Igor Shafarevich: “Postscript to ‘The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma'”

/7 Comments/in , /by

Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma

Igor Shafarevich

____________________________

Editor’s note: The following is Rolo Slavski’s translation of Igor Shafarevich’s “Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma.” The original citation is: Igor Shafarevich (2009), “Posleslovie k Trekhtysiacheletnei zagadke.”Nash sovremennik, No. 11. Nash sovremennik is a Russian literary magazine. Both footnotes were added by the editor.

I re-read my book on Jewish history (The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma) and the feeling I experienced was one of dissatisfaction. Since the author (myself) has taken a stab at shedding light on such a broad historical phenomenon, I thought, he could have made more specific observations that shed light on the current situation and the possible future of the world. That’s what I want, to some extent, to try to make up for here. In this case, all the facts (including quotes) are taken from my book. Naturally, the conclusions I come to, to some extent, repeat the book (or are a refinement of the thoughts expressed there).

First of all, from all the facts collected in my book, it follows that no matter what peoples the Jews live among, they are always considered by these peoples to be dangerous strangers.

Of course, the relationship between the rich man and his debtor, the landowner and the peasant, etc., cause friction and often lead to ethnic conflicts. But it is striking that, along with the Armenian-Azerbaijani contradictions, friction between Russians and Ukrainians, etc. (throughout the entire period from which we have reliably dated sources), this other nation (or religious group? ) comes up. After all, this tension can be observed for about three thousand years! So it should be the subject of serious historical reflection. In periods of drastic change in the conditions of life, the same nation (or religious group?) often participates with unprecedented energy in these changes, and always as part of the more radical camp. (As could be seen in Germany during the “revolutionary situation” in the 1920s, and as happened in our country three times in the twentieth century: during the revolution of 1917 and its intensification, during the period of collectivization around 1930, and during time of “perestroika” in the 1990s). Moreover, as a result of such radical changes in life in our country, many millions of people died each time: peasants who defended their land, or peasants who no longer resisted, or just people (including children) who had not learned to “play by the new rules.”

The presentation of the facts itself can occur on various levels — from statements that are not substantiated and based on nothing (for example, Diodorus Siculus’s[1] and Manetho’s claim that the Jews are Egyptians infected with some kind of skin disease and expelled from Egypt) to a more correct, competent, albeit very cautious, discussion of a particular situation, like Walt and Mearsheimer’s work, The Israel Lobby, but where the same basic question is implied. The “question” is that a small part of the country’s population determines the most important aspects of its life. Actually, a similar point of view is confirmed by the most ancient (from reliably dated) Jewish religious texts. A wide range of means are being used around the world (at different times) to counter discussion of this “issue”: prisons, courts, executions, journalism and the media are used. The fact that the majority of peoples who have encountered Jewry perceive it as a potential source of danger is explained by the words of a contemporary (and published in Russia) author, D. Furman: “Everywhere, all over the world, the role of Jews in progressive and revolutionary movements has always been completely disproportionate to their share in the population. That is (in accordance with the point of view expressed in my book) fundamental changes in society are carried out according to certain general laws, and Jews cannot be considered their initiators in any way. But when the course of history leads to the breakdown of tradition, to a sharp change in life, then “progressive and revolutionary movements” arise, in which the role of the Jews “has always been completely out of proportion to their proportion in the population.”

As the material collected in my book shows, in the last few centuries the influence of Jews around the world has increased dramatically — this, in recent decades, is associated with a process called “globalization.” It seems that the theses of the German publicist W. Marr, who wrote (in the 19th century) in the book The Victory of Jewry over Germanism: “We are subdued, and besides, we are forbidden to talk about it,” seem to have been proven. How will other peoples of the world exist in such a situation? (After all, from many of the facts given in my book, it is clear that vindictiveness is an essential feature of Jewish psychology and their participation in “progressive and revolutionary movements” was often stimulated by the desire for revenge for obstacles to the transformation they desired.) Therefore, it can be assumed that the victory of that “progressive movement,” which is now led by Jews all over the world, will lead the world to terror, similar to that which raged in our country in the 20s and 30s of the last century. It seems that humanity has no strategy to counter this. But it seems to me that such a way is possible. I wanted to talk about it here — this is the main content of this work.

To assess the whole situation, it is important to note that the “Jewish question” existed, as it is explained in my book, about as long ago as can be traced using written sources. More precisely, in the era in which mankind existed in the form of states. (And we are not going to discuss a broader historical epoch.) Thus, a number of ancient authors refer to the Exodus from Egypt, which the Bible tells us about, as “exile”. In any case, that era can be considered the first manifestation of the “Jewish question” recorded in writing. Since then, it was by no means “resolved”, as evidenced by the entire subsequent history of Jewry. Already in our (at least in my) memory, Hitler spoke more than once about the “final solution of the Jewish question,” but what this “final solution” consisted of, as is often the case when discussing Hitler’s plans, was not clear. After all, most of the Jews were then in America, and Hitler could not influence their fate in any way. This is the historical range of the “Jewish question” — the range in which it manifests itself. From this (and other facts collected in my book) we can conclude that the “question” is in principle unsolvable (at least in the era of peoples existing in states). This thesis is discussed in more detail in my book. That is, at least in the coming centuries, we are doomed by history to live with the Jews, and they with us. In other words, the reasonable way out is to learn to live with this question, which, apparently, cannot be “resolved” in the present historical conditions (just as, for example, it is impossible to completely “eradicate crime”, although it is possible to take measures to so that crime does not ruin our lives. The “question” for us then, is how, in this coexistence, we can preserve our national identity.

A hint of a way of dealing with the problem that could satisfy these conditions is contained in a remark by V.V. Rozanov. In an obvious connection with the same “question,” he draws attention to the fact that a similar situation exists in the animal world. Namely, most animals known to us are either herbivores or carnivores. Moreover, as Rozanov notes, herbivores unite in large herds, and the number of carnivores is somehow kept at a relatively low level. This analogy between non-Jewish herbivores and Jewish carnivores is supported by many arguments.

Firstly, this is the argument of the number, as indicated by Rozanov. Indeed, even during the period of enjoying a dominant position in any society (for example, in our country in the 1920s or now in Israel), the Jews, despite their well-known “fertility,” are kept within strict limits by some unknown force, while the surrounding people continue multiplying, although they are in worse material conditions.

Secondly, the fundamental role of carnivores and herbivores in life is quite similar. Actually, it is plants that ensure the existence of all animals, because they turn sunlight into nutrients. Herbivores eat plants, while carnivores eat herbivores. But still, herbivores are part of the process of nutrition, which is used by carnivores and without which they could not exist. In confirmation of the analogy under consideration, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Jews are active and often useful in their activities, but they are only able, so to speak, “to work on an already plowed field.” For example, Mendelssohn, Mahler and Berg were undoubtedly talented musicians. But they were able to express themselves only when Western music was created — by Gabrielli, Schutz, Bach, Haydn, etc. Or, in Russia, Jews were very active in recent centuries (we will not discuss the difficult question of whether it was for good or to the detriment of the natives), but in any case, this became possible only after the country was plowed up and the Russian state was created. And it is the same with any kind of activity, as detailed in my book. But the main contribution to world culture usually attributed to Jewry is the creation of a monotheistic religion. However, this was the direction in which the thought of all mankind was moving to in those centuries! So, Homer often has the expression “Zeus and Fate decided so.” In Plato, instead of the words “Gods” we often meet — “the higher Deity.” Finally, the most radical step towards monotheism was the reform of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, about 1350 BC. It clearly had a decisive influence on the religious thinking of the entire Near East. So here we meet a manifestation of the same feature.

Yes, finally, I myself have come across this phenomenon. I had many Jewish students. And a number of Jews from whom I studied. They were talented and (what is especially important) hardworking mathematicians. But we must not forget that the very physical and mathematical concept of the world, within which we all worked, was created by the Western European (Romano-Germanic) peoples. And representatives of other nations — Jews, Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. — are only continuers of an already established tradition.

The third argument in favor of the aforementioned analogy is that carnivores (predators, for example, cats) can exist and hunt only if they are hardly noticeable. In particular, they must lick themselves all the time, eliminating the smell (this remark belongs to a friend of mine). This can be related to the hostility of the Jews to the discussion of the “Jewish question.” For example, in my book, V. Toporov’s book Double Bottom is quoted several times. In the preface, the author describes his paradoxical position of being “not among his own” in any national group, which gives his observations a peculiar interest. In particular, speaking of the “Jewish type of behavior,” he writes: “among the identifying signs, one must undoubtedly point out a painful reaction to the very formulation of the Jewish question, which is often inherent in people of non-Jewish origin who are married to a Jew or Jewess, especially if there are children.”

There is a direct connection between these comparisons and the real problems that humanity is now facing (or will face in the next century). Let us pay attention to the fact that the influence of Jews throughout the world (in the development of capitalism, in the socialist movement and in the post-socialist era) has become especially noticeable in recent decades, coinciding with the period of dominance of European (or, as it is sometimes called, Western) civilization in the world. But in several of my works (published for the last 10 years) I have made arguments indicating that this civilization is now on the decline. The current economic crisis is just one of the confirmations of these thoughts. Probably, Western civilization will be able to somehow get out of this crisis, but it is only a rehearsal for its global collapse. One might think that the inevitable (as it seems to me) collapse of the dominance of Western civilization over the whole world will provide an opportunity to build relations between Jewry and other peoples in a new way. Actually, the Jews themselves are also interested in this, since other peoples must first “plow the field,” in which, as noted above, the Jews are able to work. But it is unlikely that they themselves are able to realize it. In their “genetic program” there is firmly embedded the belief that they are called to be “teachers of mankind.”

In other words, (only when this change happens) will a change of attitudes become possible. But whether this actually happens depends on our behavior (and the behavior of our descendants). Here comes to mind the thought expressed by Dostoevsky in a rough draft: “All these parliamentarisms, all the civil theories now professed, all the accumulated wealth, banks, sciences, Jews — all this will collapse in an instant and without a trace — except, perhaps, the Jews, who will adapt; what can be done to put them to work?”. (Sobr. soch. M., 1984. Vol. 26, pp. 167–168[2]). This statement now sounds rude due to the use of the word “zhid,” which is currently abusive. But when Dostoevsky wrote, it was not like that. It is worth replacing this word with any synonym in use now, and we will get a strikingly accurate prediction of what really happened in Russia, formulated forty years before the predicted events.

In such a situation, it is natural to recall the discussed analogy. After all, both herbivores and carnivores have existed on Earth for many millions of years. And, using this analogy, one can notice forms of possible coexistence of Jews and other peoples that do not encroach on the national existence of these “other” peoples. After all, one must believe in the lessons of life!

In particular, herbivores exist by grouping together in large herds. Parallel to this, it can be assumed that the peoples of the Earth are able to ensure their autonomous existence in the form of more or less nationally homogeneous states, which is a phenomenon that has been happening throughout history (modern Russia is an example). Nations, united in such states, must develop in themselves the understanding of the phenomenon of the “predator,” which is dangerous for their national existence. Peoples, following the instinct of self-preservation, should strive to push them out of positions that are essential for the life of the nation. They must protect the nation from the penetration of “foreigners.” I came across an example of such behavior when I once walked around the Moscow region (outside the city) in the company of my dog. The dog clearly reminded the cows of a wolf and fit neatly into their “image of the enemy.” Therefore, when they saw her, the cows united in a herd lowered their heads and, putting out their horns, stepped on the dog. Once, as a shepherd I met told me, they even trampled a small dog. This technique seems to be effective — it allows wild herbivores to protect themselves from predators. For example, as zoologists say, wolves rarely attack a deer inside the herd, otherwise they risk being killed by the horns or hooves of the deer. More often, wolves bully a sick deer that has lagged behind the herd.

Thus, a number of techniques developed long ago by nature serve to maintain the number of the herbivore populations at a constant level. These same methods, with appropriate modifications, can serve (and have long served) a similar goal in the social life of mankind. Of course, changes will take place — after all, Homo sapiens has existed for thousands of years in the more developed state of mankind. A difference between modern nations and a herd of cows must have developed in this time!

