Confronting the Judeocracy: The Six Stages of Enlightenment

/69 Comments/in , , /by

Anyone who has spent even a short time battling against the Judeocracy has surely experienced the frustration of attempting to persuade a trusted friend or colleague of the gravity of the situation—only to fail.  This is undoubtedly one of the most discouraging and troubling aspects of those who take up the mission for truth and justice.  We repeatedly encounter intelligent and well-read individuals who, we believe, surely must share our sense of concern and outrage.  If they do not, it can only be from lack of knowledge; therefore, a short chat or a targeted reading or two, we think, will do the trick.  The facts are indisputable, and hence it is merely a matter of information.  Once our friends have the requisite facts, they will surely—surely—see things our way.  And yet, time after time, they do not.

Why is this?  What are they thinking?  What is their logic?  How is it that they can fail to be fully convinced of the severity of the Jewish Question?  Or even just be sympathetic to our stance?  Why is it that they occasionally even become outright hostile—not to them, but to us?  How can they be in denial of what is, from a rational and objective standpoint, surely one of the major problems facing civilized humanity?  Undoubtedly this could be the topic of a book-length treatment, and I can only outline a few basic ideas here.  But I think there is some merit in examining the basic categories of response and denial by those confronted, perhaps for the first time in a serious manner, with the Jewish Question and with the many problems of living under de facto Jewish rule.

At its most basic level, the situation is one in which the relative novice is confronted with a difficult, troubling, and potentially catastrophic scenario: profound social corruption by wealthy and powerful Jews.  (I stress the ‘relative’ here; everyone, even the functionally illiterate, has heard something negative about the Jews, likely many negative things.)  It is a ‘bad news’ story of the highest magnitude.  And the last thing many people want in their lives these days is another bad news story.  God knows we’ve had enough troubles in recent years:  political upheaval, riots in the streets, a global pandemic, economic gyrations, unrestrained immigration, environmental decline, opioid crises, surging crime, falling lifespans.  Who needs yet one more disaster heaped upon their plates?  The Jews?  Really?  Are you serious?  And I suppose the Holocaust never happened!  (Hint:  it didn’t—not in the way described.)  What are you, some kind of Nazi?  A White supremacist?  On and on.

Despite all this, many of us persevere.  We realize that public education is one of our primary weapons in the Great Struggle, and we are bound and determined to press ahead and inform as many as possible of the nature of the problem.  Therefore, it is of some use to understand more precisely how people typically respond to our overtures, in order to be more effective in our communication.  After all, we are pursuing a noble cause, and we sincerely want people to be well-informed and, ideally, to join us in our mission.  Apart from our opponents, we genuinely want people to like and appreciate us.  You don’t get very far coming off like a fanatic or a jerk.  I’m quite confident that virtually none of us relish making enemies for the sake of making enemies.  We have no driving urge to be antagonistic or rabble-rousing.  Generally speaking, what we have are facts, experiences, and informed opinions on the Jews; these, combined with a general sense of concern for social welfare, justice, and the state of the world, incline us to undertake unusual, unpopular, but highly valuable actions to educate others, and to articulate possible solutions.  It is the prototypical ‘thankless task,’ and yet we do it all the same.

That said, it is helpful to have a model of how people react to the Jewish Question.  The approach I will outline here derives from another famous model describing how people react to a different crisis situation: death.  In the 1950s and 60s, Swiss (later, American) psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed a well-known scheme that came to be known as “the five stages of grief.”  When confronted with imminent death, she said, people typically progress through five relatively distinct mental phases:  denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.  Denial:  “No, this isn’t true, it can’t be happening.  There must be some mistake.”  Anger:  “How could this happen to me?  It’s just not fair!  Someone is to blame.  God, how could you let this happen!”  Bargaining:  “Please, God, get me through this and I promise to do x, y, z.  Or, doc, you have to help me; I’ll do whatever it takes.”  Depression:  “There’s no use, nothing will work.  I’m doomed.  What’s the use of even trying?”  And finally, Acceptance:  “Everyone dies, and I guess my time is up.  So be it.  Time to meet my Maker.”  This schema was first described in her initial book, On Death and Dying (1969).

I’ll not debate the merits or demerits of Kübler-Ross’ theory here.  Some have found it helpful, and others dismiss it as largely irrelevant or at least unsubstantiated.  Still, based only on common sense, I think we can see that there is some insight here, and that many people—perhaps some we have known personally—indeed experience such stages in varying degrees.  Obviously not everyone passes through all five stages, and not necessarily in the prescribed order, but nonetheless, these stages do describe some essential aspects of human response to the looming tragedy of one’s own demise.

