized and cruelly enslaved. Whites from Eastern Europe suffered the same fate. So did Whites from Western Europe. One of the most famous stories of early British history is — or used to be — that of how Pope Gregory the Great (540–604 AD) saw a group of beautiful children with fair skin at a slave-market in Rome. He asked what tribe they were from and was told that they were Angli, “Angles.” He replied: Non Angli, sed angeli, si forent Christiani — “Not Angles, but angels, if they were Christian.” Later in history, the fair skin and beauty of Whites were prized by the Muslim slavers who raided coastal settlements everywhere from Italy to Iceland. Muslims also obtained White slaves from greedy and unscrupulous Jewish slave-traders, as Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer.

Muslims enslaved Blacks in even greater numbers. And Muslims still enslave Blacks. But none of that history — the etymology of “slave,” the continuing Muslim enslavement of Blacks — helps the leftist project of assigning all villainy to Whites and all victimhood to non-Whites. So leftists do their best to ignore and censor it. As the liberal author Jeremy Black noted in his book Slavery: A New Global History (2011): “[The] period of Mamluk rule [in Muslim Egypt] was roughly equivalent in length to that of slavery in the USA, and it is an interesting sign of relative concerns that the attention devoted to slavery in the Mamluk empire and the USA is as a drop of water compared to an ocean.” (ch. 1, p. 33)

Jeremy Black is right: it is interesting. For example, it’s an interesting example of the left’s doublethink. One of the core principles of leftism is that we’re all the same under the skin. Blacks and Whites, men and women, gays and straights are all equally competent and capable and cognitively gifted. Only chance and historical contingency explain why a Polish woman called Marie Curie working in France made such seminal contributions to physics rather than a Shona woman called Timukudzei Machingaidze working in Zimbabwe.

High achievements and heinous atrocities

But the leftist principle of isohypodermatism — “sameness under the skin” — is used only to excuse non-Whites for their failure, never to exculpate Whites for their felony. On leftist principles, it’s also only chance and historical contingency that explain why Whites enslaved Blacks rather than vice versa. If we’re all the same under the skin and Blacks are capable of the same high achievements as Whites — as leftism insists they are — it inexorably follows that Blacks are also capable of the same heinous atrocities as Whites. At least, it follows by the laws of logic, but not by the strategies of leftism. However loudly leftists proclaim that they have principles, they are always and only pursuing power. They proclaim equality and pursue hierarchy, with themselves at the top and their enemies at the bottom. Among their chief enemies are ordinary Whites and Christians, whom they want to thrust to the bottom of society, far below non-Whites and non-Christians.

As I pointed out in “The Logic of Leftist Lies,” when leftists talk about “white supremacy” and the need to smash it, they really mean “white autonomy” and the need to strip ordinary Whites of freedom and enslave them. At the heart of this hidden leftist project is belief in the innate evil of Whites. Of course, this implicit belief in White evil contradicts the explicit leftist principle of equality and sameness-under-the-skin, but so what? A frogfish camouflages itself as a clump of seaweed, which contradicts its true identity as a voracious predator. This is because a frogfish needs to fool those it wants to eat, just as the left need to fool those they want to enslave.

“White people are cannibals”

And high-ranking leftists do sometimes abandon pretence and openly say that Whites are innately evil. Think of the egomaniac Jewess Susan Sontag (1933–2004) and her claim that “The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.” Where Jews like Sontag have led, the non-Whites imported by Jews into the West have eagerly followed. This story, reproduced at American Renaissance, is about a White being righteously condemned by non-Whites for his innate evil:

A former Seattle city employee has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging he was a victim of anti-White discrimination due to a “racially hostile work environment.” … As part of his RSJI [Race and Social Justice Initiative] training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called “Undoing Institutional Racism,” during which facilitators declared, “white people are like the devil,” “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and “white people are cannibals.” … “Mr. Diemert’s colleagues used their work emails to berate and entertain violence against him, referring to him as ‘some a—hole,’ the ‘reincarnation of the people that shot native Americans from trains, rounded up jews for the camps, hunted down gypsies in Europe and runaway slaves in America,’ noting that it was not worth addressing his concerns because he would ‘just come back with more stupidity,’ and that someone should ‘get a guy to swing by when Josh is in the restroom and beat him bloody,’” the lawsuit alleges. (Seattle City Employee Sues Over Anti-White Discrimination, ‘Racially Hostile Work Environment,’ Fox News, 29th November 2022)

Remember: like the sexual enslavement of White girls in Rotherham and elsewhere, this is what is happening when Whites are still the majority of the population. If Whites don’t resist, much worse will follow as they slide inexorably towards being a minority of the population. What can we expect from non-Whites who believe that “white people are like the devil,” that “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and that “white people are cannibals”? Those statements utterly contradict the loudly proclaimed egalitarianism of the left but are being made by people whom leftists seek to set above Whites in their hierarchy of virtue and vice. Under leftism, non-Whites are innately virtuous and at the top of the hierarchy, while Whites are innately vicious and at the bottom of the hierarchy. There will be no nonsense about “minority rights” when Whites are the minority.