[1] From Diodorus, Book 34:

King Antiochus besieged Jerusalem. The Jews withstood the siege for some time; but when all their provisions were used up, they were forced to send ambassadors to him, to seek terms for a truce. Many of his friends urged him to storm the city, and to root out the whole nation of the Jews; for they only of all people hated to mix with any other nations, and treated them all as enemies. They suggested to him that the ancestors of the Jews were driven out of Egypt, as impious and hateful to the gods: for seeing that their bodies were infected with white marks and leprosy, by way of expiation the Egyptians gathered them all together, and expelled them out of their county, as profane and wicked wretches. After they were thus expelled, they settled around Jerusalem, and were afterwards united into one nation, called the nation of the Jews; but their hatred of all other men descended with their blood to their posterity. And therefore they made strange laws, and quite different from other people; they never will eat nor drink with any of other nations, or wish them any prosperity. His friends reminded him that Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, after subduing the Jews, entered into the temple of God, into which none was allowed to enter by their law except the priest. When he found in there the image of a man with a long beard, carved in stone sitting upon an ass, he took it to be Moses, who built Jerusalem and brought the nation together, and who established by law all their wicked customs and practices, abounding in hatred and enmity to all other men. Antiochus therefore, abhorring their antagonism to all other people, tried his utmost to abolish their laws. To that end he sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine’s flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine’s flesh.

When Antiochus’ friends had spoken about all these things, they earnestly advised him to root out the whole nation, or at least to abolish their laws, and compel them to change their former manner of living. But the king, being of a generous spirit and mild disposition, received hostages and pardoned the Jews: but he demolished the walls of Jerusalem, and took the tribute that was due.

[2] This refers to a 1984 Russian edition of the complete works of Dostoevsky.

Black Bullshit Month: Leftist Lies in the War on Whites and the West

/60 Comments/in /by

The Biblical scholar John Allegro (1923–88) once argued that Jesus Christ was a magic mushroom. His theory was utter nonsense, of course. It’s obvious that Jesus was in fact a horse. After all, he was born in a stable. His supposed Greek title, ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ho Huios tou Theou, “The Son of God,” must be a corruption of ὁ Ἵππος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ho Hippos tou Theou, “The Horse of God.”

Abandoning facts, embracing fantasy

Well, I can tell you’re not convinced. But if you think “Jesus as horse” is a stupid theory, let me introduce you to the award-winning Black historian David Olusoga (born 1970) and his children’s book Black and British: An Illustrated History (2021). The book has become part of what is officially but inaccurately known as Black History Month, which runs in October in Britain. I prefer the unofficial and accurate title of Black Bullshit Month. Olusoga’s book is leftist propaganda plugging the lie that Blacks have long been an important and valuable part of British life. They haven’t: before mass immigration began, they were a minor presence and unable to make the vibrant contributions in murder, rape and general criminality for which they are outstandingly successful throughout the modern West. But at least Olusoga’s book bases some of its lies on genuine history. Blacks were definitely present in Britain under the Tudors and Stuarts, for example. They were very few in number, but they were there. However, at the beginning of the book, Olusoga abandons facts altogether and uses an argument even stupider than “Jesus must have been a horse because he was born in a stable.”

Septimius Severus was born in Africa and died in Britain, but was neither Black nor British (image from Wikipedia)

Olusoga pretends that the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (145–211 AD) and Roman governor Quintus Urbicus (fl. 140 AD) were Black because they were “born in Africa.” This is the equivalent of arguing that a human is a horse because he was born next to a stable. Severus and Urbicus were from North Africa, which was not inhabited by Blacks but by proud and ancient peoples like the Berbers, who are actually closer genetically to White Europeans than to Black Africans. North Africa is separated from Black regions of Africa by the vast wastes of the Sahara Desert. In other words, Olusoga is guilty of an act of blatant racial, cultural and geographic “erasure.” No leftist would condemn him for it, however, because he is working in two sacred causes: first, power for the elites of leftism; second, punishment for the enemies of leftism. Olusoga blatantly erases Berbers again when he pretends that the “Aurelian Moors” stationed “on Hadrian’s Wall in the Third Century” were Black because they came from North Africa. And that the “Ivory Bangle Lady” found buried in York was Black because she too came from North Africa.

“North African = Black” — lying illustration #1 from Black and British

“North African = Black” — lying illustration #2 from Black and British

Born of “North African” parents, but not a bit Black:  Zinedine Zidane (image from Wikipedia)

The Aurelian Moors and Ivory Bangle Lady were no more Black than the great soccer-player Zinedine Zidane (born 1972), whose parents are Algerian Berbers from “North Africa.” To give Olusoga his due, he doesn’t explicitly lie in his text and say that “African means Black.” The illustrators of the book have no such scruples and portray the Aurelian Moors and the Ivory Bangle Lady as unmistakably Black. Olusoga made no objection to that. But his “erasure” of Berbers is only the first of his transgressions against leftist piety. He also implicitly supports the brutalities of imperialism and colonialism. After all, North Africans — Olusoga’s pretended “Blacks” — were in Britain only because Romans had brutally invaded and colonized most of the island. He notes briefly that, in 60 AD, “Boudicca leads a rebellion against the Romans.” But that’s all he says: he doesn’t say that Boudicca was driven to rebellion by Roman greed, her own flogging by Roman soldiers, and the rape of her daughters.

Black narcissism and the mirror of history

It wasn’t a happy precedent, was it? Ethnic enrichment was imposed on native Britons by a brutal empire. No wonder Olusoga doesn’t give further details of Boudicca’s “rebellion.” And even he can’t pretend that Blacks were in Britain after the fall of that brutal Roman Empire. In fact, they first began to enrich Britain only a few centuries ago. Leftist historians are now devoting ridiculous amounts of time and attention to the tiny numbers of Blacks present here before mass immigration. Except that the time and attention aren’t ridiculous: they’re part of the leftist war on Whites and on the West. The possibly Jewish historian Miranda Kaufmann has written a “critically acclaimed” book called Black Tudors: The Untold Story (2017), which reveals that Blacks in Tudor times were remarkable for only one thing: that they were Black in an overwhelmingly White country.

Black Tudors, Miranda Kaufman’s “critically acclaimed” leftist propaganda

But it’s not their Blackness as such that matters to leftists like Kaufmann: it’s their maximal distance from Whiteness. The Blacks of Tudor times are a kind of ideological jimmy that leftists are using to lever open and destroy British identity. Take the Black John Blanke, whom Olusoga calls “the earliest Black person in Britain whose name and face we know. He was a trumpeter in the Tudor royal court” (note that Olusoga is abandoning the pretence that the well-documented Septimius Severus was Black). There is now a John Blanke Project devoted to this utterly insignificant figure. He was Black and played the trumpet. So what? Did he do anything that a White couldn’t have done equally well or better? Would Tudor England have collapsed without him and other Blacks? No, of course not. But he’s deeply significant to narcissists like David Olusoga and the dozens of Blacks who have gathered at the John Blanke Project. He’s Black like them, so he allows them to use history like a mirror. One of those Black narcissists has said this: “Our Spirits, Scars and Creativity have left marks and reminders across Europe and only our own will bring those histories forward to be pointed out and remembered — so thank you to all you Historians.”

The usual leftist magic

I can certainly agree that Blacks have left “marks and reminders” across Europe. Blacks have stabbed women to death in Italy, committed gang-rape in Sweden, and sacrificed children in Britain. Indeed, they’ve done all those things in all those places. And the more Blacks there are, the more those things happen. So what’s not to like for leftists? The criminality and barbarism of Blacks are a feature, not a bug, of leftist minority-worship. Black failure can be blamed on White racism and White taxpayers have to fund leftists in their decades-long and utterly futile quest to cure Black pathologies.

But Blacks are useful to leftists in another very important way. As I’ve said before at the Occidental Observer, Blacks are the most harmful, obnoxious, unintelligent, unattractive and unproductive of all minorities. In other words, they are the group that least resembles Whites and is most harmful to White civilization. Leftism is not genuinely pro-Black, but is genuinely anti-White.

For proof of how leftism isn’t genuinely pro-Black, look at the intellectually and ethically inane cult known as Black Lives Matter (BLM). It has successfully worked the usual leftist magic and has most harmed those it claims to care about most. As Steve Sailer has exhaustively documented, BLM has been directly responsible for thousands more young Black men being murdered and mutilated by other young Black men, because it has discouraged police from maintaining law and order. As ever, when the supposedly racist police retreat, Black barbarism advances and Blacks commit even more murders and rapes. Something similar happened in Britain when the police were accused of “institutional racism” by the Macpherson report into the murder by Whites of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence. The police retreated and Black barbarism advanced.

Mediocre Blacks hate White achievement

Like the martyr-cult of George Floyd in America, the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence in Britain inverts the truth in typical leftist — and Satanic — fashion. It pretends that vicious Whites are an ever-present threat to virtuous Blacks. The reverse is true. Inevitably, the martyr’s mother Doreen Lawrence turns up in David Olusoga’s book of leftist propaganda for children. She was made a Baroness by the traitorous David Cameron. I’d call her a Baroness of Bullshit, because she’s from the very violent and corrupt Black island of Jamaica, but has happily accepted the role of ethical guru for the Whites of Britain. The murder-rate in Britain is about 1 (one) per 100,000; in Jamaica, it’s about 44 (forty-four) per 100,000. Now there’s a truly outstanding Black achievement! The sight of a Jamaican Black lecturing Whites on violent crime is grotesque. And it only becomes more so when you consider that hundreds of murders and thousands of rapes have been committed in Britain by Jamaican Blacks since they began migrating here against the clear opposition of British Whites.

David Olusoga is happy for such murders and rapes to continue. In November 2020, he and other “Black public figures” signed a joint letter opposing the deportation of fifty Jamaican criminals, including “convicted murderers and rapists.” The criminals wouldn’t be safe in Jamaica, Olusoga and company said. They didn’t mention the welfare of British Whites. No-one respectable is worried about the welfare of Whites. But in other ways Whites are ever-present in the psychic life of “Black public figures” like Olusoga. White civilization stings and burns their narcissism, rebuking their mediocrity, inciting their envy and rousing their enmity. That’s why Olusoga is so desperate to pretend that Blacks were important in British history and were here millennia ago, even though, on core leftist principles, it shouldn’t matter in the slightest whether they were or not. If we’re all the same under the skin, British and Roman history is simply human history and Whites are not special in any way. Any human being should be able to “identify” with any other human being, because race and “gender” are irrelevant and unimportant when set against our common humanity.

An ugly Black in color surrounded by great Whites in monochrome: Black Bullshit Month at the Guardian

But David Olusoga and other Black mediocrities obviously don’t truly believe in core leftist principles. They know that Blacks aren’t part of the West, which is why they want to pretend Blacks have been important in Western history even as they wage war on that history. Blacks and other leftists can’t match White civilization or contribute to its greatness, but they can do what is, in their minds, the next best thing: rule the ruins. The aim of Black Bullshit Month (BBM) is summed up for me by an image from the Guardian that is reproduced above. It shows the portrait of an ugly Black in full and vibrant color surrounded by great White figures in monochrome. The accompanying article asks “Black History Month: Do our children need more Black history lessons?” You won’t be surprised at the answer given by narcissistic Black mediocrities like Joseph Harker, “the Guardian’s senior editor for diversity and development,” Lavinya Stennett, “founder and chief executive of The Black Curriculum,” and Desta Haile, “deputy director of the Royal African Society.”

The Black portrait (possibly misattributed) is supposedly that of Olaudah Equiano, a former Black slave who had been transported across the Atlantic by Whites before converting to Christianity, gaining his freedom, and writing an autobiography. If he’d stayed free in Africa, he would never have been heard of. If he’d been captured by Arab Muslims, he would have been castrated, permanently enslaved and also never heard of. White goodwill — not to mention the White inventions of printing and oil-paints — allowed him to enter history and be seized on by modern leftists for anti-White propaganda. The Guardian is elevating him over Whites and making him literally central to British history. That image is a leftist lie, enviously demoting White greatness and elevating ugly Black victimhood. It’s hard to imagine a better symbol of Black Bullshit Month.

The Plot Against Australia, Part IV: Jews, Porn and the Trappings of Servitude, Part 2

/11 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.

The Video Revolution

Just as occurred with the internet almost two decades later, it was a revolution in technology that changed the game when it came to pornography. Small, hard to detect, portable, and easily replicable, the Video Home System (VHS) tape proved to be the perfect vehicle for the flourishing of pornographic films throughout the world. The VHS and its corresponding television playback sets (VCR) first appeared on the market in the late 1970s, and by the mid-1980s it had become the dominant form of distribution of home entertainment in households throughout the West. In 1979, a grand total of four VHS-based films were registered with the Australian Film Censorship Board for classification; in 1983, this number was 8,883, or 32.5 percent of all films examined.[1] The stage was now set for the proliferation of video-based pornography, allowing it to move away from sex shops and adult theaters and into the privacy and security of people’s houses—an environment where it was ready to be encountered by children.