Inspired by this model, let me then propose something analogous:  The Six Stages of Enlightenment on the Jewish Question.  I claim no real scientific grounding here, and I have done no exhaustive surveys or interviews.  This is based simply on my own personal experience, over several years, of confronting people—students, family, friends, strangers—on the dangers of the Judeocracy.  My six stages are as follows:

1. Denial
2. Irrelevance
3.  Impotence
4.  Misplaced Anger
5.  Acceptance
6.  Righteous Anger and Action

As with Kübler-Ross’s theory, I do not claim that all people experience all of these stages, nor that they necessarily progress through them in order.  But I do think that many people, when confronted with the data, do experience some or most of these stages.  Let me briefly describe each in turn, and then outline some of the relevant facts that make the case for enlightenment.

DENIAL.  Upon first hearing a serious claim that Jews have outsized and detrimental influence in society, or dominate the ranks of the wealthy, or run the media, or control politics, the usual initial response is denial:  “No they don’t.  That’s ridiculous.  There are no more Jews in power than anyone else.  That’s just an anti-Semitic canard.”  This, even from highly-educated people.  Fortunately, this is an empirical question; an overwhelming Jewish presence can be easily proven, given the relevant data.  Below I offer a concise version of this argument.

IRRELEVANCE.  Once it is shown that Jews are massively over-represented in key sectors of society, the standard reply is that this fact does not matter.  “Ok, there are lots of Jews in media, finance, and politics, but this doesn’t really matter.  People are just people.  There are good ones and there are bad ones.  If Jews hold lots of influential positions, that only means that they worked hard and succeeded.  And anyway, they’re just doing their jobs.  If they didn’t do them, someone else would.”

This seems like a common-sense view, but to make such a claim is to hold an extremely naïve and ill-informed view of the world.  It’s true that most decent people, and especially most Whites, tend to view others as individuals; there are likely evolutionary reasons for this, which I won’t elaborate here, but see Kevin MacDonald’s book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition for a good recent account.  If we judge everyone as basically well-intentioned individuals, then of course, it doesn’t really matter if Jews or any other minority dominates society.  If Jews are disproportionate, then it can only mean that they are that much smarter or industrious than others, and thus they deserve their standing. (Nathan Cofnas is doing his best to make this thesis academically respectable—refuted in several places, most recently by Andrew Joyce).  And if some Jews commit crimes or other unethical actions, we have to judge and punish them individually, on a case-by-case basis.  Or so they say.

The Jewish critic must then respond to this stance with a demonstration that it does matter, that Jewish over-representation has a long-standing and deep-rooted grounding in anti-White and even anti-human actions, and that it is remarkably detrimental to social and human well-being.  This is a longer and more difficult argument to make, but it can be done; again, I outline this case below.

IMPOTENCE.  Once we have shown the deleterious effect of Jewish dominance, the next reply is typically something like this:  “Ok, if Jews have so much power and influence, then you can’t possibly win.  They are just too strong.  So why fight them?  It can only hurt yourself and your family.  Better to just ignore the whole situation and live your life as best you can.”

Certainly this is a pragmatic view, and many otherwise well-intentioned critics adopt this line.  But ultimately it means surrender:  a moral capitulation to a malevolent ruling power.  To yield to evil is itself a great evil.  It is to condemn one’s own future, and that of your children and grandchildren, to a life of increasing brutality and coarseness, of deprivation and suffering, of conflict and war.  No truly concerned person can accept this.  We must confront the situation head-on.  To fight against evil, even in the face of likely defeat, is noble; it actually makes life worth living.  Even if victory is a long way off—and ultimate victory for our side is inevitable, once we understand the history—it is still a fight worth pursuing.  Living in a Judeocracy means that every major aspect of society is affected.  If you have any concerns or causes in this world that you think are worth fighting for—the environment, social justice, education, human rights, health, democracy—then you need to engage in the fight against Jewish rule because it has a negative impact on virtually every other social issue.  To paraphrase Spengler, impotence is cowardice.

MISPLACED ANGER.  At this point, your friend is likely to start getting irritated—with you.  As a typical semi-thoughtful but uncritical television viewer, he has likely absorbed and internalized the conventional pro-Jewish mantra:  Jews are a beleaguered and innocent people who have been unjustly attacked over the centuries, most notably during the Holocaust, and thus we owe them vast amends.  Furthermore, being a typically decent person, he thinks that anyone attacking Jews, or any minorities, is a morally-deficient racist or neo-Nazi—and now, this is you!  For God’s sake, everybody hates a racist!  Even Tucker Carlson hates racists!—as he informs us every night, in his unthinking, dim-witted, and duplicitous manner.  Since you clearly hate Jews, you are now officially a ‘hater.’  And everyone hates a hater—don’t they?