Triumph of the Villains

Instead, Whites will be punished for their success and their soaring achievements. After all, for leftists those achievements represent only the Triumph of the Villains, because Whites have stolen everything and invented nothing. The White West rose to unjust supremacy by enslaving and exploiting non-Whites. Or so leftists and their non-White footsoldiers believe. In reality, as I pointed out in “The Pale Male Paradox,” the invention of the screw does far more to explain the supremacy of the West than the enslavement of Blacks. If slavery were the key to success, one of the leading nations in the modern world would be Ethiopia, because until recent times slavery “was everywhere” in Ethiopia. And it wasn’t just everywhere: “It was the backbone of labour; it was the source of everything. It was not only landlords and the court of the emperor keeping slaves, but also rich peasants. If you had money, you had [slaves].”

Those quotes come from Ahmed Hassan, a “professor of history at Addis Ababa University” who’s talking about Blacks enslaving other Blacks without any White involvement or encouragement. Indeed, the article quoting him explicitly notes that Ethiopia was “the only African country to have successfully resisted European colonisation.” And where did the article itself appear? Was it in some web of white supremacy like American Renaissance or at some hub of heresy like the Unz Review? Not at all: much to my surprise the article appeared in the Guardian. It was what I call a Guardianista Goosestep — an eruption of hate-fact amid the general anti-White dishonesty and pro-Black deceit of the newspaper.

Diversity + Proximity = War

Even more to my surprise, the article went further than admitting that Blacks could be villains. It also admitted that diversity is weakness rather than strength. It didn’t explicitly quote Chateau Heartiste and say that “Diversity + Proximity = War.” But it might as well have done. Here is some of the article, so you can see the hate-facts and hate-history for yourself:

‘If you had money, you had slaves’: how Ethiopia is in denial about injustices of the past

Nothing hints at the dark past of the marketplace at Dalbo, a town in southern Ethiopia. Today, it is a thriving hub that draws farmers from the surrounding countryside each week, and doubles as a sports pitch on non-trading days. There are no plaques, monuments or inscriptions revealing that enslaved people were once sold here alongside livestock and cereals. Local people will often shut down the conversation when the subject is raised.

“They are hiding the story because they feel ashamed,” says Zerfe Argaw, who lives on a farmstead a few miles outside Dalbo. “It is seen as a closed subject; people don’t want to talk about it.” Zerfe is in her 50s, too young to have seen people being sold in the market, but she was told about the trade by older relatives. “I heard different stories,” she says. “Slave owners owned [entire] households as slaves and would sell whole families to buyers, including the children.” …

Histories of the country gloss over slavery and the subject rarely surfaces in public discourse. At the National Museum of Ethiopia in the capital, Addis Ababa, none of the exhibits deal with domestic slavery, while in Dalbo the chains once used to bind slaves have been melted down to make knives and farm implements. Little has been preserved. “Slavery is a controversial issue,” says Nigussu Mekonnen, a guide at the museum. “There is limited evidence and information about it.”

Most history is hotly contested in Ethiopia, a patchwork of 90 ethnic groups prone to outbreaks of inter-communal violence. The nation was forged through violent conquest in the late 19th century by Emperor Menelik II — whose empire was based on the culture of the northern highlands — and resentments from that era still smoulder. Later came famine, revolution and civil war. Today, the country is grappling with the fallout of a bloody civil war between the northern Tigray region and the federal government that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and a simmering insurgency marked by ethnic killings in Oromia, Ethiopia’s largest state.

“We tend to ignore certain kinds of history that would shape the negative image of the country,” says Kiya Gezahegne, an assistant professor in the social anthropology department at Addis Ababa University. Instead, official narratives focus on Ethiopia’s ancient Christian civilisation and its reputation as the only African country to have successfully resisted European colonisation.

“We are taught to be proud of our identity, and bringing in this narrative of slavery would be a challenge to that discourse,” says Kiya. Yet slavery was once widespread in Ethiopia. Stretching back centuries, slaves served as soldiers, domestic servants and labourers, who were put to work at royal courts, in churches and fields.

Many were born into servitude. Others were captured in raids and during wars, or sold into slavery after they failed to pay debts. Much of the trade was domestic, although Ethiopian slaves were also sold across the Red Sea to Arabia and Turkey, where they were prized as concubines and servants.

Historical data on the slave trade is patchy. Ahmed Hassen, a professor of history at Addis Ababa University, says the number of enslaved people ebbed and flowed, especially during times of war, but estimates that up to one-third of Ethiopians were enslaved at different points in history.