Pornography made up a sizable chunk of the broader VHS market, as the porn industry, ever seeing the opportunity offered by new technology, had jumped to VHS at an early date. Despite it being illegal to import a “film” (the category under which a VHS tape technically fell) and not submit it for classification, VHS-based porn was easily sneaked into the country, bypassing the Film Censorship Board. Other than amateur products, pretty much none of the pornographic tapes circulating in the country were being produced in Australia,[2] and records of the Film Censorship Board published in the government gazette during this period demonstrate that the overwhelming majority were American productions, alongside a sizable minority of films originating from Denmark and West Germany.[3] It was soon becoming obvious to authorities that unregistered and unclassified VHS porn was flourishing under their nose, as more often than not tapes were submitted to the Board by police who had encountered them in the line of duty. The question then is, who was importing them?

The Culprits

The nature of organized crime makes establishing the facts of a coherent history of the early importation and distribution of VHS pornography into Australia an extraordinarily difficult task. The very intent of the purveyors is to hide behind layers of companies with innocuous sounding names and secretive importation networks designed to leave as little trace as possible. Government investigations make it clear that much of the production of pornographic films from America and their distribution into Australia was being undertaken by, or with the support of, organized crime.

Few of these individuals ever publicly identified themselves, and as a result, often only tantalizing snippets of information can be deduced, offered up by crime writers who investigated a story on the condition of maintaining full anonymity of their sources. What emerges from this sparse documentation is that at some point during the early 1980s, Jews with strong associations to organized crime in the United States had made the decision to set up an illegal importation and distribution network of VHS pornography in Australia. So successful was this early network, that by the time X-rated tapes were legalized in 1984, there was already a thriving local industry in the country.

The key figures identified in this network were Norman Arno[4] and Theodore Gaswirth, both of whom were associates of Rueben Sturman, the “King of Smut.” Alongside plenty of other Jews, the pair were named in the Meese Report in 1986 (Final Report of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography) as major players in the pornographic industry in America since the early 1970s. Gaswirth specialized in the production of hard-core 8mm films produced by his company Lyndon Distributors, a leading Los Angeles porn producer, and Arno held the video rights to Debbie Does Dallas (1978), a film as popular in Australia as it was in America. Arno’s company, VCX Incorporated, was an early mover to the video market, and transferred many of the old stag movies and hard-core theatrical films to VHS tapes. According to leading Australian crime writer Bob Bottom, Arno travelled to Australia in March 1980 for a 15–day visit and Gaswirth followed in January 1981, making another two trips that year.[5] Bottom gave evidence at the Video Material Committee that Rueben Sturman himself also came to Australia in 1981.[6]

Their main Australian contact appeared to be Alexander Gajic[7], the proprietor of a network of video companies in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra which distributed VHS tapes around the country. A mail order advertisement placed in The Age newspaper in 1982 by one of Gajic’s companies (Curbydex Pty Ltd), show that he had access to VHS and Betamax versions of all the big 1970s hard-core films.[8] Gajic was not alone in these ventures, and further allegations against the men that made up this Jewish porn importation and distribution network came from politician Dennis Stevenson, who in 1991 used parliamentary privilege in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly in Canberra to name names (though did not make mention of them all being Jewish)—Frank and Joseph Shellim, Amos Kormornick, Todor Gajic (the father of Alexander) and Esmond Mooseek. Stevenson tabled as evidence a licensing agreement dated October 1985 between another of Gajic’s many companies (Sienna Pty Ltd) and Arno’s VCX.[9] Gajic was also alleged to have been a client of Sydney law firm Simons and Baffsky, a firm which had long since been acting as legal advisors for Abe Saffron. Veteran pornographer Gerald Gold, now publishing the Australian edition of Sunday Sport, was touted as another member of this network and chafed at his name being mentioned in criminal involvement. He later extracted a public apology from Stevenson for one of these claims, and wrote op-eds to major newspapers demanding that something be done to limit parliamentary privilege.[10]

Sketches of Arno and Gaswirth[11]

Some of the more explosive claims made by Dennis Stevenson in his lengthy parliamentary speeches on the criminal nature of the Australian porn industry touch at the heart of Jewish powerbrokers in Australia:

In attempting to expand his pornographic dealings and US connections, Alexander Gajic instructed Melbourne solicitor Leon Zwier to travel to the United States to buy porn titles for Gajic to distribute in Australia. Among Gajic’s written instructions to Zwier was a report on Al Tapper, the president of CPLC. In his instructions to Zwier, Gajic wrote:

‘Speak to him, he’s a top bloke, who virtually controls the West Coast market in pornographic books and accessories. I will be importing books etc. from him as well, as soon as I get more cash together. He knows Australia well, being a friend of Abe Saffron. His attitude is always cash up front.’[12]

A few months later, Zwier took up a role at law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, where he is now a senior partner and a high-profile legal advisor to countless Australian political and business figures. (See Brenton Sanderson’s five-part article on the influence of Mark Leibler, a partner in Arnold Bloch Leibler, on Australian politics and his support for Jewish causes.)

THE PORN BACKLASH

When it came to VHS tapes, this new medium proved to be a significant challenge not only to police and customs, but also to the classification regime. The proliferation of pornographic VHS tapes between 1980 and 1983 eventually resulted in the breakdown of the Film Censorship Board’s regulatory process, which administered the classification of films at a federal level. As a VHS tape was not intended for public exhibition like an ordinary film, it had fallen into a regulatory anomaly and for a while the board persisted with a confusing policy of registering but not classifying some tapes with the instruction that it was not to be publicly exhibited, or applying an R rating to those tapes that would otherwise be classified R for films shown in cinemas.

As of January 1983, the board began simply refusing to classify VHS tapes, owing to their inability to establish a cohesive and functioning classification response,[13] and once again shifted responsibility for enforcement to the states. To rectify the situation, the newly elected Labor Federal government was the first to move, with Attorney General Gareth Evans seeing the passage of the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT; a federally administered area that contains the capital city of Canberra) on February 1, 1984, which established a new “X-rated” category above the R-rating to properly classify explicit films.

The ACT ordinance, which applied only to that territory,[14] was intended as model legislation for the states to follow to rectify the VHS anomaly and provide a coherent framework for regulation and classification. It was only once the ordinance passed however, that people realized it did nothing to restrict the sale of video pornography. The numbness induced by twelve years of porn proliferation meant that the law sought only to ban content that could still arouse opposition even among the supporters of liberalisation, namely depictions of violent sex, snuff films, bestiality and child porn.

Community backlash grew in response and an unholy alliance of feminists and religious conservatives teamed up in a country-wide campaign against the legalization. Stalwart morals campaigner Mary Whitehouse came to Australia to lead a Festival of Light campaign alongside Reverend Fred Nile, the founder of the Christian Democrat Party. One-by-one the state governments fell in line with public pressure, and by 1985, the sale, rental and display of X-rated VHS tapes was banned in every state. The industry had, under bi-partisan leadership, become illegal but there was a catch—the ACT ordinance still remained.

FESCENNINE FYSHWICK

As the (legal) sale of pornography collapsed in the states, distributors simply relocated to the federal territories around the capital city of Canberra and established mail-order businesses. Here they used a legal loophole to continue their operations, as a sale for a mail-order did not occur until the money changed hands, which happened on federal territory. The state laws also contained the usual caveat that it was not illegal to possess an X-rated tape. This ultimately compromised application of the laws, as there was no disincentive for people seeking out and purchasing tapes, and no fear of being prosecuted. The Northern Territory was too far away from the population centers to become an effective location for this mail-order trade, and so Canberra, more specifically the industrial suburb of Fyshwick, became the porn center of Australia.

With the industry legalized, American Jews continued to contribute to the Australian VHS porn market in less direct and more legal methods. Importers and distributors were now identifiable through the classification listings as “applicants,” which were awash with companies either importing films from Jewish-owned production companies in America or were Jewish-owned importers themselves. With the sheer volume of product, these records were now being published on a monthly or even fortnightly basis, compared with the annual reports of restricted publications from 1975.

Noel C. Bloom (also identified in the Meese Report), was the founder of the Caballero Control Corporation, believed to be the largest U.S. producer of pornographic films and another early adopter of VHS. Bloom’s company conveyed product and distribution rights to Australia through John Lark, the owner and director of the Australian offshoot Caballero Home Video. The first major VHS distributor in Australia, Video Classics (founded in 1979 by former nightclub manager Walter Lehne, who made a trip to Los Angeles to investigate the newfound VHS market), procured its X-rated product from Essex Distributing, an LA-based pornographic group run by Joe and Tony Steinman.[15] Before collapsing in 1985, the publicly listed Video Classics had Jewish solicitor John Landerer as chairman.

Another importer and distributor of X-rated tapes that operated legitimately was 14th Mandolin, a Jewish-owned entertainment company, with Joseph Rabaiov as managing director. 14th Mandolin operated X-rated film labels Pink Video and King of Video and was a consistent presence on classification listings for X-rated films throughout the 1980s (including plenty of films refused classification). In 1978 the company ran an Israeli Film Festival at the Palais Theater in St Kilda and by the mid-1980s it appears to have been linked with the Israeli-owned film company Cannon Group. Mark Josem’s Filmways company also made regular appearances on the classification listings as the applicant for R and X-rated films.

Richard Klugman and the Joint Select Committee on Video Material

A win for pornography though it was, community concern continued to galvanize against the availability of pornography that the ACT ordinance permitted and the government responded with the creation of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material in March 1985.[16] The committee, comprising a cross-bench group of members of parliament, was set up to investigate the ordinance and to provide final recommendations to the federal government on further action. The key terms of reference for the committee to decide on were:

  • Point 1i—whether the sale, hire, distribution or exhibition of films and videotapes/discs that would, under existing law, be accorded a classification above ‘R’ should be made unlawful; and
  • Point 1l—the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material.

The state bans and similar committees elsewhere in the world showed that the anti-porn campaign had momentum on their side, and here was a clear opportunity to stop pornography in its tracks. A win for the forces of decency would require a strong, morally just figure as chairman, someone without a compromised mindset on sexual matters who could guide the committee to a forceful routing of the local porn industry and deliver a clear mandate to the government to press for further action on X-rated tapes. Instead, the chairmanship was given to Richard Klugman.

Richard Klugman doing his best impression of Gonzo the Muppet

Gonzo the Muppet

Born to a Jewish family in Vienna, Klugman was a hardline anti-censorship figure from the Labor-left who had long since been publicly identified with the liberationist cause, the last sort of person one would want as the chair of a committee attempting to investigate the harmful effects of pornography. Appointing him was the equivalent of putting the spokesman for a cigarette company as chairman of a committee investigating the harms of smoking. Klugman was a founding member of the New South Wales (NSW) Council for Civil Liberties and used his maiden speech to parliament in 1969 to advocate for the legalisation of marijuana and the decriminalisation of homosexuality.[17] In a parliamentary debate on censorship in 1971, he had argued (using the Kutchinksy study) that rapists were produced by growing up in a “sexually repressive” household where sex was not spoken about and nudity was hidden from children, concluding that

 a reasonable exposure to erotica, particularly during adolescence, reflects a high degree of sexual interest and curiosity that correlates with adult patterns of acceptable heterosexual interest and practice.[18]

In other words, Klugman is proposing that exposure to pornography is necessary for the creation of what Klugman believed is a sexually healthy adult, one that is ultimately conducive to left-wing ideas and non-religious patterns of behaviour.

In his role as Chairman of the committee, Klugman predictably proved to be a tireless opponent of the wide-ranging forces against pornography. Regardless of how much evidence was presented on the link between pornography and violent or otherwise depraved behavior, or testimony on the moral degradation that it inflicted on the people of Australia, Klugman’s mind was made up, and he could be counted on to muddy the recommendations of the report and publicly rubbish any suggestion that pornography should be restricted.

In this, he was assisted by Jews like journalist Adele Horin, who led the “sex-positive” side of the feminist debate in Australia during the Feminist Sex Wars, and Professor Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin, an expert on the social effects of mass media. Donnerstein was a prominent witness during the hearings of the U.S. Meese Commission (the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography) during the Reagan administration, and he made the trip to Australia to adamantly give evidence (in opposition to the other non-Jewish researchers that testified) that so-called “non-violent” pornography did not have any harmful effect on behavior or attitudes.[19] Klugman then used his academic qualifications as proof that there was no solid evidence of harm. Elsewhere, lawyer Ken Horler of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties publicly took the extreme libertarian position that people should be free to even view material such as child pornography if they wish to do so.[20]

After more than three years of deliberation (which included watching X-rated videos to “assess the evidence”), the committee finally tabled its report in April 1988 in two volumes, one for the majority report and the minority report respectively. The eleven members of the committee were deeply divided when it came to recommendations and were scathing in their critiques of each other. Klugman, who led the minority group of five members, laid bare his thoughts in the minority report:

We believe that Chapter 13 of the Majority Report [the chapter dealing with impacts of pornography] is extremely biased and very selective in its choice of evidence. The obvious aim is to come to the conclusion that even non-violent erotica is harmful. … There is an underlying belief that a depiction which shows a woman enjoying sexual activity is degrading.[21]

A meeting of all Federal and State Attorneys General was held in late June, which resolved to ignore Klugman and the minority group’s recommendations, and proceed with a full ban on X-rated videos.[22] With the committee’s discordant report in hand, the issue finally went to the Labor Party caucus for a vote on November 8, 1988, accompanied by strong lobbying from the recently formed Adult Video Industry Association (AVIA—founded by John Lark). Attorney General Lionel Bowen tabled the resolution for a ban on X-rated videos and spoke as a lone voice of support; Klugman, Gareth Evans and Senator Zhakarov, a former communist who was also a member of the Video Material Committee, spoke against the resolution.