Sensing that he has lost the argument, your friend then launches into either subtle or overt ad hominem attacks against you.  Rational discussion is out the window, and emotion rules the day.  You are now simply a ‘bad person’; no further need to debate with you.  Having demonstrated your incivility and cruel-heartedness, you are either pitied or detested.  Critically, the focus has shifted to you; Jews are suddenly nowhere in sight, even though this was the sole issue at hand.  They are suddenly off the hook.  How convenient; the Jews themselves couldn’t have scripted a better outcome.

Sadly, many people remain stuck in this mode for a long time, perhaps for their entire lives.  They never address the real issue, but continue only to think negatively of you and you alone.  This is a relatively good outcome for them; the social problem is not a multitude of wealthy, powerful, and ethnocentric Jews, but little ol’ you, and perhaps a few of your like-minded hater friends.  It’s much easier, and much less threatening, to deal with you and your “ilk,” rather than a potent, dispersed, malevolent force like world Jewry.

Sometimes, though, and often in surprising ways, there is a shift in attitude.  Your friend becomes curious.  He investigates, he reads, he asks questions.  Slowly, slowly, he comes around to your side.  “You know, I’ve been thinking, and I think you’re on to something.  Those Jews are everywhere, once you learn how to spot them.  No one criticizes them.  No one questions the Holocaust.  No one is even willing to simply name the Jews.  They get away with everything…”  Thus we arrive, with luck, at ACCEPTANCE.  Yes, Jews in fact dominate key sectors of society.  Yes, Jews in fact are the major wire-pullers in politics and business.  Yes, Jews couldn’t care less about human well-being, and they would just as soon cause mass suffering and even death, if it profited them in any way.  The denialism has been overcome.

Once at this phase, it is only a short step to the final stage: RIGHTEOUS ANGER—now against the real enemy—and corresponding ACTION.  Anyone with a conscience, with a sense of moral outrage, and with a larger sense of justice, will be utterly appalled at the situation.  They will now become activist, speaking out, writing, informing others.  They will develop the moral backbone to confront Jewish power and its proxies directly.  Being truly knowledgeable and well-informed, they will make a formidable opponent.  The movement will have taken one more small step forward.  And victory will be one day closer.

Constructing the Case

Given that nearly everyone begins at some level of the ‘denial’ stage, it is worthwhile to offer some specific facts that can help build the case against it.  The goal, again, is to show that Jews are massively disproportionate amongst the wealthy and powerful in society.  This is the core truth from which all the rest proceeds.  Fortunately, as I said, this is an entirely empirical matter.  Basic research will reveal the truth.  Of course, the names vary from nation to nation, and they change constantly over time.  A specific case must be made at a given point in time, and in a specific nation of interest.  Since I am an American, and the data here is extensive, let me briefly review the case in the present-day USA.  Even a cursory overview demonstrates the failure of denial.

We can separately examine four sectors of American society:  politics, academia, finance, and media.  In politics, we have a strong Jewish presence in all three branches of government–Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.  Regarding the latter, we currently have 2 Jews among the 9 justices:  Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.  Until the recent death of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the figure was 3 of 9, and if President Obama had had his way late in his final term, it would have been an astonishing 4 of 9, with Merrick Garland.  (We can be sure that any future Biden nominee will be Jewish.)

The current US Congress has 38 Jews among its combined 535 members, with 10 in the Senate and 28 in the House.  This constitutes around 7% of the Congressional total, versus an American Jewish population of some 6 million, or just under 2% of the nation.  Hence Jews are over-represented in Congress by a factor of 3.5, and in the Senate by a factor of 5.  The record high for Jewish representation, incidentally, occurred in the aftermath of the 2008 federal election, when fully 48 Jews held seats in Congress (15 Senate, 33 House).

The Biden administration, like that of Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton, has an extensive Jewish presence.  Start with the families of Biden and Kamala Harris.  Remarkably, all three of Biden’s adult children married Jews:  daughter Ashley married Howard Krein, son Hunter married “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen, and now-deceased son Beau married Hallie Olivere.  Correspondingly, three of Biden’s six grandchildren are half-Jews.  Biracial VP Kamala Harris married a Jewish lawyer, Doug Emhoff, back in 2014; thankfully, they have no children.

Biden’s sympathies to the Jews extend, of course, to his highest-level administrative positions.  Of 25 cabinet or cabinet-level positions, eight (32%) are held by Jews:  Tony Blinken, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Yellen, Merrick Garland (yes, that Merrick Garland), Ron Klain, Avril Haines (half), Isabel Guzman (half), and Eric Lander.  Other high-ranking Biden Jews include John Kerry (half), Rochelle Walensky of the CDC, Jeff Zients, Wendy Sherman, Gary Gensler of the SEC, David Cohen, “Rachel” Levine, Anne Neuberger, Andy Slavitt, Victoria Nuland, and Roberta Jacobson.  And this is not to mention Judeophilic Gentiles like Jake Sullivan, or Gentiles with Jewish spouses, like Samantha Power.  Below I offer some thoughts about why, exactly, this situation came to be.