In some districts, the proportion was likely even higher. The sociologist Remo Chiatti calculates that 50 to 80% of people were slaves in parts of Wolaita, a southern kingdom centred on Dalbo that was absorbed into the Ethiopian empire in the 1890s. “Slavery was everywhere,” says Ahmed. “It was the backbone of labour; it was the source of everything. It was not only landlords and the court of the emperor keeping slaves, but also rich peasants. If you had money, you had them.” …

Today, the impact of slavery is [still] keenly felt. After abolition, many slaves became part of the families of their former masters, but in some areas the descendants of enslaved people are seen as impure and are marginalised, barred from participating in ceremonies such as funerals or marrying into other clans. In Addis Ababa, it is common to hear light-skinned highlanders refer to darker-skinned people from southern Ethiopia as “bariya” (slave). … The polarised environment has made it harder to discuss issues such as slavery. A teacher in Addis Ababa, who did not want to be named, says he grew up with “zero knowledge” that slavery was once so widespread.“People are too preoccupied with ethnic-based politics,” he says. “If you talk about slavery, you are accused of trying to divide your group.”

He says: “I see a lot of posts online about George Floyd, talking about how racist America is, and of course that’s an issue. But we also need to talk about inequality here. There are still ethnic groups looking down on others.” (‘If you had money, you had slaves’: how Ethiopia is in denial about injustices of the past, The Guardian, 18th January 2023)

The article is typically leftist in the way it tries to incite resentment, induce shame, and sit in judgment on history. But it isn’t at all leftist in the people and places it targets for those things. Rather than condemning Whites for the way they’ve treated Blacks, it’s condemning Blacks for the way they’ve treated other Blacks. And it’s also admitting that reality does not conform to leftist lies about diversity being strength. Ethiopia is “a patchwork of 90 ethnic groups prone to outbreaks of inter-communal violence.” And it “was forged through violent conquest in the late 19th century” by the Black Emperor Menelik II. And later it suffered “famine, revolution and civil war.”

A curse, not a strength

How on earth did those hate-facts get through the heresy-filter at the Guardian? I don’t know and I don’t expect it to happen often in future. But the article itself is enough. It explodes the leftist myth of White villainy and Black victimhood. In Ethiopia, Blacks were both villains and victims. But the article doesn’t actually use the word “Black” and that would be too broad a word in any case. Although the article is full of hate-facts and does constitute a genuine Guardianista Goosestep, it doesn’t reveal the full complexity of Ethiopian history and “inter-communal violence.” I would predict that the “90 ethnic groups” in Ethiopia are genetically distinct in highly important ways. The “light-skinned highlanders” from the north are likely more intelligent and more cognitively equipped for waging war than the “darker-skinned people” from the south.

Compare the mountain-dwelling Alawites of Syria, who have come to dominate the country despite being a despised and once-persecuted minority. Syria too has suffered “civil war” and “inter-communal violence,” because in Syria too diversity is not a strength but a curse. That article about Ethiopia in the Guardian couldn’t have put it in those words, but it did let the hateful truth emerge. Diversity is not strength and Blacks are not virtuous victims.

Tyre Nichols: Another Black Encounter with Police Gone Wrong

/89 Comments/in /by

I watched the recent body camera footage in which five Black Memphis police officers had brutally beaten a Black driver by the name of Tyre Nichols. He is alleged to have been driving recklessly, even though Memphis Police Chief, Cerelyn Davis, said she could not confirm that reckless driving played a role in the incident.

When approached by officers and removed from his car, Nichols resisted by not laying down fully on his stomach. He persisted in turning and raising his torso to question the officers and to verbally protest what was happening to him. Officers continued to order Nichols to get on the ground, but were unable to hold him down as he repeatedly turned and raised his torso. One officer attempted to use his Taser but was unsuccessful in doing so. Nichols quickly got up and fled on foot with officers pursuing him. Once they caught up to him about a half-mile away, they proceeded to punch, slap, kick, pepper spray, and even baton him, apparently thinking that he was still resisting arrest. Why five burly officers could not subdue Nichols without having to cave his head in is beyond me!

After handcuffing Nichols, he was sat down and propped up against one of the patrol cars. Although paramedics were called to the scene, none of the officers rendered any immediate medical aid to him. Nichols was transported to St. Francis Hospital in critical condition. On January 10, 2023, Tyre Nichols died as a result of the officer’s use of force. An autopsy report later revealed that Nichols had “suffered excessive bleeding caused by a severe beating.”

The five Memphis officers involved in the incident were fired from their department, charged with Nichols’ murder, and surrendered to law enforcement. Additional charges include aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression in addition to second-degree murder. The former officers posted bail and were released from the Shelby County Jail. They now await trial.