A record of the exact final count is unclear, but according to Klugman, Northern Territory Labor Senator Bob Collins had made a decisive impact on the negative outcome.[23] Collins was another member of the Committee, siding with the minority report and Klugman, and had offered some of the most strident defenses of pornography in the Australian Parliament. If Klugman and the other members of the minority group needed proof that a society seeped in pornography produced morally depraved individuals, it turns out they need not have looked any further than among their own ranks. In 2004, police raided Collins’ house and found a collection of child pornography on his computer. And before his death in 2007, he was facing multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault against children dating back to the 1980s.[24] That apparently a deciding vote on whether or not Australia should ban video pornography came down to a homosexual rapist and pedophile is a fitting ending to this sad tale.

The End

“The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”—Al Goldstein

Coinciding with the 200th anniversary of the foundation of Australia, we arrive at the end of our story in the year 1988. With the federal caucus vote, pornography was now politically entrenched and it would be another seven years before the more socially conservative Liberal Party came to office again. Dennis Stevenson attempted unsuccessfully to ban pornography in the ACT in 1990, which would have left only the Northern Territory as the last holdout, and further half-hearted attempts would be made over the course of the next decade to stem the tide. But for all intents and purposes, once porn reached the internet age it was beyond the power of the Australian government to control it anymore.

This series has deliberately focused on the battle over obscenity in Australia, only covering foreign works and influences where they were directly relevant to the Australian context. To include the full scale of Jewish involvement in the wider conflict over obscenity and sexual material in America would quadruple its size, but the events that occurred there are just as relevant in understanding the full picture of the situation in Australia. As outlined by Sullivan, during the 1960s Australian politicians argued

that the problem of violent and salacious literature was caused by the declining standards of American culture and its influence on Australia through film and literature. American literature in general was said to demonstrate “a complete disregard for moral and ethical standards, the sanctity of marriage and the fundamental principles of family life.”[25]

Furthermore, events such as the Roth Decision had an enormous influence on the interpretation of obscenity law, and much was made in Australia of the Kinsey Reports and Berl Kutchinsky’s infamous study of the impact of the legalisation of pornography in Denmark in 1969. For the better part of two decades this study was cited by journalists and armchair experts alike in defence of pornography.  Going further back, Jay Gertzman’s book Bookleggers and Smuthounds: The Trade in Erotica, 1920–1940 (1999) gives a concise history of Jewish involvement in the American smut trade from as early as the late nineteenth century. Even back then, such artefacts were making their way over the Pacific.

The reasons for the prominent Jewish role in these global assaults on obscenity law and their over-representative involvement in smut and the pornographic industry can be found elsewhere and does not need to be recapitulated in detail in this essay.[26] Whether it results from an “atavistic hatred of Christian authority,”[27] from an evolutionary in-group strategy to weaken the moral hegemony of the host society, or just a vulgar desire to make profit in any way possible, the end result is the same. Ultimately, the story of this conflict didn’t just play out in the realm of books, magazines and films as encompassed in this series. It occurred in art, music, fashion, advertising, photography, and just about any other form of cultural expression you care to name. The entire vehicle of modern culture from the 1960s onwards was commandeered, largely by Jews, away from a previously dominant moral center into the depraved hole where it now sits—a hole where sexual themes and imagery are so all-encompassing that people now know little else. The idea that there once existed a world where this wasn’t the case seems incredulous to younger generations.

Numbness and Servitude

For many years the purported consequences of the breakdown of obscenity law and the flourishing of obscene material were mocked by the pornographers and the liberators. As far as they were concerned, the world went on functioning the same as before and people did not seem to be acting any more depraved than usual. The wild claims of moral degeneration and societal decay offered up by critics were seen as laughable. Fifty years on from Portnoy, these claims are no longer laughable and such degeneration is now becoming widely apparent. There are a multitude of examples that one can point to, but what moral person can, in the face of news stories like a transexual school teacher in Ontario (Canada) who wore grotesque prosthetic breasts to school—a behavior for which he was not disciplined by the school board—think otherwise? Or horrors like sex-reassignment surgery on “trans children”? That there are people who think it is legitimate to lop off the genitals of an 8-year-old child who has been deluded by hypersexual social media content into thinking they are a sex they are not, and that such incidents do not cause mass outrage and protest, shows how far things have deteriorated.

Writing about the famous risqué photos of Bettie Page produced by Jewish photographer Irving Claw during the 1950s, E. Michael Jones notes that:

Those who look at the Bettie Page photos 50 years later wonder what the big deal was all about without realizing that the big deal lies in the very fact that the viewer can no longer feel the passion the photos were intended to incite. Pornography is something based on transgression, and the boundaries of 1950 have been so often and so thoroughly transgressed, that no one can see that they were once boundaries. This numbness has become the prime political problem of our age.[28]

The moral and political numbness inflicted by pornography and other obscene Jewish cultural products defines so much of our lives, a numbness that is ever more pressing for people to awaken from as the West hurtles towards cultural oblivion and demographic replacement. Aldous Huxley famously remarked (channelling J. D. Unwin) that as political and economic freedom decreases, sexual freedom tends compensating to increase. This is certainly borne out in Australia, where the victory of Portnoy and the full embrace of pornography from 1972 to 1988 neatly coincided with the arrival of chronic wage stagnation which has not abated to this day, and the instituting of “neo-liberal” reform—a process of economic deregulation that would eventually kill off the family wage and the Australian Settlement.

This period also saw the enshrinement of the poisonous ideology of multiculturalism and the effective criminalization of White solidarity, whereby even the mildest dissent from political orthodoxy can now bring down the wrath of the commissars and result in unemployment and social ostracism. Every manner of economic domination, cultural perversion or political tyranny can be imposed on a people who have been numbed into submission. We in the West may now have the freedom to clog our minds with porn, to dance at a gay bar, or to purchase and read whatever obscene literature we want, but conversely, we are losing our homelands and even the ability to raise a family and teach our children the values we hold dear. Such sexual freedoms are not freedoms at all, only the trappings of servitude.

Select Sources and Biblioliography

Newspapers:

  • The Australian Jewish Times
  • The Canberra Times
  • The Sun Herald
  • The Sydney Morning Herald

Government Reports/Gazettes

  • Annual Reports of the Victorian State Advisory Board on Publications, 1974-1978
  • Classification notices under the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act 1975, published in the Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales
  • Classification Reports of the Film Censorship Board 1980-1988, published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette
  • Final Report of the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (Meese Report), 1986
  • Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, Volume I & II, 1988
  • Report on Activities of the Australian Film Censorship Board, 1980-1988

Books & Academic Papers:

  • Bongiorno, F 2012, The Sex Lives of Australians: A History, Black Inc, Australia.
  • Bowes, D 2012, Exposing Indecency: Censorship and Sydney’s Alternative Press 1963-1973, Honours Thesis, University of Sydney.
  • Calder, B 2015, Gay Print Media’s Golden Era: Australian Magazines and Newspapers 1970–2000, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.
  • Coleman, P 1962, Obscenity, blasphemy, sedition: censorship in Australia, Jacaranda Publishing, Australia.
  • Dutton, G & Harris, M 1970, Australia’s Censorship Crisis, Sun Books, Australia.
  • Jennings, R & Reynolds, R 2014, Acts of Love and Lust: Sexuality in Australia from 1945-2010, edited by Lisa Featherstone, Cambridge Scholars, Australia.
  • Jones, E.M. 1999, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, Fidelity Press, USA.
  • Matthews, J 2007, ‘Blue Movies in Australia: A Preliminary History,” Journal of the National Film and Sound Archive, Vol.2(3), p.1-12.
  • Mullins, P 2019, The Trials of Portnoy, Scribe Publications, Australia.
  • Munro, C & Sheahan-Bright, R 2006, Paper empires a history of the book in Australia, 1946-2005, University of Queensland Press, Australia.
  • Nette, A 2022, Horwitz Publications, pulp fiction and the rise of the Australian paperback, Anthem Press, London, UK.
  • Nette, A & McIntuyre, I (eds.) 2019, Sticking It to the Man: Revolution and Counterculture in Pulp and Popular Fiction, 1950 to 1980, PM Press, USA.
  • Nowra, L 2013, Kings Cross: A Biography, NewSouth Publishing, Australia.
  • O’Connell, D 2021, Harlem Nights: The Secret History of Australia’s Jazz Age, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
  • Reeves, T 2007, Mr Sin: The Abe Saffron Dossier, Allen & Unwin, Australia.
  • Reich, W 1933, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, English Translation 1946, Orgone Institute Press, New York.
  • Saffron, A 2008, Gentle Satan: My Father, Penguin Group, Australia.
  • Sullivan, B 1997, The Politics of Sex: Prostitution and pornography in Australia since 1945, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Other:

  • Australian Dictionary of Biography: https://adb.anu.edu.au/
  • Australian Film Censorship Database: https://www.refused-classification.com/
  • National Library of Australia, Trove Database: https://trove.nla.gov.au/

[1] Commonwealth of Australia 1984, Film Censorship Board: Report on Activities 1983, Parliamentary Paper No. 242/1984, p.19.

[2] This was true even as late as the year 1988 according to testimony given by the AVIA, and only two Australian-made films with a rating above R were registered by the Board by 1988 – Commonwealth of Australia 1988, Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, Volume 1, p.167.

[3] See: Commonwealth of Australia Gazette 1986, ‘X Classification’, retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/240545608/26061053

[4] Norman Arno is the only person named in this section whose background cannot be conclusively identified, though sketch drawings of his likeness describe an individual with identifiable Jewish characteristics.

[5] Bottom, B 1987, Connections II: Crime rackets and networks of influence in Australia, Sun Books, p.12-13.

[6] Javes, S 1987, Mafia Porn Mystery Man: Police to be asked for a name, Sydney Morning Herald, Sunday 22 March , p.5.

[7] Gajic is not exclusively a Jewish surname; however he is registered in the emigration case files of the Australia Jewish Welfare and Relief Society, and his Jewish heritage is established by a family notice posted in the Australian Jewish News, announcing the birth of his daughter with wife Rhonda Rosenberg – Australian Jewish News, Family Notices, 25 January 1985, p.22.

[8] The Age 1982, Adult Video Super Sale!, Advertisement, Monday 29 November, p.31.

[9] A copy can also be found tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly by Dennis Collins – https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/10070/397256

[10] Borham, S 1992, ‘Liar claim in police scandal’, Sydney Morning Herald, Sunday 22 September, p.18.

[11] Bottom, B 1985, ‘Mining the Pot of Gold’, The Age, Tuesday 16 September, p.11

[12] Commonwealth of Australia 1991, Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates. (Official Hansard), 16 April 1991, p.1318.

[13] Commonwealth of Australia 1983, Film Censorship Board: Report on Activities 1982, Parliamentary Paper No. 242/1984, p.11.

[14] Self-governance was not granted to the ACT until 1988.

[15] Frith, D 1983, ‘1984: The Year of the X-rated movie deluge’, Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 12 December, p.40.

[16] The earlier Senate committee under the same terms of reference had been formed in October 1984, which then merged into this joint committee.

[17] Brown, M 2011, ‘Labor medico was a strong civil libertarian: Dick Klugman, 1924-2011’, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 March, retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-medico-was-a-strong-civil-libertarian-20110313-1bsv5.html

[18] Sullivan, Op. Cit., p.133. (Taken from Hansard in the Australian House of Representatives, 22 February 1971)

[19] Like in America, much of the debate about pornography during the 1980s got side-tracked with a pointless distinction between violent and non-violent content.

[20] Commonwealth of Australia 1988, Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, Volume 1, p.54.

[21] Commonwealth of Australia 1988, Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, Volume 2, p.552.

[22] Dunn, R 1988, ‘X-Rated Videos now face a nationwide ban’, Sydney Morning Herald, Friday 1 July, p.1.