What about academia?  Here is one remarkable indication:  It was recently noted that of the eight Ivy League schools—Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth—fully seven have Jewish presidents.  In other words, 88% of these elite schools are run by Jews.  We can be sure that this Jewish orientation then extends down into provosts and deans who are disproportionately Jewish, into faculty members who are disproportionately Jewish, and into the very curriculum itself, which undoubtedly caters to liberal-left Jewish interests.

Then consider university faculty more broadly.  In an article published in 2006, Schuster and Finkelstein found that “25% of research university faculty are Jewish, compared to 10% of all faculty.”[1]  An older study by Steinberg[2] found that 17.2 percent of faculty at “high ranking” universities were Jewish.  By a different assessment, Harriett Zuckerman[3] examined just the “elite” scientific and research faculty.  She found the following, by major discipline:

Law                 36% Jewish
Sociology         34% Jewish
Economics       28% Jewish
Physics            26% Jewish
Poli Sci             24% Jewish

What about students?  Experience shows that when Jews constitute more than just a few percent of the student body, they begin to dominate campus life.  As it happens, there are nine major American universities with over 20% Jewish undergrads (in descending order: Brandeis, Tulane, CUNY-Brooklyn, Binghamton, Queens College, George Washington University, Columbia, Boston University, and Washington University-St. Louis).  And there are another 23 major schools with more than 10% Jews (Maryland, American University, Brown, University of Miami, Rutgers, University of Florida, Cornell, Penn, Syracuse, Michigan, New York University, Northwestern, University of Hartford, Wisconsin, Yale, Indiana, UC-Santa Barbara, Duke, University at Albany, Harvard, Cal State-Northridge, Florida State, and USC).  Hence we have 32 major American universities, representing the intellectual elite of the nation, with a hugely disproportionate Jewish presence, top to bottom.  Again, this in a nation of scarcely 2% Jews.

Consider, next, the realm of finance and wealth.  When we run down the list of wealthiest Americans, we find a striking fact:  around half of them are Jews.  Among the top ten, we find five Jews:  Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg.  Of the top 50 richest men, at least 27 are Jews, including Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[4]  The combined wealth of these 27 individuals comes to roughly $635 billion.  Note: If Jews were proportionately represented among the top 50, there would be one individual; instead, there are 27.

More broadly, we can infer that this “50% rule” holds throughout much of the wealth hierarchy.  In support, we may cite Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the [American] nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews.”[5]  At present, there are something like 615 American billionaires, which implies around 300 Jewish billionaires.

Or perhaps the figures are even worse than we suspect.  A recent study of the most malicious “vulture” capitalists showed a heavy preponderance of Jewish names, far more than half.  And one ranking from a few years ago of the richest hedge fund managers in the US listed 32 individuals by name; of these, at least 24 (75%) are Jews.  It seems that the more we look, the worse it gets.

Even more impressively, consider total private wealth.  In 2018, the total assets of all private households in the US hit $100 trillion for the first time ever.  The 50% rule suggests that the 6 million or so American Jews own or control, in total, some $50 trillion.  This works out to an average of $8 million for every Jewish man, woman, and child—a truly astonishing figure.

So much for Jewish wealth.  More importantly, these various sectors are deeply interconnected.  Jewish wealth is directly related to Jewish political influence.  Take, for example, Joe Biden’s top political donors.  It turns out, unsurprisingly, that the vast majority of Biden’s political donations came from Jewish billionaires.  As Andrew Joyce writes, “of [his] top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews,” followed by the list of names.  This is perhaps extreme but not surprising, given that Jews overall provide at least 50% of Democratic political funding, and at least 25% of Republican funds.  These are truly disturbing numbers for anyone who cares about political corruption.  Note that there are literally hundreds of lobby groups, all donating to their favored candidates.  And yet one lobby—the Jewish Lobby—provides 25 to 50%, or more, of major candidate funding.  Imagine if, say, half of your income came from one person, and the other half came from a mix of 200 other individuals; who would you listen to?  The answer is obvious.

Finally, take the media.  Hollywood, as we all know, has long been a Jewish domain—reaching back to its origins in the 1910s and 1920s.  It was constructed by the likes of Carl Laemmle (Universal Pictures), Adolph Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Daniel and Charles Frohman, and Samuel Goldwyn (Paramount), William Fox (Fox Films, later 20th Century Fox), and the four “Warner” Brothers—in reality, the Wonskolaser clan:  Jack, Harry, Albert, and Sam.  They were soon followed by Marcus Loew (MGM), William Paley (CBS), and Harry and Jack Cohn (Columbia), establishing nearly complete Jewish control over the film business.