It’s important to note at the outset that I do not in any way condone the actions of these officers. Departmental polices regarding reasonable uses of force appear clearly to have been violated. My own training and experience as a police officer (now retired) persuades me that the entire incident should have been handled much differently and with greater restraint and professionalism.

Yet with that said, here is another occasion in which a Black male adult refuses to follow simple orders. How many times does one have to be told to lay on their stomach? Instead, Tyre Nichols continued to turn himself over to tell the cops that he’s just trying to go home as well as other verbal protests. All the while positioning himself so that he’s not completely on his stomach as ordered.

When I was a cop, I saw this kind of thing many times, especially by Black males. They stiffen up, contort their bodies in order to make it harder to search and handcuff them — all the while asking the same questions over and over again (“What I do?” and “Why you arresting me?”) even though you’ve already explained everything in detail and multiple times at that!

Blacks do this as a diversion tactic, and to guilt the officer as well as to delay him. They also do it in order to gain sympathy from the gullible passerby. Although Nichols stated, “I give up” and “stop being so aggressive,” it was nothing more than fake verbal compliance to drop the cops’ guard and thereby take advantage when things loosen up a bit. Nichols tried to make himself appear as the calm one, even though he continued to resist the officers and not comply with their orders. What you’re seeing on the officer’s body cameras, then, is the typical drama that Blacks create whenever they are held accountable for their conduct.

Thus, the same scenario seems to regularly unfold when cops have to deal with Blacks: (1) There’s a crime or reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred involving a Black male; (2) Black male is stopped for investigation by the police; (3) Black male refuses to either identity himself or refuses to be pat-searched even though there is legal justification for doing so; (4) Black male either violently resists or moderately resists by means of verbal protests, repeated questions that have already been answered, and in creating as much public chaos as possible in order to deter officers from doing their job.

Whites who may have never had such encounters with the police, and who are inclined to believe in the innocence of all Black people everywhere, cannot relate to such realities. They have no personal history nor protracted contact with Blacks other than a few they saw in college or at their jobs. And so, they are in no position to judge such incidents impartially. Yet once you’ve had enough encounters with the general incivility and hostility of the average American Black male, you start to understand why so many cops have tragic and deadly outcomes with the Blacks they encounter.

Nichols was stopped because he was allegedly driving recklessly. Some persons have denied it, but I’m inclined to think that there’s a lot more to this story than that the cops simply decided to stop this poor innocent Black driver and beat the snot out of him. Notice that the police car in front of Nichol’s car has him blocked in. This makes sense if he was driving recklessly since they would not want to risk another chance of him driving on a public roadway.

Also, the officers quickly approached the driver’s side door with their duty weapons drawn. This tells me that it’s not a normal traffic stop! Something occurred prior to the traffic stop which prodded the officers to approach Nichols in that way. The truth of what led to this encounter will eventually come out.

Something missed in all of this is why so many Blacks seem unable to comply with the most basic rules of society. At every turn, they refuse to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Even though incarceration rates among Blacks in America are at skyrocketing levels, Blacks collectively refuse to blame themselves for any of it. They’re all “innocent” and framed by “whitey.” It’s always someone else’s fault, never their own. Whether it’s “systemic racism,” the “legacy of slavery,” or “white privilege,” few Blacks will look in the mirror and concede that their woes and tribulations are the direct result of their attitudes and actions.

So long as our government and its complicit media persists in coddling Blacks and in feeding them lies that only serve to bolster today’s racial grievance industry, more of these incidents will continue to occur. One would think that Blacks themselves would tire of all the lies and excuses given for their many failures, but this would require deep introspection, self-awareness, and honesty which I believe comparably few Blacks in America possess.

It’s good that the officers involved in this altercation were all Black. Perhaps it will cause some to realize that huge numbers of Blacks do not resist the police because they are White, but because they are in rebellion to all forms of authority. Perhaps repeated instances of the smash-and-grab robberies and shooting sprees that Blacks commit and which we constantly witness on the news and social media will cause Whites to see that Blacks are not a good fit for societies such as ours which require civility and compliance to basic rules of order and decency?

In order to combat “police brutality,” many big city police departments will create even stricter policies that will guarantee more incidents such as what happened to Nichols. Preventing and penalizing officers from targeting the criminal element in their communities — which most often is comprised of young Black males — and lowering police hiring standards, will ensure that Black criminality and instances of police abuses will continue indefinitely. Hamstringing officers in the name of “racial justice” sounds good in theory, but in the end, it will only serve to demoralize good and proactive officers as well as employ individuals who otherwise would have never qualified as police officers.

Race hustlers will, of course, view the Tyre Nichols incident through the prism of “white supremacy” no matter what. They are unwilling or unable to see it any other way, particularly when there may be opportunities to profit from it. Anything negative that happens to Blacks, after all, is always rooted in “white supremacy” somehow.