[23] Mahoney, D 1988, ‘Collins ‘turns debate’ Caucus backs X films’, The Canberra Times, Wednesday 9 November, p.1.

[24] The Age 2006, ‘Child porn court date for ex-Labor minister’, Saturday 25 November, retrieved from: https://www.theage.com.au/national/child-porn-court-date-for-ex-labor-minister-20061125-ge3ncd.html

[25] Sullivan, Op. Cit., p.80.

[26] See Joyce, A 2017 ‘Thoughts on Jews Obscenity and the Legal System, Occidental Observer, retrieved from https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/11/27/thoughts-on-jews-obscenity-and-the-legal-system; Vinther, K 2021,‘Oppression by Orgasm? The Porn Industry as Jewish Anti-Fascist Activism & Cultural Terrorism, Part 1&2’, Counter Currents, retrieved from: https://counter-currents.com/2021/02/oppression-by-orgasm-part-1/; Garland, B 2017 Merchants of Sin, retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/garland-benjamin-merchants-of-sin

[27] Abrams, N 2003, ‘Triple Ethnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry, Jewish Quarterly, 51(4), p.27-31.

[28] Jones, E.M 2000, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, Fidelity Press, USA, p. 367.

The Plot Against Australia, Part IV: Jews, Porn and the Trappings of Servitude, Part 1

/4 Comments/in /by

After an interlude, Part IV of this series picks up in the depths of Kings Cross in where the second section of Part III, left off.

Following Portnoy’s victory in 1972, obscene and sexually explicit material was riding high in Australia. The abandonment of threshold censorship by the federal government and the collapse of the enforcement of obscenity law inaugurated a twelve-year period where Australia was treated to one political backdown after another when it came to the policing of what was once considered obscene material. These were the golden years of obscenity from 1972 to 1984 which took full advantage of the explosion of the pornographic industry in America and Europe and the unleashing of sexual mores from the wider sexual revolution. People around the country set about enjoying their new-found freedoms and a whole new world of sex emerged in Australian popular culture; full nudity was appearing on television and on stages, sex could be freely spoken about on the national broadcaster, and films containing strong sexual themes were becoming normal fare for cinema-goers under the newly established R-rating. Men’s magazines had wide distributions, erotic literature and sex toys could be legally purchased, and slowly but surely pornographic films were making inroads.

Obscenity laws remained on the books for a while longer and was only fully dismantled within the Customs Act in 1984[1], but the Portnoy’s Complaint saga (alongside the watering down of the legal definition of obscenity by Crowe v. Graham) had shown that it was now unenforceable, and importation bans on obscene publications were never attempted by the federal government again. The naïve belief espoused by politicians while introducing the Restricted 18+ rating (in 1967 and 1971 for publications and films respectively) that it would not lead to more obscene content being legalized was shown to be farcical. In 1971 customs minister Don Chipp had nominated the high-brow Playboy magazine as the benchmark of permissiveness in Australia beyond which publications were not to be allowed.[2] At most it took two years before cutting-edge publications that had moved well beyond Playboy in their level of obscene content could be freely purchased in Australia.

As mentioned in Part I, the Whitlam federal government established a new federal classification scheme in 1974, and all states other than Queensland followed suit by passing liberalizing classification laws. These state laws held back on the full extent of liberalization that the federal government outlined and still attempted to prohibit more extreme content. However, prosecuting such publications for obscenity almost always turned out to be more cumbersome than it was worth, with only a slim chance of success, and would always be negated by lack of action in other states and the more liberal federal scheme. Only a brief legislative move around the country to outlaw child pornography in 1977, which had become disturbingly common among publications assessed by classification boards[3], resulted in anything that can be considered a roll-back on the trend towards liberalization.

Freed from the constraints of obscenity laws and importation restrictions, the explosion of sexual content that occurred during this period was by no means a purely Jewish affair.  Nevertheless, as the final essay in the series will outline, Jews were responsible for much of the highlights, and were an ever-present fixture at the vanguard before the adult industry turned legitimate during the latter stages of the 1980s.

1965 vs 1975

An outline of the types of material authorities were dealing with in the year 1965 compared with 1975 offers an insight into how quickly obscene content had taken hold after the Portnoy victory and the further liberalizing government decisions. Putting aside the foreign books, films and magazines that the Australian government was still holding the fort against, the local publications contended with in the mid-1960s were utterly tame compared to a mere decade later. Sore points for authorities were still comic books, bikini-clad magazine covers and paperback pulp fiction which traded in indecent sexual themes. Such novels had begun to take their cue from Kings Cross, the center of sin, as a setting for their stories and used ever more risqué graphic art for their front covers.

This pulp market was dominated by Jewish-owned Horwitz Publications, the largest paperback publisher in Australia. Run by their son Stanley by the 1960s, Horwitz was founded in 1921 by Israel and Ruth Horwitz, who had capitalized on a gap in the market created by import restrictions on cheap literature coming in from America, material that was not deemed appropriate for Australian audiences as it unduly emphasized sex.[4] In 1965, the overtly sexual nature of pulp fiction had not yet been fully realized, but as noted by Nette, the change was not far off:

The dominant characteristic of Horwtiz pulp from 1967 to 1972 was its increasingly sexually explicit nature, both its cover art and contents,…books even delved into non-heteronormative sexual identities, the overt representation of which had, with few exceptions, been largely off-limits in Australian pulp publishing.[5]

During the 1970s, Horwitz turned elsewhere as the market for erotic literature declined in favor of the outright pornographic magazine, publishing the Australian edition of MAD Magazine and in 1982, the company purchased Penthouse Australia. Meanwhile at the universities, the student magazines were just getting started in their Wilhelm Reich-inspired quest to cause grief for governments, and the Film Censorship Board was still banning horror films. Underground newspapers with photos of topless women like the Kings Cross Whisper were regularly seized and publishers charged with obscenity, and copies of the American Playboy magazine were still being confiscated from the luggage of travelers.

A sample of popular Australian magazines and pulp fiction from the mid-1960s.

In 1975, the situation could not have been more bleak, and furor over the written word in pulp fiction and in books like Portnoy’s Complaint probably felt like ancient history. Authorities were instead dealing with illegal screenings of hard-core pornography in the form of movies such as Deepthroat (1972) and The Devil in Miss Jones (1973). Both had been secretly imported to Australia and screened at a number of Kings Cross venues, and could be semi-legally acquired for personal use via mail-order if you had $200 to spare (close to $1,500 AUD today). Australia-wide there was veritable explosion in all sorts of publications that would have once been immediately seized by police but could now be legally purchased from newsagents and the newly founded sex shops. A sample record can be found in Victoria in the 1974–75 Annual Report of the State Advisory Board on Publications (the second year of operation of the new Police Offences Act), which details all the publications that year that were deemed by the Victorian State Government to be restricted publications—not saleable to people under the age of 18.[6] Alongside all the literary smut (with titles like My Wet Dream, Ebony Orgasm and Two Girls and a Vibrator) one can find the Asia-Pacific off-shoot of Al Goldstein’s Screw magazine[7] and plenty of other pornographic books, magazines and newspapers attributable to Jewish-owned publishers.

Among the more notorious of these was Oceana Press, the Australian imprint for books originally published by Olympia Press, the famous French publisher of English-language erotica and other obscene literature. Founded in 1953 by Maurice Girodias (born Maurice Kahane), Olympia Press flourished by printing obscene books in more tolerant France and shipping them overseas. Famous examples include Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) and it was Maurice’s father Jack Kahane that had first published Henry Miller’s ground-breaking obscene book Tropic of Cancer (1934).

The corresponding law in New South Wales, the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act, began operating in December 1975, streaming over-18 publications into the categories of Restricted (not to be publicly displayed) and Direct Sale (not to be displayed at all, and only sold after a direct request by a purchaser). The classification listings circulated in the NSW government gazette positively bulge with foreign Jewish-owned publishers, including the more infamous American ventures: Eros Publishing (Rueben Sturman & Ralph Ginzburg), American Art Enterprises (Milton Luros, born Milton Rosenblatt), Marquis Publishing, Classic Publications (Marvin Miller of Miller v California fame) and Golden State News.

Lionel Murphy and Abe Saffron

It is worth also briefly broaching the nature of the Whitlam Government (1972–1975) that was busy dismantling the censorship regime and highlighting one of the more unscrupulous members of this New Left cadre re-shaping Australian society. The dedication of members of the Whitlam government to the anti-censorship cause is well understood, but less well known are the maneuverings of Senator Lionel Murphy when it came to the direct enforcement of customs law.

As Attorney-General from 1972–1975, Murphy presided over many of the other radical legal changes that occurred under Whitlam, such as the introduction of no-fault divorce laws. Persistent allegations of corruption and impropriety against Murphy over the course of the next decade led to the formation of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in May 1986, seeking to investigate these claims. The inquiry was withdrawn after Murphy’s diagnosis and subsequent death at the hands of cancer a few months later; however, preliminary documents were tabled with allegations that were to be investigated, which were declassified in 2017. Of interest is Allegation #37—Direction Concerning Importation of Pornography:

The allegations were that in 1973 the Judge [Murphy] had issued a direction that Regulation 4A of the customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, as they then stood, should be ignored with the result that pornography was imported without any written permission and thereby contrary to the regulations.[8]

As detailed in Part III, Murphy had been targeted by Abe Saffron’s blackmail operation and is now widely believed to have had a close relationship with Saffron and assisted him in a number of questionable affairs.[9] Allegation # 5 was that Murphy had also directed customs surveillance against Saffron to be downgraded. Directing Customs to ignore the law when it came to the importation of pornography would certainly have been to the benefit of Saffron, as well as for the other Jews coming to the fore. It also put all the more pressure on the state governments to reform their respective censorship laws, which could no longer handle the scale of obscene publications flowing into the country.

The Golden Years of Obscenity

With the law on the back foot (and Murphy apparently directing customs to turn a blind eye to pornography), publishers and importers were emboldened, and more often than not they were ignoring the classification schemes. Now that the federal government had taken a step back from policing the border, the onus fell on the states to control the avalanche of foreign smut. Alongside their disquiet about the increasingly depraved nature of the publications they were assessing, the 1967–1977 Annual Report of the State Advisory Board on Publications in Victoria noted that many publications were simply not being sent to the government for registration, and the board would only find out about them once they were already on sale at shops.[10]

The case of Gold Star Publications, a prominent sex publisher during these early post-Portnoy years, typifies the emboldened nature of local Jewish publishers in the wake of the backdown. Gold Star Publications was founded in the late 1960s by Gerald “Gerry” Gold, the brother of U.K.-based publisher David Gold, who arrived in Australia in 1954 from London. Gold Star published pulp fiction and other more legitimate works but entered into the new world of smut and “sexology,” delivering to the Australian market titles like Nympho, House of Pleasure, Girls in Love, and Female Sex Perversion. In February 1973, police raided the offices of Gold Star in the Melbourne suburb of Hawthorn, where they found and seized just under 38,000 pornographic books and magazines, with an estimate resale value of $150,000.[11] Ostensibly seized on the grounds of obscenity, Victoria Police was later forced to hand the magazines back to Gold Star, as they were declared restricted material instead.

David Gold was also notable as a publisher of porn magazines in the U.K. through the vehicles Trident Publications and Gold Star Publications—not to be confused with the Australian variant founded by his brother with the same name. Gerald imported and published remaindered books from David’s U.K. business under the imprint Knight Books, and many of his U.K. pornographic magazines made their way to Australia as well. Gerald’s son Geoffrey Gold, a former student radical at Monash University in Melbourne, also entered the world of publishing after a brief tenure at his father’s company. Under the imprint Widescope International, Geoff Gold published a number of books by members of the Whitlam Government during the mid-1970s and later took over the left-wing political magazine National Review in 1978. By 1984, he was publishing Video and Cinema Magazine which was doing its best to legitimize pornography by giving out awards for the “erotic” category,[12] and launched Video-X in 1985, the first Australian trade publication for X-rated VHS tapes.

Sex Shops

Resistance from mainstream bookshops and newsagents severely limited opportunities for stocking the more hardcore content, but this was quickly rectified with another innovation picked up from abroad. The first sex shops in Australia were appearing just before the federal government issued its final backdown on Portnoy’s Complaint in June 1972. No zoning laws existed to prohibit these shops, and, short of taking the owners to task for publicly displaying goods in shopfront windows or selling the sort of extreme publications that could still get you into trouble with the much-weakened law, they were allowed to flourish. Such shops became the focal point for the nascent Australian sex industry, places where customers could pick up their monthly porn magazine or peruse through the collection of smut and sex toys.