Today the situation is little changed—and is neither disputed nor even controversial.  A notable story published in the LA Times in 2008 openly proclaimed that “Jews totally run Hollywood”.[6]  It investigated every major studio and found nothing but Jewish bosses.  Today the names have changed, but not the ethnicities.  A recent survey of major executives or owners reveals the following:

20th Century Studios  (S. Asbell)
Paramount  (S. Redstone)
Disney Studies  (A. Bergman, A. Horn)
Warner Bros Studios  (T. Emmerich, A. Sarnoff, R. Kavanaugh)
MGM  (M. De Luca)
Sony Pictures  (T. Rothman, S. Panitch, J. Greenstein)
Lionsgate  (M. Rachesky, J. Feltheimer)
Relativity Media  (D. Robbins)
Millennium Media  (A. Lerner)
The Chernin Group  (P. Chernin)
Amblin Partners  (S. Spielberg)
Participant  (J. Skoll, D. Linde)
Sister  (S. Snider, E. Murdoch)
Spyglass  (G. Barber)
Glickmania  (J. Glickman)

As before, all of these individuals are Jews.[7]  With such dominance, we should scarcely be surprised to find pro-Jewish themes repeatedly appear in film:  from the Holocaust and the ‘evil Nazis,’ to the Arab and Muslim ‘terrorists,’ to the ignorant and corrupt Whites, to support for various socially and ethically degrading behavior such as casual sex, homosexuality, interracial couples and families, recreational drug use, crude materialism, and rampant multiculturalism.  All these themes serve Jewish interests.

The overall media situation is even more telling.  The five largest media conglomerates in the US are:  1) Disney, 2) Warner Media, 3) NBC Universal, 4) Viacom CBS, and 5) Fox Corporation.  A look at their owners, largest shareholders, and top officers is revealing:

  • Disney:  Robert Iger, executive chairman; Alan Horn, Chair, Disney Studios; Alan Braverman, exec VP; Peter Rice, chair, Content; Dana Walden, chair, ABC; Lowell Singer, senior VP.
  • Warner:  Jason Kilar, CEO; David Levy, Pres, Turner Broadcasting; Jeff Zucker, Pres, CNN; Ann Sarnoff, CEO, Warner Pictures; Michael Lynton, chair, Warner Music (Parent company:  AT&T:  John Stankey, CEO).
  • NBC Universal:  Jeff Shell, CEO; Robert Greenblatt, Chair, NBC Entertainment; Bonnie Hammer, Chair, Cable Entertainment; Noah Oppenheim, president, NBC News; Mark Lazarus, Chair, Sports; Ron Meyer, Vice Chair, NBCUniversal  (Parent company:  Comcast:  Brian Roberts, CEO).
  • Viacom CBS:  An unusual situation:  Viacom is a “public” company but voting stock is 100% owned by Shari Redstone and the heirs of Sumner Redstone.  Leading individuals include David Nevins, CCO; Susan Zirinsky, president, CBS News; David Stapf, president, CBS TV.
  • Fox Corporation:  Similar to Viacom, a public company but 39% of voting stock is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch.

All of these individuals are Jewish, with the possible exception of the Murdochs—although it seems certain that they are at least part-Jewish.[8]  And given the difficulty in ascertaining ethnicity, Jewish influence is certainly greater than shown here.  Hence the above is undoubtedly a conservative estimate.  It furthermore says nothing about the many Jewish underlings who implement day-to-day decisions.  Once again, it’s difficult to convey the degree of dominance here.  These five corporations produce the vast majority of all media consumed in the US, which includes all of the major news outlets and most of the major Hollywood studios.  In fact, Jewish leadership or ownership at the top translates all throughout the organization, to middle-managers, staffers, reporters, television personalities, and editors.  It has a very concrete effect on how the media is produced, what is presented, and what is not presented.  It affects who we see, and who we don’t see.

And it’s not only the so-called liberal media outlets.  The conservative venues also are dominated by Jewish interests—typically, via right-wing or neo-conservative Jews.  Fox News, and its parent corporation Fox, owned and operated by the Murdoch family, is every bit as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as the liberal outlets.  Fox News anchors disagree vehemently with just about every liberal position, and yet, remarkably, they are fully on-board with all Jewish issues.  They struggle to outdo their peers at CNN and MSNBC in their obeisance to Jewish and Israeli interests.[9]  This, again, is no coincidence.  It is evidence of Jewish domination of American media, across the political spectrum and across all venues.