A recent article in The Davis Vanguard proves this very point:

A system rooted in white supremacy”—according to the Greater Sacramento NAACP—make Black law enforcement “just as likely” as white officers to kill Black men, as they are accused of doing in Memphis earlier this month when former Sacramento resident Tyre Nichols died after five Black officers allegedly beat him after a traffic stop. …

The Greater Sacramento branch of the NAACP Friday said, “We weep with the community here and in Memphis as we add the name Tyre Nichols, another local Black man killed by a system rooted in white supremacy.”

The Sacramento NAACP charged, in a statement, it “[c]ondemns institutional racism in law enforcement—Black law enforcement officers are just as likely to kill Black men as white officers because of assimilation to white supremacy roots.” …

The NAACP argues, “When anyone joins that system, regardless of the race of the officer, they are indoctrinated to the traditions and practices of that system to maintain the status quo regardless of the person’s intent. That’s the nature of white supremacy culture—it lives in systems unless we actively change the structure and cultures of those systems,” said GSNAACP President Betty Williams. (“White Supremacy Rooted in Killing for Former Sacramentan Tyre Nichols, Charges Sacramento NAACP,” January 8, 2023).

Did you catch that? Even when Blacks beat and murder other Blacks, it’s not really their fault. They’re just doing it because they’ve been so badly influenced by their “white supremacy roots.”

While the former Memphis officers will likely be convicted of excessive force under color of authority and serve time in prison, I doubt any of it will prove that Tyre Nichols was completely innocent in drawing the attention of officers in the first place. The media, as expected, will make him out to be a full member of today’s holy Trinity of Black martyrs: Rodney King, George Floyd, and now Tyre Nichols.

A First Effort at Nationalist Young Adult Fiction

/36 Comments/in /by

The No College Club
Spencer J. Quinn
The White People’s Press, 2023

There is probably no other area in which nationalists are as far behind their opponents as in cultural influence, or what Kevin MacDonald has called the “shaping of ways of seeing.” Both the books our young people read in school and the entertainment they consume in their leisure hours is filled with messaging hostile to us, something its producers are fully conscious of and take great pride in. Much of our effort in this domain necessarily takes the form of reacting against such cultural products: protecting young people from such material where this is still possible, supplementing it with fuller information, or reinterpreting it in accordance with our own views and interests (as with Trevor Lynch’s writings on cinema). But eventually our people shall have to take up “content creation” ourselves.

Spencer J. Quinn, a regular contributor to Counter-Currents, The Occidental Observer, and The Occidental Quarterly, is rising to this challenge. He has already produced an adult novel, Charity’s Blade, and a children’s book entitled My Mirror Tells a Story. His new book under review here is apparently the first-ever effort at nationalist Young Adult fiction, meaning fiction primarily aimed at those in the 12–18 age group. While I would certainly like to see adolescents reading the book, it might be even more important at this stage for nationalists in general to take a look at it as an example of the sort of thing that needs to be done.

Spencer Quinn Interviewed by Pox Populi. Topics include No College Club, Dissident Literature, Race, History, and Slavery

Plot Summary

The novel centers around Caroline Adams, an eleventh-grade student at a rapidly diversifying high school. When we meet her, she is part of a group of four girls that her mother jokingly calls “the clique,” dominated by a loud, socially aggressive Black girl named Medina.

As the novel begins, Caroline is trying to get to class through a gauntlet of leering Black boys, which she eventually manages with the aid of a likeable boy named Brock. He explains to her that he is acting as her “beard”—slang for a fake boyfriend useful for keeping troublemakers at a distance. She then slips into her American History class.

The teacher, Dr. Nogimbe, is a militant Black woman whose lessons focus heavily on slavery. She announces a new group project to be carried out by groups of four students. The topics students can choose from are the slave trade, the Underground Railroad, and plantation life.

Today’s lesson is about the Clotilda, said to be the last ship to bring slaves to the United States. As the teacher sermonizes them, the Black students become angry and some of the White girls cry or hide their faces.

Cudjo Lewis was one of the last survivors of the Clotilda,” Dr. Nogimbe continued. “We have a record of his life from the late 1920s. He was born in 1841 in a town called Banté in West Africa, in what’s now the country of Benin. His people were peaceful, civilized, and agricultural. And for the sin of being a black African, he was snatched from his home, bound head and foot, and taken onboard the Clotilda. And then they set sail for a life of slavery and misery in the United States, where all men and women are supposedly created equal.

A scruffy-looking White boy named Derek asks about the life expectancy in Africa. Cudjo Lewis lived to 95 in America, he points out, whereas the life expectancy in today’s Benin is only 61 (and was probably lower in Lewis’s own day). So in some ways, Blacks did better under slavery in the US than in their native Africa. Furthermore, Lewis was enslaved by fellow Blacks, not by Whites. Derek knows this because, unlike most of his classmates, he has actually read the assigned book.