The arrival of the sex shop also took the wind out of strip clubs, which were previously the most depraved sexual attraction the general public had access to. Many of the purveyors of these shops launched their own local publishing companies to supplement imported publications, or in the case of Jan Domabyl and Terry Blake (the founder of the underground newspaper Kings Cross Whisper) came into the process in the reverse. Part III of this series noted the central role of Abe Saffron in the adult entertainment industry in Kings Cross, the logical location for their conglomeration, and that many of the first sex shops around the country were established in Saffron-owned buildings. Saffron himself was obviously not involved in the day-to-day operation of these outlets—this task was left to other entrepreneurial Jews, who easily made up the majority of early sex shop proprietors.

One of the earliest sex shops in Australia can be attributed to a Czech Jewish migrant called Jan Domabyl, which opened in 1972 in a Saffron-owned arcade on Darlinghurst Road in Kings Cross. Under the company name Adult Products Pty Ltd, a family venture which included his wife and his daughter Nelly Vandergroot, Domabyl grew his business throughout the 1970s into a chain of sex shops in Sydney. Domabyl also founded the sex newspaper Searchlight, which doubled as a sex-contact magazine. Before Jews in America created hook-up apps like Tinder and Bumble, such newspapers could be utilized to discreetly organize sexual liaisons via personal advertisements. Domabyl moved back to the Czech Republic in the early 2010s, where he became somewhat of a minor “sex-celebrity” in his country of birth, appearing on local television shows and boasting to Czech newspapers that he had been with over 10,000 sexual partners.[13]

Australian Sex Magazines of the Early 70s.

Another prominent figure in the growing sex shop industry was Gustav Herstik of Visual Enterprises Ltd. Born to a Jewish family in Hungary, Herstik and his wife operated the Love Art network of sex shops and were also the owners of Herd Publishing, which published a variety of pornographic magazines. These included some of the earliest Australian-produced homosexual porn magazines, Stallion and Apollo, the former established in April 1973.

However, arguably the biggest Jewish players were Harry and Hannah Strum of Venus Enterprises, the “Mr and Mrs Big of sex shops.”[14] The pair set up the Venus Shop chain, the largest brand of sex shops by the late 1970s, operating in Kings Cross and elsewhere in Australia. Their publishing company Venus Publications churned out titles like Moist and Ready and published the sex magazine Kings Cross Venus. The Gandali family, minor Jewish property developers and Kings Cross venue operators,[15] also had interests in adult theaters and sex shops like the Pleasure Chest Down Under (later called the Down Under bookshop) on George Street, Sydney. In 1976, David Gandali was convicted for attempting to bribe a vice squad detective $5,000 a month to ignore the pornographic films he planned to screen at the Gandali-owned Barrel Theater in Melbourne,[16] a venue name shared with their strip club in Kings Cross.

Stag Films and Early Video Porn

It was at these sex shops that many Australians also got their first tantalizing glimpses of pornographic films that were now moving into the realm of the general public. With the availability of personal video cameras, amateur pornographic tapes called “stag films” had found a small underground market throughout the 1950s and 1960s, both of the locally produced and illegally imported varieties. These were generally short 5–15-minute sequences of sexual intercourse that were passed around through criminal or other informal networks, and screened only at private showings or on odd occasions at strip clubs, which kept them largely out of view of vice squads.

According to testimony given to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by a Mr. and Mrs. Somssich, these stag films were

sold in sex shops, exhibited in small unlicensed theaterttes. They were hired out to “bucks parties”, clubs for “private showing” etc. We know of one particular person who owned a large collection of these movies and hired them out.[17]

Multiple sources attest to the fact that Abe Saffron had been showing imported stag films at private parties since the 1950s, and he was a voracious importer and collector of sexual paraphernalia. It doesn’t take much to hypothesize who this “one particular person” likely was.[18]

By the mid-1970s, these stag films and other early hard-core productions were finding their way into sex shops, where they received wider audiences. After having been suitably warmed up by the magazines on display, toward the back of the shop customers could find private viewing booths which screened stag films for a small fee. At intervals of between 20–40 seconds, the projector would break off and demand payment via a coin slot. Upon receiving the desired 20- or 50-cent piece, the film would start up again, and give the purchaser another short period of viewing. New innovations like coin-operated “peep show” machines provided another somewhat more public vehicle for this kind of entertainment. By taking advantage of the viewer in a state of arousal, it is not hard to see how profitable such simple arrangements ended up becoming.

Interior of a Kings Cross sex shop, showing the shelves of porn magazines and coin-operated sex video machines.[19]

Pornographic films continued to fester throughout the latter half of the 1970s, resulting in the emergence of adult theaters, which had evolved out of the viewing booths at sex shops. It was illegal to publicly screen films beyond an R rating (or films without classification) at any theater, let alone an “adult” branded one, but such laws were constantly and easily ignored. Deepthroat and other theatrical-length American and European hard-core films found showings, as did locally produced “sexploitation” films that barely scraped through with an R- rating, films like Fantasm (1976) and The True Story of Eskimo Nell (1976). Both were produced and distributed by Filmways Australasian Distributors, the largest independent film company in Australia during the 1970s. Founded in 1971 by Polish-born Jew Mark (Meyer) Rosem, many of the other foreign sexploitation films of the era also came to Australia via Filmways. Overall, the public nature of theaters and viewing booths left much to be desired, meaning that magazines (which could be taken into the privacy of one’s home) were still the main pornographic vehicle for consumers. This market saw the release of the Australian editions of Playboy and Penthouse magazine in 1979, but as the decade drew to a close, the world of pornography was about to radically change.

Go to Part 2.

[1] Regulation 4a of the Customs Act, which included the category of “blasphemous, indecent or obscene” goods that could be denied entry, was thereafter ignored and was removed by the Hawke Labor government in 1984 and replaced with specific categories relating to depictions of child abuse, terrorism and extreme violence.

[2] Sullivan, B. 1997, The Politics of Sex: Prostitution and pornography in Australia since 1945, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, p.134.

[3] The annual reports of the Victorian State Advisory Board on Publications between 1974-1978 give effect to this.

[4] Nette, A 2022, Horwitz Publications, pulp fiction and the rise of the Australian paperback, Anthem Press, London UK, p.26

[5] Ibid., p.161-163.

[6] State of Victoria 1975, State Advisory Board on Publications: Second Annual Report, retrieved from: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1974-76No60.pdf

[7]Published by Wynyard Mercantile, the publishing wing of the 24-hour Wynyard Newsagency, owned by a Mr L. M. Stone.

[8] Commonwealth of Australia 1986, Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry 1986, Allegation Number 37, retrieved from: https://dl.aph.gov.au/C50%20-%20Allegation%20No.%2037.pdf

[9] Davies, A 2017, ‘‘Murphy was his main man’: the alleged links between the judge and the crime boss’, The Guardian Australia, retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/15/murphy-was-his-main-man-the-alleged-links-between-the-judge-and-the-boss

[10]State of Victoria 1977, State Advisory Board on Publications: Fourth Annual Report, retrieved from:  https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1976-78No100.pdf

[11] The Canberra Times 1973, ‘Magazines ruled obscene’, Thursday 22 March, p.8.

[12] Nicholson, A.M 1985, ‘The Vice Squad hasn’t time for dirty movies—and no ones complaining’, Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 14 September 1985, p.186.

[13] See: https://www.blesk.cz/clanek/celebrity-ceske-celebrity/315793/nejvetsi-seladon-ceska-odesel-do-svudnickeho-nebe-domabyl-mel-10-tisic-zen.html (Translated with Google Translate)

[14] Sydney Morning Herald 1981, ‘Upstairs downstairs: the Sex shop owners say its only a product…’, Saturday 7 March, p.45.

[15] The Rhineschloss Hotel being a prominent venue. This was where Lee Gordon had first exhibited drag shows in 1962.

[16] Sydney Morning Herald 1976, ‘Blue movie bribe charge- fine’, Thursday 29 April, p.8.

[17] Commonwealth of Australia 1988, Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, Volume 1, p.168

[18] Nowra gives effect to these claims, and they are found elsewhere in other scattered sources – Nowra, L 2013, Kings Cross: A Biography, NewSouth Publishing, Australia, p.486.

[19] Source: https://www.sex69project.com/gallery.php

Child-Mutilation is a Happy Day: Three Jovial Jewish activists Promote the Poison of Translunacy

/29 Comments/in /by

One golden day in late June 2022 I was walking my Saluki Zenobia by a canal near the great English city of Birmingham. Birds were singing, dragonflies were zooming, meadowsweet was richly scenting the air. I passed a moored canal-boat, freshly painted and gleaming in the sun. On its side, in elegant white script, ran the beguiling syllables LLAMEDOS. “What a beautiful and mysterious name,” I mused. “Is it from Tolkien? No, it must be Welsh.”

The mask for an evil agenda

Then something prompted me to read the name backwards. And I laughed. If you read it backwards, LLAMEDOS is “Sod ’Em All,” a crude British expression meaning roughly “Damn Them All.” I like the joke and I think Chaucer would’ve appreciated it (the boat-owner is probably a fan of Terry Pratchett). I don’t think the name is mocking linguistic beauty or exalted language. It’s acknowledging them, but reminding you with a wink that “All that glisters is not gold.” LLAMEDOS smiles, “Sod ’Em All” growls.

Well, I remembered that summer’s day and the name on the canal-boat when I recently watched a third video from anti-trans Twitter accounts like LibsOfTikTok, which is run by an Orthodox Jewish woman who doesn’t supply as much information about her “libs” as she could. I don’t go on Twitter much and I’ve watched only a few videos there. Three of those videos made a big impression on me. Each of them features a different woman radiating sincerity and good-will with lots of smiling and nodding and eye-widening.

Three jovial Jewesses promote translunacy: Rachel Simon, Christy Olezeski and Katherine Gast

Christopher Rufo:

Rachel Simon, who conducts transgender “therapy” on children as young as 4, said that “sexuality education starts the minute you’re born” and encouraged teens to distrust their “bigoted, misinformed parents,” especially if they are “religious.” — Jovial Jewess Rachel Simon at Twitter

Libs of TikTok:

Gast happily describes some of the “gender affirming” surgeries she offers to adolescents including vaginoplasties, phalloplasties, and double mastectomies. — Jovial Jewess Katherine Gast at Twitter

But the smiles on the punims are the mask for an evil agenda. Even if you watch the videos with the sound off, you may find that the curiously similar expressions of the women make your flesh creep. If you watch with the sound on, your flesh will certainly creep, because all three of them are talking happily about mutilating the minds and bodies of teenagers and children. In short, they’re priestesses in the cult of translunacy. And what are the odds that all three of them should be drawn from a certain tiny minority? Each video turns out to star a jovial Jewess smiling and nodding and widening her eyes as she celebrates doing things like this to young gentiles:

Penile-inversion vagoplasty, for trans-feminine patients, so male to female, is about taking a penis and essentially turning it into a vagina. … So we create a clitoris from a portion of the glans penis, the scrotal skin becomes the labia majora, a portion of the penile skin becomes the labia minora and then we line the new vagina with the rest of the penile skin and sometimes a skin-graft. … Phalloplasty, for trans-masculine patients, or female to male, is about creating a penis through tissue-transfer. So we take tissue either from the fore-arm or from the leg or sometimes both and we transplant it down to the groin-area to create a phallus. And essentially we lengthen the urethra and turn the labia majora into a scrotum. We remove the vagina and close the hole between the legs and create a phallus. … Top surgery, or female to male mastectomy [breast-removal], for trans-masculine patients who have significant dysphoria related to their breasts. So they don’t want breasts any more. So essentially it’s a cosmetic mastectomy and depending on the breast-size and the amount of skin, we can use different kind of scar-patterns and re-section techniques using direct excision plus or minus liposuction to create a more male chest. Three hours in the operating-room, patients go home the same day. They may or may not have drains and they wear compression-vests post-op, but typically these patients are very happy and [the mastectomies] allow them to wear clothing that’s comfortable and not wear binders and it’s a happy day for everybody. (Transcript of video at LibsOfTikTok)

Jewish “gender surgeon” Dr Katherine Gast

Marriage of a mutilator: Katherine Gast marries Eric Adelman

Those words are from the Jewish “gender surgeon” Dr Katherine Gast, whose marriage to Dr Eric Adelman was reported in the Cleveland Jewish News in 2008. I suspect that another of the jovial Jewesses, the psychiatrist Christy Olezeski, has been under the surgeon’s knife herself. She seems to have had a nose-job, presumably to look more gentile and less Jewish. She began her career as a “Predoctoral Intern” at “Westchester Jewish Community Services” and now describes her work at Yale University like this:

I am the Director and co-founder of the Yale Pediatric Gender Program (YPGP), an interdisciplinary team that provides services for transgender and gender expansive (TGE) youth and families in Connecticut. The team includes professionals in the fields of psychology, endocrinology, psychiatry, gynecology, reproductive medicine, medical ethics and law. Our mission is to provide comprehensive, interdisciplinary, family-centered care for children, adolescents and young adults questioning their assigned gender and/or seeking gender-affirming consultation and treatment in a compassionate, respectful and supportive environment. This program is regionally well-regarded, serving clients from all 8 counties in the state, as well as 4 states outside of Connecticut. (Christy Olezeski, PhD, at the Yale Department of Psychiatry)

The third jovial Jewess, the “psychotherapist, educator, consultant and author” Rachel Simon, hasn’t had a nose-job and doesn’t seem to mind about looking Jewish. She’s wearing a silver star-of-David as she smiles and widens her eyes and talks about “bigoted and misinformed parents” who don’t want their children to be introduced to the joys of gay sex and the treasures of transgenderism. Ms Simon proudly describes herself as “the author of The Every Body Book, an LGBTQIA-inclusive sex-ed resource for 7-to-12-year-olds.”