In addition to the above, various other media are also well-represented by American Jews.  Among newspapers, the New York Times has been Jewish-owned and -managed since Adolph Ochs bought the paper in 1896; the current owner, publisher, and chairman is Arthur G. Sulzberger.  US News and World Report is owned by Mort Zuckerman.  Time magazine is owned by Warner Media, and its current chief editor is Edward Felsenthal.  Advance Publications is a mini media conglomerate entirely owned and operated by the Jewish Newhouse family; it manages a wide array of venues including Conde Nast (Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Glamour, Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, Pitchfork, Wired, and Bon Appetit), Discovery Channel, Lycos, and Redditt.  And in broadcast media, we have National Public Radio (NPR), which has long been a Jewish preserve; its on-air staff is unquestionably more than half Jewish.[10]

I think we can put to rest all thoughts of denialism here.

Is Jewish Dominance Irrelevant?

If we then proceed to stage two, Irrelevance, we must counter the view that Jewish dominance is inconsequential.  Again, from the naïve standpoint, Jews predominating in government, academia, finance, and media seems not to matter.  These Jews are largely invisible as Jews, and their Jewishness is rarely displayed explicitly.  As before, the influence is generally manifest in myriad subtle ways—in which voices and views are presented (and which not presented), which individuals are allowed to speak (and which not allowed), which values are projected as good and positive, which causes are worthy of attention, and so on.

The central issues here are (a) that Jews tend to work collectively, in their own best interests, and (b) that they tend to have little regard for all non-Jews, and they tend to hold particular contempt for White Europeans, who have, historically speaking, proven to be their most formidable opponents.  Jews work tribally, as a pack; they assist each other in attacking and undermining all perceived enemies.  Jews in finance and academic Jews can count on media Jews to give them positive coverage and to downplay or bury any negative stories.  Media Jews will slander an enemy even as finance Jews put the squeeze to that person’s employer.  It can be very effective when multiple actors in a trillion-dollar cabal are arrayed against you.

On occasion, these dominant Jews will indeed fight with each other, as when conservative right-wing Jews spar with their liberal leftwing brethren—such as the recent rift between the rightwing Murdoch Jews and the left-wing ADL Jews, especially Jonathan Greenblatt, over comments by Tucker Carlson.  But this is only an internal dispute about the best way to promote Jewish interests, nothing more.  Much of current political confrontation is mere show; Democratic-Republican squabbles are meaningless when both sides are backed by wealthy Jews.  And Jews across the political spectrum love to use Gentile lackeys like Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Chris Hayes, Sean Hannity, and yes, Tucker Carlson, to cover for them.  This again serves to obscure the real power structure.

But the fact that powerful Jews work with each other, against all others, is a well-established historical fact that has been well-attested, over the centuries, by some of the West’s most brilliant thinkers.  This topic literally requires a book-length treatment—see my book Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages (2020), which is the first to fully document the historical record.  It dates back over 2,000 years, at least to remarks by Hecateus of Abdera and Theophrastus circa 300 BC, proceeding to the likes of Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Porphyry, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Voltaire, Rousseau, Fichte, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bakunin, Nietzsche, Mark Twain, H. G. Wells, Heidegger, and chess genius (and half-Jew) Bobby Fischer, among many others.  It is an impressive list.

The criticisms are uniformly blunt and damning.  Jews are “misanthropic and hostile to foreigners,” “the very vilest of mankind,” “look upon all other men as their enemies,” “an accursed race,” “the basest of peoples.”  They are profoundly and deeply different—in a bad way—from the rest of humanity.  Medieval theologians condemned the Jews for their usury and their abuse of Christians and Christianity.  Luther called them “a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a sheer misfortune,” adding that “we are at fault in not slaying them.”  For Voltaire, they “display an irreconcilable hatred against all nations”; for Rousseau, the Jewish race was “always a foreigner amongst other men.”  German philosopher Johann Herder called them “a widely diffused republic of cunning usurers.”  Kant saw them as “a nation of deceivers.”  Schopenhauer was especially blunt:  “scum of humanity—but great master of lies.”  Heidegger captured the situation well in just three words: “planetary master criminals”.[11]

This 2,000-year history of hatred and contempt for the rest of humanity is played out in the present day, though with much stealth and deception.  Jews often work in the background, hidden, out of the limelight; they are, as Hitler said, the “wire-pullers” (Drahtzieher) of contemporary society, using money and power to steer events in their favor.  History tells us that Jews will stoop to anything—the most heinous, the most egregious, the most unethical—to promote their ends.  Even war: there is an equally long and damning history of Jewish involvement in wars, from the Jewish-Roman wars in the first and second centuries to the present-day “war on terror”.[12]  This is not speculation; all these facts are well-attested and well-documented.  We need only do a basic bit of reading, from reputable sources.