Dr. Nogimbe does not respond well to his remarks: he is sent to the principal’s office amid hoots of “racist” and “Nazi.” But Caroline knows Derek is correct about Blacks selling other Blacks as slaves, because she too has actually read the assignment. Having lunch with “the clique” that day, she makes this point, but the response from the Black girl Malik is no more gracious than Dr. Nogimbe’s had been in class: she gets up and demonstratively walks away from the now “racist” Caroline, followed meekly by the others. This draws the attention of the entire lunchroom, and Caroline is soon fighting back tears.

Rather than sit alone, Caroline seeks refuge with a nerdy, bookish girl named Rose whom she had previously looked down upon, but who seemed to have been enjoying the spectacle of Derek’s defiance in class earlier. Rose turns out to have read the assigned text as well, so she knew the point that had now got both Derek and now Caroline into trouble was perfectly true. Caroline is grateful for the moral support.

Soon Brock, Caroline’s “beard” from earlier, sits down with them and asks Caroline to tell him what had happened with Derek in class, which has by now led to swirling, school-wide rumors. Brock had seen the aftermath: Derek nearly got expelled for “educational disruption” when he refused to apologize to the teacher for telling the truth about what was stated in the book.

[The Principal] told him straight: One more screwup and he’s out.”

Caroline fell back in her chair, shocked. “Then he’s not going to college.”

“He won’t be able to get a job anywhere,” Rose added. “Not a real one.”

“He’ll be called a Nazi or white supremacist, and that will be that,” Brock said. “It’ll be on his record. Military won’t take him. Law enforcement, forget about it. It will be really hard for him.”

“That’s so unfair.”

Caroline shook her head. “It’s evil.”

“And it could happen to any of us as well,” Brock said.

Caroline notices that Brock seems to be ignoring Rose. When she points this out, his response is to pick up an apple from Rose’s tray and take a large bite out of it. He also calls her the “goofball queen.” Later, when they are alone, an outraged Caroline asks Brock why he dislikes Rose so much. Brock explains that he likes Rose and that his rude behavior is “game”—a strategic use of reverse psychology designed to intrigue her.

Caroline is surprised that Derek has “put his future at risk for something as abstract as the truth,” and wonders if this bears some relation to what her grandparents called “honor.” Wanting to speak to Derek later that day, but not knowing what to say, she blurts out “Would you like to be part of our group for Dr. Nogimbe’s project?” Derek accepts, and says he already has an idea for the project: “It’s such an awesome idea, it’ll get us all kicked out of school!”

Riding home on the schoolbus that afternoon, Caroline discovers that most of her social media “friends” have suddenly dropped her—a major crisis for a teenage girl sensitive about her popularity. She understood instantly that Medina was behind it.

She then checked her messages. As expected, people were heaping the most vile abuse on her. She was a racist, a redneck, a Nazi, a White supremacist. There was no end to it. And it was almost all vulgar and profane. Would colleges find out? What about employers?

Derek sits down next to her to sell her on his project idea that will get them all kicked out of school: to look for accounts by American slave owners—to get their perspective on the South’s peculiar institution. Caroline tells him this is “the stupidest idea I have ever heard,” and that Brock and Rose agree with her. Doesn’t Derek want to graduate and go on to college? To her surprise, this argument does not seem decisive to Derek. When she persists in rejecting his idea for their project, he gets angry and tell her: “You’re just like all the others. I hope you and

all your snooty friends graduate college and marry millionaires.” Caroline reflects on the unfairness of Derek’s anger at her. Her defense of what he had said in class was the cause of her new pariah status, after all.

Caroline’s mother Joan is a conventional liberal whom Caroline knows will not be pleased to learn her daughter had defended a “racist” at school. But something even worse happens: Joan’s Black supervisor has gotten wind of Medina’s version of events, viz., that Caroline had been “defending racism and slavery,” and is now trying to get her fired. This could create serious financial problems for the entire family. Without asking Caroline for her side of the story, she demands that Caroline apologize to all and sundry for her “racism.”

Caroline counters that her mother should instead fight the injustice looming over her.

“They have no right to do this to you! You didn’t do anything wrong! If they fire you, find a lawyer and sue.”

“I can’t afford that, Caroline! I work for a big company. They have lawyers on staff.”

“Then we need some kind of organization that also has lawyers on staff.”

“What are you talking about?”

“A group of professionals, activists. I don’t know! An organization that can fight for people like us.”

“People like who?”

Caroline considered her response before responding. “white people,” she whispered.

Caroline soon recalls that her mother’s Black supervisor’s son once committed armed robbery—with no adverse effect on that woman’s employment.

Caroline has barely gained the upper hand in her confrontation with her mother when Derek, Brock and Rose unexpectedly show up at the door. Derek announces: “My uncle owns a house near where he lives that was a real plantation! With slaves and everything. He said we can explore. Take video. He’s got tons of information about it.” With some misgivings, Joan gives Caroline permission to join her new friends in gathering material for their class project.