Rachel Simon’s “vibrant and beautifully illustrated” sex-and-gender poison for 7-to-12-year-olds

No need for prison

Would all three of these jovial Jewesses be serving long prison-sentences in a sane society? Well, no. There would be no need for prison, because they wouldn’t be in a sane society in the first place. In other words, a sane society would not be enriched by the presence of Jews, who are the world’s greatest promoters of perversion and mental illness.

Unfortunately, they find that White women in particular are very receptive to their subversion. In her “gender-critical” book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (OneWorld Publications 2021), the feminist Helen Joyce inadvertently supplies some excellent arguments for patriarchal control and against female autonomy. Discussing the sharp rise in translunacy among younger (White) women, Joyce says this:

The history of medicine is scattered with psychosomatic diseases that appeared, spread like wildfire and died away as medical thinking changed again. One sign a new condition may fall into this category is that it mainly affects teenage girls and young women. They are more likely than other demographics to indulge in “co-rumination”: repetitive discussion and speculation within a peer group. That can lead to internalising problems, and hence to anxiety, depression and self-harm. Girls are also often more empathetic than boys, and better at reading moods, which means emotions spread faster in a female peer group than in a male one. This is why self-harm and eating disorders can run through female friends, and why historical episodes of mass hysteria, such as fainting fits, uncontrollable laughter or crying, and outbreaks of paralysis or tremors, have so often occurred in convents and girls’ schools. (Op. cit., Ch. 5, “Miss Gendering: Why teenage girls are identifying out of the prospect of womanhood,” pp. 106-7)

In effect, Joyce is accepting a highly sexist stereotype of young women not just as conformist, histrionic, and hysterical, but also as needing male control and influence to protect them from their own toxic emotionality. Later in her book, Joyce notes that “young women” are “the demographic keenest on gender self-ID” (p. 225), despite the threat it poses to them and to female-only spaces. Translunacy is yet another example of how Jews play a necessary but not sufficient role in the collapse of the West, because they need goy customers and fellow-traveling professionals for their ideological poison. White women are now proving very eager customers for translunacy.

Translunacy is merely the most recent of the ideological poisons Jew have injected into the veins of gentile societies. But they’ve been brewing that poison for a long time: as Kenneth Vinther describes at Counter Currents in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020), the godfather of translunacy was the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935), who was enthusiastically promoting transgenderism, homosexuality, and pornography well before the Second World War. Pornography is, of course, another Jewish specialty, as Kenneth Vinther describes at Counter Currents in “Oppression by Orgasm? The Porn Industry as Jewish Anti-Fascist Action and Cultural Terrorism.” And even when Jewish porn is trans-free it contributes to translunacy by what you might call a synergy of sin.

And how does trans-free Jewish porn contribute to translunacy? Well, why are so many adolescent girls in Western nations claiming to be “transgender”? Why do they want to bind their breasts flat and even, under the scalpels of smiling “gender surgeons” like Dr Katherine Gast, have their breasts cut off? One big reason, in addition to the incessant propaganda they are likely to encounter in schools and on social media, may be that they don’t want to meet the obnoxious expectations created in young men and adolescent boys by Jewish porn. For far too many women today, sex is literally a pain in the ass. And worse than that, as the Guardian has recently reported:

Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned. The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal.

Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems.

In the journal, they said “anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behaviour because of its association with alcohol, drug use and multiple sex partners”. However, “within popular culture it has moved from the world of pornography to mainstream media” and TV shows including Sex and the City and Fleabag may have contributed to the trend by making it seem “racy and daring”.

However, women who engage in anal sex are at greater risk from it than men. “Increased rates of faecal incontinence and anal sphincter injury have been reported in women who have anal intercourse,” the report said. “Women are at a higher risk of incontinence than men because of their different anatomy and the effects of hormones, pregnancy and childbirth on the pelvic floor.

“Women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men, and damage caused by anal penetration is therefore more consequential. The pain and bleeding women report after anal sex is indicative of trauma, and risks may be increased if anal sex is coerced,” they said.

National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it.

“It is no longer considered an extreme behaviour but increasingly portrayed as a prized and pleasurable experience,” wrote Hunt, a surgeon in Sheffield, and Gana, a trainee colorectal surgeon in Yorkshire. Many doctors, though, especially GPs and hospital doctors, are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic, they add.

“However, with such a high proportion of young women now having anal sex, failure to discuss it when they present with anorectal symptoms exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” the surgeons said.

NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs [sexually transmitted infections] and makes “no mention of anal trauma, incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”. (, The Guardian, 11th August 2022)

This is yet another example of how leftism most harms those it claims to care about most. It’s leftism that has made doctors reluctant to seem “judgmental or homophobic” about a deeply unnatural and unhealthy form of sex. And it’s women who have paid the price in the form of “pain,” “bleeding,” “sexually transmitted infections,” “fecal incontinence” and “anal sphincter injury.” That’s why I think that article in the Guardian is wrong to talk about the increased “popularity of anal sex.” No, it should be the increased practice of anal sex, because the “popularity” will be found much more among men than women.

Fleeing Jews to be mutilated by Jews

The practice of anal sex has, of course, been promoted assiduously by Jewish pornographers for decades. And now, as the article noted, “within popular culture it has moved from the world of pornography to mainstream media.” Perhaps the most popular mainstream show to promote it is Sex and the City, which was brought to the world by the Jewish producer Darren Star (born 1961). In other words, Jews have liberated shiksas (gentile women) into an exciting new sexual world of pain, bleeding and “anal sphincter injury.”

Can you blame those adolescent shiksas who want to shun adult sexuality and deny their own femaleness by becoming “transgender”? I can’t. Not in the slightest. But when those shiksas flee Jews and their poison in one part of modern Western culture, they fall into the hands of jovial Jewesses like Dr Katherine Gast, who will cut their breasts off and announce that: “It’s a happy day for everybody.”

Igor Shafarevich and the Jews

/9 Comments/in , , /by

One way to become an unwitting dissident is to assume that the truth will set everyone free.

Igor Shafarevich, in his 1989 essay “Russophobia” (my review here), spoke the truth about the overwhelmingly negative impact the Jewish Left has had on Russia, and he received merciless defamation from the Jewish Left in return. Much of this abuse came from the mostly Jewish “Third Wave” of Russian émigrés who were known for their undue and quite racist insults of Russians during the 1970s. (Russians being either brutal, slavish, or messianic were the most prominent stereotypes.)

The essay uncovered the Jewish complicity in the October Revolution and its bloody aftermath as well as tied contemporaneous Jewish revolutionary spirit to the ancient Judaic concept of being “the Chosen People.” For Shafarevich, left-wing, revolutionary Jews made up the core of what historian Augustin Cochin referred to as “the Lesser People,” an elite minority spiritually and ideologically at odds with the established order, as represented by the majority, or “Greater People.” Cochin was describing the French Revolution, and Shafarevich deftly borrowed his terminology to portray the much greater Russian catastrophe of 1917.

Beyond any commentary on Jews, Shafarevich intended with “Russophobia” to promote healthy self-esteem among Russians (based on a realistic understanding of history, of course). He also wished to assess in what ways Western-styled democracy and technology might help or not help Russia. Yes, of primary interest was what’s good for Russia and Russians, but there is nothing in “Russophobia” which denigrates the national aspirations or human rights of other peoples. Shafarevich had previously made this point in his essay “Separation or Reconciliation?” which appeared in the 1974 collection From Under the Rubble. This essay echoes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations” (which appeared in the same volume) and demonstrated that nationalism, even intense, passionate nationalism, does not necessarily result in chauvinism. When defending “Russophobia,” Shafarevich himself stated that “it is much more wholesome to discuss openly all sides of all national relations.”

But this point got lost entirely among his critic-enemies, who couldn’t see past the Jew thing. As Krista Berglund notes in her 2012 volume, The Vexing Case of Igor Shafarevich, a Russian Political Thinker, Shafarevich had no intention of libeling Jews. He wished only to

treat Jews on equal terms with other peoples, without the demand to apply to the Jews any special standards. . . . The major reason for him to raise the Jewish issue in Russian history was again his conviction that when discussion of historical tragedies is suppressed and when there are unhealthy taboos, this tends to breed frustration, friction, artificial antagonisms and irrationality. One such suppressed issue was the disproportional Jewish contribution to the Russian Revolution. When raising it, Shafarevich’s intention was to systematically separate myths and irrational notions from historical facts and to contribute to the normalisation and amelioration of Russo-Jewish relations.

In other words, the truth will set us free and reduce tensions between peoples. Unfortunately, this didn’t turn out to be the case, despite Shafarevich’s good intentions. Speaking the truth about Jews—which was merely one of several things Shafarevich accomplished in “Russophobia”— enflamed not only the Jews he referred to in his essay but much of the Jewish intellectual class worldwide. And they used their considerable influence quite spitefully to ruin him. In my previous article on “Russophobia,” I described some of the backlash, but in truth it was far worse than that.

As one would expect, there were the hysterical ad hominems and overreactions, none of which was at all substantive. Philologist Efim Etkind called “Russophobia” as “a call for pogroms” and likened Shafarevich to “Stalinist pogrom-makers.” He also wailed that the ideas in “Russophobia” would ultimately result “in the poisonous smoke of Treblinka’s crematoria.” Art historian Igor Golomshtok made Mein Kampf comparisons and accused Shafarevich of propagating the idea of “Jewry as the embodiment of universal evil.” Astonishingly, lit critic Grigory Pomerants (whom Shafarevich names in his essay) hadn’t even read “Russophobia” when he opined that its author’s world is only black and white, and then reiterated his claim that Russia is a “land of slaves”—thereby refuting himself in the eyes of those who had actually read the essay.

In a nearly perfect act of projection, Valentin Liubarsky, another Third Wave writer, claimed that “Shafarevich is concerned with the rationalisation of mass hysteria.” Writer Benedikt Sarnov made the expected comparisons to Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Julius Streicher, and called for the KGB to investigate Shafarevich. He then darkly reminded his readers that Rosenberg and Streicher had died from hanging. Andrei Sinyavsky, a writer and gentile ally of the anti-Shafarevich movement, dubbed Russian russophobes as “Satan” and declared that “Russophobia” “fully coincides with the theories of German Nazism, from Hitler to Rosenberg.”

Shafarevich’s closeness with Solzhenitsyn could not save him from Jewish Solzhenitsyn defenders, such as Israeli émigré writer Dora Shturman, who lamented how “Russophobia” engendered in her the “horror – no, not of simple-minded pogrom, but of a Holocaust; of ruthless, inhuman abandonment which is a precondition for destruction.” Jewish writer and émigré Boris Paramonov responded provocatively with an article entitled “Shit. An Attempt at Public Psychoanalysis.” In it, he insinuated that because Shafarevich is supposedly part of a native soil movement in Russia, he is literally obsessed with feces. He also risibly claimed that in “Russophobia” “Shafarevich’s subconsciousness beating of children is taking place.” A paradigmatic example of psychoanalytic fantasy unmoored from any need for empirical justification.

Paramonov’s vindictive psychoanalysis becomes more sinister when considering that, as a human rights activist during the 1970s, Shafarevich strenuously protested the Soviet practice of punitive psychiatry. When it became less acceptable to ship political prisoners to gulags (thanks, in large part, to the worldwide success of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago), Soviet authorities pivoted to insane asylums, which in many cases amounted to the same thing.

Berglund adroitly dismisses Paramonov when stating that he

resorted to the cheapest and flimsiest kind of below-the-belt pseudo-psychoanalysis with the intention of establishing Shafarevich as a pitifully traumatised old man whose ideas do not deserve serious consideration (but, apparently, need necessarily to be rebuffed time after time).