The bottom line, of course, is that Jewish over-representation in major sectors of society does matter—it matters very much.  Arguably it is the root cause of virtually all our present-day social problems, all of which have been created or exacerbated by powerful Jews.  We can scarcely imagine what life could be like without their manipulating and malevolent presence.

This brief account of pernicious Jewish influence should help lay to rest the “irrelevance” stage.  But impotence need not be the consequence.  Accept the reality, and turn your anger onto the real targets.  And then act.  Bear in mind:  Every Jewish victory in past centuries has been ephemeral, and has instead been transformed into concrete action against the Hebrews—isolation, ghettoization, incarceration, expulsion, or worse.  And so it will be this time.  Either the Jews themselves will recognize that they are on the brink and voluntarily retreat to their “homeland” in Palestine, or else native peoples around the world will, once again, take action.

The path to enlightenment is hard.  And yet it must be pursued, if humanity is to flourish and prosper.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] J. Schuster and M. Finkelstein, The American Faculty (2006), p. 66.

[2] S. Steinberg, The Academic Melting Pot (1974), p. 103.

[3] H. Zuckerman, Scientific Elite (1977).

[4] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[5] The Fatal Embrace (1993), p. 1.

[6] “How Jewish is Hollywood?” (19 Dec 2008).

[7] Until recently, we could have included the Weinstein Company (aka Lantern Entertainment), but the sex scandal surrounding Harvey Weinstein drove the corporation into bankruptcy in early 2018.

[8] Rupert’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, appears to have been Jewish.  See here, here, and here.  We could also cite Rupert Murdoch’s award from the heavily-Jewish group ADL in 2010, and his son James’ $1 million donation to the same group in 2017.  If the Murdochs are not Jewish, they are in very good graces with them.

[9] Sean Hannity is particularly egregious in this respect.

[10] Current and recent individuals include, at a minimum:  N. Adams, H. Berkes, M. Block, D. Brooks, A. Cheuse, A. Codrescu, K. Coleman, O. Eisenberg, D. Elliott, D. Estrin, S. Fatsis, P. Fessler, C. Flintoff, D. Folkenflik, R. Garfield, T. Gjelten, B. Gladstone, I. Glass, T. Goldman, J. Goldstein, J. Goldstein, R. Goldstein, D. Greene, N. Greenfieldboyce, T. Gross, M. Hirsh, S. Inskeep, I. Jaffe, A. Kahn, C. Kahn, M. Kaste, A. Katz, M. Keleman, D. Kestenbaum, N. King, B. Klein, T. Koppel, A. Kuhn, B. Littlefield, N. King, N. Pearl, P. Sagal, M. Schaub, A. Shapiro, J. Shapiro, W. Shortz, R. Siegel, A. Silverman, S. Simon, A. Spiegel, S. Stamberg, R. Stein, L. Sydell, D. Temple-Raston, N. Totenberg, G. Warner, D. Welna, L. Wertheimer, D. Wessel, E. Westervelt, B. Wolf, and D. Zwerdling.

[11] For an enlightening list of some 50 such quotations, see the website of Clemens and Blair, LLC publishing (here).

[12] See my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

Lance Welton on Jewish ethnocentrism: Fairness, Paranoia, and Self-Deception

/32 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Lance Welton’s article on VDARE is a nice summary of research on Jewish ethnocentrism and its consequences: “Did the ADL Think It Could Get Away with  Hypocrisy on Replacement in U.S. vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.” As noted below, some of his presentation touches on my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition as well as my books on Judaism.

Welton:

“Fairness,” as I noted in my article on blacks, is “impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.” This is a high-order value which demands that you put aside nepotism, ethnocentrism, and even personal gain, in favor of this abstract goal. So, on this basis, would we expect Jews to be as high in “fairness” as Whites?

No. Firstly, there is abundant evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric than whites; meaning they cooperate strongly with their own people and are hostile to other peoples. Jews have been stereotyped as being highly ethnocentric throughout their history, as Kevin MacDonald showed in his 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone [Chap 8, 228ff]. There is overwhelming evidence that racial stereotypes, like all stereotypes, tend to be true; that’s why they develop [Social Perception and Social Reality, By Lee Jussim, 2012].

This goes very deep. Jewish babies react with far greater horror to strangers of a different ethnic group than do German babies [Security of Infant-Mother, -Father, and -Metapelet Attachments Among Kibbutz-Reared Israeli Children, by Abraham Sagi et al., Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985].