Two hours later, the four drive up to the home of Derek’s Uncle Zack, a local history buff and tour guide. Zack explains:

The house we will visit today we think was constructed in the 1760s near a place called Kelly’s Ford. I bought it and the surrounding forty acres from the state of Virginia a few months ago. Ain’t much of it left, but what we do know is that its owner, Ernest Shackleford, operated a 120-acre farm and owned about a dozen slaves up until the Revolutionary War. Accordin’ to court records and at least one eyewitness account, he didn’t treat ‘em well.

Arriving at the site, which is little more than a ruin, Uncle Zack mentions that many of the slaves were “indentured servants.” Brock and Derek, knowing that indentured servants were White, fear they have come “all this way for nothing.”

Derek blinked twice. “Uncle Zack, I told you this project is about slavery. I emailed you the assignment our teacher gave us.”

Zack took another puff. “I read it. All it talked about was slavery. Didn’t say nuthin’ ‘bout Black or White.”

Zack explains that indentured servants were slaves. While their terms of service were theoretically limited, many were driven so hard they did not live to see the end, and others had their service legally or illegally extended beyond their contract of indenture. Derek and Brock continue to object that indentured servitude cannot compare with Black slavery.

“Son, it did,” Zack said patiently. “Hundreds of thousands of White indentured servants died in bondage durin’ the colonial period. Hundreds of thousands of White men, women, and children were abducted and sent to America as slaves. Many were convicts, yes. But many were also homeless or political dissidents or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And because white slaves were so cheap to acquire, black slaves in many places were worth more.”

Being worth more, owners had an incentive to treat them better, whereas with White indentured servants the incentive was to get the maximum possible work out of them for as long as they could be kept in bondage.

The four friends gradually reconsider their ideas about colonial history, but foresee that this new information is not likely to go over well with Dr. Nogimbe.

Zack mentions that a few years previously, archaeologists had found the skeletal remains of a seventeen-year-old boy on the property:

They dated the remains to the 1770s and noted the herniated discs in the spine, a once-broken collar bone, and other injuries which indicated many years of hard labor. The back of his skull had been severely damaged, implying a violent death, perhaps even a homicide. The archaeologists assumed this boy had been a Black slave, but were shocked when tests revealed that he was Northern European, most likely English.

Indeed, all but one of the slaves on the Shackleford plantation appear to have been White.

While investigating a part of the property Zack had warned her to avoid as too dangerous, Caroline comes across a mysterious old manuscript. The title reads: “The Memoir of an Unfortunate Young Man, Abducted on the Docks of Brighton, and Forced to Live as a White Slave for 5 Years in the Virginia Colony Until His Providential Escape and Redemption.” This turns out to have been the work of the seventeen-year-old buried on the property: one of the White slaves/indentured servants Zack had been telling them about.

Five chapters of The No College Club consist of excerpts from this eighteenth-century memoir. It becomes the principal basis of the group’s school presentation, which triggers first a riot, then the expulsion of all four of them. Their families sue on the grounds of racial discrimination and improper expulsion, but the school district has deep pockets and does all it can to drag out the process.

As the book’s title implies, however, Caroline, Rose, Brock and Derek end up being forced by necessity to learn that it is possible to lead successful and happy lives without going into crippling debt to subject themselves to four years of racial abuse.

Conclusion

In general, The No College Club is a good first effort. The criticism I felt most often tempted to make while reading it is that it attempts to pack as much nationalist messaging as possible into a fairly short space (I left a fair amount out of this summary). Ideally, I would like to see our people producing material that would be read for its own sake by the general public, in which the message could be assimilated gradually and almost unconsciously amid the more universal themes of school, family, friendship, first love, etc., that is the typical focus of fiction for readers in this age group—in other words, the way our enemies do it. But this is an important example of the kind of thing we need to be doing.

Follow the money: Jewish Power at Harvard’s Kennedy School

/20 Comments/in /by

Michael Massing has written an excellent article—a primer on Jewish power in America. The background is that Kenneth Roth, who ran Human Rights Watch (HRW) for nearly 30 years appeared to be on his way to becoming a Senior Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, until the dean, Douglas Elmendorf, turned him down. The problem according to Elmendorf:  Roth (who is Jewish) allegedly has “anti-Israel bias” because HRW had correctly claimed that Israel was engaging in apartheid vis-á-vis the Palestinians.