This lunacy made its way to Western journals as well. In my previous essay, I mentioned how Walter Laqueur, Josephine Woll, and others overreacted to “Russophobia.” Berglund gives us much, much more.

Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and The New Republic all labeled Shafarevich an anti-Semite. Liah Greenfield of Harvard claimed that in terms of anti-Jewish polemics “Russophobia” excelled even Medieval anti-Semitism. David Remnick and Alan Berger both fueled false speculations of impending pogroms in Russia as a result of this essay.

It should be noted that Jonathan Steele of The Guardian wrote the following in 1990 about these pogrom rumors:

[S]ome sources have suggested that the rumours may have been started by extremist Jewish groups which are unhappy with the US Congress’s recent decision to deny Soviet Jews refugee status and treat them as economic migrants. Creating a climate of fear could change the US Congress’s mind.

In the same year, our old friend Joe Sobran summed up the Western response to “Russophobia” thusly:

None of Shafarevich’s fuming denouncers has produced a single quotation from him advocating any sort of injury to Jews. . . .Yes, in spite of his courage as an advocate of human rights, he is being lumped together with the sort of hooligans who favour beating Jews in the street.

These “hooligans” Sobran mentioned most likely refers to the Pamyat movement in Russia (albeit unjustly). This was a pro-Russian activist organization which took advantage of Glasnost to stage patriotic demonstrations. Aside from promoting Russian ethnic identity, speaking out against alcoholism, and “lobbying against the rechanneling of the great Siberian rivers,” Pamyat was also fairly hostile to Jewish interests, according to Berglund. They promoted anti-Zionism and propagated the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories expressed in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ironically, the Soviets tolerated Pamyat when it was attempting to dampen the mood on Israel, but as soon as people in Pamyat began speaking about the disproportionately Jewish nature of early Bolshevism—which apparently hit a little too close to the Kremlin—the Soviets cracked down on the nationalist organization.

At the time, Pamyat was suffering from much internal strife and had never been a major force in Russian politics (historian John Klier describes the organization as “fissiparious”). When asked about it, Shafarevich correctly downplayed its significance. Indeed, Shafarevich had never had any personal involvement in Pamyat. But because members of Pamyat naturally connected with “Russophobia” and propagated it through Samizdat (without his knowing, of course), Shafarevich’s enemies falsely condemned him for being linked to this anti-Semitic, nationalist organization. It was guilt by association when there really wasn’t any association—and probably not a whole lot of guilt, either. In fact, a Pamyat leader named Dmitry Vasilev had condemned Shafarevich for his “purely Jewish point of view.”

It seems that the Jews in academia (both Western and Soviet) needed Pamyat, and manufactured much of its infamous reputation. Berglund cites a 1992 study which demonstrates the general lack of anti-Jewish extremism among members of Pamyat as well as a somewhat shaky understanding of “Russophobia” to begin with. She also quotes Klier’s late-nineties interview with a Pamyat propaganda distributer who complained that “Foreigners are more interested in what we say than our own people.”

None of the predictions of Russian pogroms actually played out—even during the economic misery of the 1990s when one would presume an easily identifiable scapegoat would be just the thing to ignite mass violence. In spite of this peace and restraint on the part of these brutish, messianic Russians, influential Jews needed a villain, a reconstructed Black Hundreds Frankenstein of fascism which they could point to and say, “There! There is Russian anti-Semitism in the flesh!”

Why? To pressure Soviet authorities to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate and to pressure Western governments to give these Jews refugee status. As a result, many of these émigrés wound up in Western Europe or the United States instead of Israel, despite their purported persecution as Jews. And a third reason: to destroy the most prominent White gentile in the world at the time who was telling the truth about Jews—Igor Shafarevich.

“Russophobia” caused a great stir in science and mathematics circles as well, mainly because Shafarevich is considered one of the twentieth century’s most prominent mathematicians. From his Wikipedia page we learn that:

Shafarevich made fundamental contributions to several parts of mathematics including algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry and arithmetic algebraic geometry. In algebraic number theory the Shafarevich–Weil theorem extends the commutative reciprocity map to the case of Galois groups which are extensions of abelian groups by finite groups. Shafarevich was the first to give a completely self-contained formula for the pairing which coincides with the wild Hilbert symbol on local fields, thus initiating an important branch of the study of explicit formulas in number theory.

Not even such a resume could protect Shafarevich from the coming indignities. His nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge was instantly withdrawn. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS) urged him to renounce his membership. Numerous mathematics and science societies applauded this move, including the Union of Council for Soviet Jews, whose leaders declared that Shafarevich is “inimical to the fragile causes of human rights.” This, of course, maligned an unimpeachable human rights activist who stood up to the Soviet system, side-by-side with Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, on the Moscow Dissidents’ Human Rights Committee in the early 1970s.

After this came suspicions and utterly unfounded accusations of anti-Jewish discrimination. Even some of Shafarevich’s former Jewish students defended him on this count—although not for “Russophobia.” Indeed, as an academic who was responsible for launching or aiding numerous careers (including many Jewish ones) his reputation had been impeccable. It was only after “Russophobia’s” publication when it all was conveniently called into question.

A condemnatory letter initiated by mathematician Laurent Swartz garnered over 200 signatures. Another one with over 450 appeared in a Russian periodical, to which Shafarevich made this dry yet cutting response:

[T]he people who signed the letter and whom I knew 15 or 20 years ago as Soviet mathematicians . . . witnessed the deportation of Solzheni[tsyn], exile of Sakharov, persecution of religion, detention of sane persons in psychiatric hospitals for political reasons. We [did not hear] their protests against it then. Do they really believe that my paper is more dangerous?

By summer 1991, according to Berglund, “Shafarevich’s reputation as a notorious anti-Semite had been cemented virtually in all circles of self-respecting liberals in both the East and the West.” She goes on to name over 30 people who had heaped undue scorn upon Shafarevich.

Berglund makes The Vexing Case quite unique when she analyses “Russophobia” alongside its criticisms to demonstrate, as if in a court of law, how Shafarevich was not only not anti-Semitic, but was also in fact quite reasonable, evenhanded, and most likely correct. She also shoots down every single one of her subject’s critics. In one or two cases, Shafarevich faced reasonable—if perhaps flawed—reproaches, which Berglund appropriately dispenses with. All the others she reveals as shoddy and irresponsible at best or deceitful and malicious at worst. It must be said that most of the villains here were Jews. It must also be said that, at least in Berglund’s comprehensive analysis from over two decades after the fact—and with Shafarevich still living to provide commentary—none of these villains had ever apologized or faced a comeuppance.

At times Berglund does wade into the weeds when exploring all the argumentation needed to exonerate Shafarevich. For example, she includes long discussions of Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, and many other works and topics in order to provide greater context for this important and potentially explosive subject. The book is nearly 500 pages (with more than a quarter of it dedicated “Russophobia” or anti-Semitism), and sometimes feels like it. This is not a biography; it is a vindication of a man who in a perfect world would not need vindication at all.

Instead, Igor Shafarevich told the truth and became a dissident once again, and in some ways suffered more hyperbolic abuse than when he was a Soviet citizen. Berglund suggests that Shafarevich, in his frank and fair-minded appraisal of Jews, actually suppressed anti-Semitism in his native Russia.

While many vociferous commentators have alleged that in the person of Shafarevich Russian anti-Semites had got a prominent frontman, there are actually strong hints that he managed to effectively “neutralise” the message of many of those obsessed with Jews among his Russian contemporaries.

Of course, this is nice. But, in turn, did “Russophobia” also suppress the real-life russophobia that Shafarevich so meticulously described? Did it neutralize the message of many of those obsessed with Russians (or Whites in general) among his Jewish contemporaries? Jewish neocons and their incessant anti-Russia posturing during the current war in Ukraine may give us a clue. But sadly, this is a question Berglund fails to ask, and so in The Vexing Case of Igor Shafarevich, goes unanswered.

Giorgia Meloni as Italian PM

/78 Comments/in /by

The rise of Giorgia Meloni and her coalition of the right has struck fear into the hearts of the EU and the left everywhere. God forbid that a political movement arise that would challenge globalist dogma. As Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission said before the election, “If things go in a difficult direction— and I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland—we have the tools.”

So  Meloni has definitely made the right enemies. I was quite impressed about her statement on identity, which flies in the face of globalist dogma and reflects what sensible people on the right have been saying for some time.

“Please answer me these questions. This is about what we are doing here today. Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to be perfect consumer slaves.”

“And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identify, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No.”

“I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer.”

“That’s the reason why. That’s why we inspire so much fear. That’s why this event inspires so much fear. Because we do not want to be numbers. We will defend the value of the human being. Every single human being. Because each of us has a unique genetic code that is unrepeatable. And like it or not, that is sacred. We will defend it. We will defend God, country and family.”

“Those things that disgust people so much. We will do it to defend our freedom, because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of the financial speculators. That is our mission. That is why I came here today.”

“Chesterton wrote, more than a century ago… ‘Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four.’ Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer.'”

“That time has arrived. We are ready.”

And from another speech:

“Yes to natural families, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology, yes to the culture of life, no to the abyss of death, no to the violence of Islam, yes to safer borders, no to mass immigration, yes to work for our people.”

Of course Islam and the rest of the immigrants have no problem with their very strong racial/ethnic/religious identities—encouraged by elites throughout the West. It’s only Europeans who are condemned for having them—obviously a losing proposition long term.

Some on the right have criticized Meloni because she and the rest of the right have adopted very pro-Israel attitudes and are firmly on board with supporting Ukraine against Russia.

And to be sure, she has pictured her movement as center-right. From the Guardian:

In a video message issued on Wednesday, Meloni, who leads Brothers of Italy, a party with neofascist origins, said the Italian right had “handed fascism over to history for decades now” and “unambiguously condemns the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws”.

In the video, spoken in English, French and Spanish and directed at the foreign press, she said Brothers of Italy was nowadays more akin to “the British Tories, the US Republicans and the Israeli Likud”.

It would be great if she was really as nationalist and ethnocentric as Likud, but I suspect it’s merely a ploy to gain legitimacy by invoking Israel. And we all know how worthless the Tories and the GOP are.

But I am optimistic. Politics is the art of the possible, and if she had openly come out against Israel, deporting migrants, or in favor of Russia she would never have the opportunity to really change things. And of course there will be constraints from outside. The hostility of the EU is obvious and it does have considerable financial power over member states. And Italy is already in dire financial straits because of its debt, and the worsening economic condition around the world will certainly not help.

But it’s encouraging nonetheless. There is now also a coalition of the right in Sweden, but it seems to promise little or nothing worthwhile. The Swedish Moderates sound like typical American Republicans, even promising to exclude the Sweden Democrats from ministerial positions.

After Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson admitted defeat and conceded the election to a coalition of right-leaning parties, conservatives across Europe are celebrating. The Scandinavian nation, which was once one of the most left-leaning countries in Europe and well-known for accepting the most refugees per capita during the 2015/16 migrant crisis, has made a radical turnaround.

Of course, the reasons behind this turnaround are well known despite heavy censorship in the country. The utopian multicultural future envisioned by many Swedes has come crashing down over the last few years, and as Remix News has exhaustively documented, the shootings, murders, drug dealing, clan crime, attacks on women, honor killings, random assaults, and rising sexual crimes have left the once-peaceful nation shell shocked. The deteriorating security situation even led Germany’s top-selling newspaper, Bild, to label Sweden the “most dangerous country in Europe.”

Out of the turmoil of the last years, the Sweden Democrats have emerged as the second-largest party in Sweden with over 20 percent of the vote. As a result, much of the domestic and international media are openly acknowledging the much maligned party is the biggest winner of the entire election.

However, there are a number of challenges ahead, and the conservative party will have to walk a tightrope to succeed during a troubling time for Europe. For one, despite the party’s enormous victory, a version of the cordon sanitaire remains in effect. Historically, all parties refused to work with the Sweden Democrats, and in truth, all the parties in the new government will do their best to maintain that policy. That means that despite the Sweden Democrats being the biggest party in the new four-party right-wing government, the SD’s leader, Jimmie Åkesson, will have no opportunity to become prime minister. Instead, that right will go to Ulf Kristersson, who leads the Moderates party, which saw only 19.1 percent of the vote, an embarrassingly low result for what was once the “mainstream” conservative party in the country.

Even more importantly, the new government plans to lock the Sweden Democrats out of any ministerial positions [despite being the largest party in the coalition]. That represents a major check on the party’s power and ability to influence policy. If the Sweden Democrats are not careful, they risk having little power in the new government while still being shouldered with the blame if crime levels continue to rise, immigration continues unabated, and inflation and a recession wrack the Swedish economy over the coming year.

Still, things are moving in the right direction, if only slowly. As an incurable optimist, I still think there are good things on the horizon.