The immediate response from the usual suspects was to claim that any such designation would lead to “anti-Semitism”—another example of the now common conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, such as noted by Peter Beinart in the NYTimes. Beinart noted that “America’s most prominent Jewish organizations have done something extraordinary. They [the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, and others] have accused the world’s leading human rights organizations of promoting hatred of Jews.”
Of course, the HRW’s charges are true, although truth is irrelevant in these issues. Specially
the report sought to demonstrate that the Israeli authorities had met the legal definition of the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution (the severe deprivation of fundamental rights on racial, ethnic, or other grounds) by pursuing policies in both Israel and the Occupied Territories that “methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians.” Those policies included facilitating the transfer of Jewish Israelis to the Occupied Territories and granting them rights superior to those of Palestinians living there; the widespread confiscation of privately held land in much of the West Bank; and the building of the separation barrier “in a way that accommodated anticipated growth of settlements”—all dispelling the notion “that Israeli authorities consider the occupation temporary.”
As usual, the key to Jewish influence is to follow the money. Here it begins with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs whose main donors include Leslie Wexner (of Jeffrey Epstein fame) who has donated more than $40 million to the Kennedy School and has a building named after him. Wexner established the Wexner Israel Fellowship which brings “Israeli officials and civic leaders to Cambridge for a year of mid-career study … . Among the 10 fellows who come annually are ministry officials, local government representatives, policy analysts, and directors of nonprofits, as well as members of the Mossad, the Israel Defense Forces, and the Shin Bet security service.”

Another prominent donor is Robert Belfer, who has donated more than $20 million to the Kennedy School, as well as donating to the ADL and the American Jewish Committee—both of which defended Israel against attacks by human rights groups (Beinart). “In a 2006 interview with the US Holocaust Museum, Belfer observed that most of his extended family (including his paternal grandparents) perished in World War II—a loss that gave him “a sense of identity” of “being Jewish, of being very supportive of Israel.” Ironically, Belfer funds the professorship of Stephen Walt whose book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy was highly critical of the Lobby.

Belfer’s influence at the Kennedy School extends far beyond his center. He and his son Laurence sit on the Dean’s Executive Board—“a small group of business and philanthropic leaders who serve as trusted advisors to the Dean and are among the most committed financial supporters of the School,” according to its site. The board’s chair, David Rubenstein, is the cofounder and former CEO of the Carlyle Group, the private equity giant, and one of the most well-connected members of the US financial and cultural elite; among the many prestigious boards on which he sits is the Harvard Corporation, the university’s main governing body.

The 16 members of the Dean’s Executive Board also include Idan Ofer and his wife, Batia. Idan is the son of Sammy Ofer, an Israeli shipping magnate who until his death in 2011 was one of Israel’s richest men. Worth about $10 billion, Idan has come under fire in Israel for moving to London to reduce his tax bill and for a lavish lifestyle highlighted by the €5 million party that he threw on the island of Mykonos for his 10th wedding anniversary. …

In 2018, the Kennedy School opened a renovated campus, made possible by a capital campaign that raised more than $700 million. Anchoring it were three buildings bearing the names Ofer, Rubenstein, and Wexner. 

All three buildings named after Israeli patriots. But that couldn’t possibly influence whether Roth would get the fellowship.

At least that’s the view of the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt. It’s a conspiracy theory!! “Harvard’s critics should do better than concoct anti-Jewish conspiracies.” It’s a case study in how antisemitic tropes can infect even a journalist of author Michael Massing’s standing.” Greenblatt:

the article further devolves into Jewish-macher name-dropping: Leslie Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein, Robert Belfer, David Rubenstein, and notes their supposed close ties to the big Jewish organizations. It’s a textbook case of classic antisemitism: It’s not the leadership of the Kennedy School that made this decision, oh no. It’s the powerful and monied Jewish elite that really influences things behind the scenes.

In short, the article plays into the classic antisemitic trope of Jewish power and control – without providing any evidence that any of these Jewish donors or groups played any role in influencing the decision to derail Ken Roth’s fellowship.

Yeah, just because the most prominent donors to the school are Jewish and tied not only to Jewish organizations but also to Israel, why should that matter? Jews would neve donate their money in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

Greenblatt is correct that the dean didn’t come out and say, “look we have to look after our donors, and that means we have to reject Roth.”  But in what universe would that ever happen? Deniability is the watchword of the day, whether it’s Hunter Biden’s laptop, the Clinton Foundation,  or big pharma.

But amazingly, Elmendorf relented.

It would be nice to know exactly what happened to cause the reversal. It never looks good for a university supposedly dedicated to free inquiry to rescind an appointment when there are obvious suspicions it was because powerful people don’t like it. And the reversal has to be seen as a barometer of the fact that the pro-Israel lobby is finally starting to lose the public relations battle, especially on the left.

Of course, this reappointment won’t really change anything in Israel or in U.S.-Israel relations, any more than Mearsheimer and Walt’s book did. The big money will still be distributed by AIPAC to influence elections, the media will  generally be pro-Israel, and the Republicans, likely looking for moral cover in a pervasive atmosphere of wokism, will continue to support all things Israel. Still, the dam is breaking.