Data from the University of Wisconsin’s MIDUS survey of middle-aged Americans demonstrated that among Whites there is a positive correlation between how religious you are and how group-oriented you are. However, the same study found that Jews are the most ethnocentric—group-oriented religious group—even though they were the least religious group of those surveyed. When factors such as intelligence (which tends to make people less ethnocentric) and religiousness level were controlled for, Jews were still way more ethnocentric than the gentile White groups. (This is discussed in Religiosity as a Predictor of In-Group Favoritism Within and Between Religious Groups, by Curtis Dunkel & Edward Dutton, Personality and Individual Differences, 2016).

If you take into account the number of Jews in a population compared to the number of Whites, then the extent to which Jews “marry out” is far lower. Jews are about 49 times less likely to marry someone of a different faith than Protestants are, for example. [See Andrew Joyce’s “The Cofnas Problem.“]. The most obvious explanation for this, in the context of the other research: ethnocentrism. Jews seem to be evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism [see “A Genetic Perspective on Individualism/Collectivism,” A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 8: p. 236ff], something that would be heightened by their small gene pool; with people tending to be more ethnocentric when the gene pool is small [Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, By Gregory Cochran et al., Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006]. This higher ethnocentrism would make them less able to suppress ethnocentric instincts in favor of creating fairness than are gentile Whites.

Fairness is one of the traits that is higher in Western societies based on individualism versus the kinship-based societies of the rest of the world. Joseph Henrich and colleagues reviewed research showing differences between subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) nations and subjects in a wide range of other cultures, finding important differences in fairness and moral reasoning. This is reviewed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: 

In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of justice such as Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you could wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. … The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures—whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception—are all “of a piece;” they all fit into a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning (p. 110).

On the other hand, collectivist cultures—my view is that Judaism is a paradigmatic collectivist culture—see the world from the standpoint of group interests, so that even scientific reasoning in the social sciences is performed through the lens of group interests. Hence, The Culture of Critique.

The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) people discussed in Chapter 3 developed scientific and scholarly associations in the post-medieval West which assume groups are permeable and highly subject to defection—that there is a marketplace of ideas in which individuals may defect from current scientific views when they believe that the data support alternate perspectives. On the other hand, collectivist cultures create group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders, ethnic networking, and expulsion of dissenters [i.e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique]. …

Moreover, … WEIRD people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to characteristics of the object and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and surrounding field). Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract whereas non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship. Science is fundamentally concerned with creating abstract rules independent of context and developing explanations and predictions of phenomena in the empirical world. Such traits, which can be seen even in the ancient Greco-Roman world of antiquity, clearly predispose to scientific thinking. …

For collectivists, moral reasoning involves taking account of the social context, which is fundamentally centered on fitting into and strengthening a kinship group. For individualists, the social world involves a greater need to interact with strangers and to consider their reputation for respecting impersonal rules. …

Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits—e.g., honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments—in abstraction from their (relatively weak) kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying universally applicable laws of nature.

Back to Welton:

In addition, there is evidence that Jews are perfectly happy for a situation to be unfair. One study compared religious groups in the US—Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, and Atheists/Agnostics—and asked people what they thought was most important to live a “good life.” Jews, in contrast to all the other groups, highlighted “extra money” [“For Tomorrow We Die”? Testing the Accuracy of Stereotypes about Atheists and Agnostics, by Edward Dutton & Curtis Dunkel, Mankind Quarterly, 2019]. They see it as important to be richer than other people in a way that the whites do not, which implies that they are less concerned about a possibly unfair situation as long as they benefit. And, being more intelligent than gentile Whites on average (as Richard Lynn has shown in his book The Chosen People) they will better be able to rationalize achieving such an advantage, as intelligent people are typically better at finding ways of rationalizing their biases [Why smart people aren’t better at transcending their biased views, by Tauriq Mousa, The Big Think, June 13, 2012].

Finally, Jews are less mentally stable than Whites. Ashkenazi Jews have significantly elevated levels of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, both of which can make people paranoid [Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia in Ashkenazi Jews, by Fernando Goes et al., American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2015]. When people are paranoid, they are less interested in what is “fair”—they are interested simply in surviving and doing so may involve being very “unfair.” People with paranoid personalities tend to be hypocritical and self-seeking [Understanding Paranoia, by Martin Kantor, 2004, p.71].

Because Jews are better at finding ways of rationalizing away their bias and hypocrisy, they may well not believe that they are being “unfair” at all [a kind of self-deception one expects to find among highly ethnocentric people—Ch. 8 of Separation and Its Discontents  and elaborated by Andrew Joyce here]. In this sense, it can be said that intelligent yet paranoid people do not “know themselves”—meaning that they live in a fantasy world in which there is nothing wrong with them; only with others.

This personality type will see the world as packed full of hostile persecutors who want to destroy them, meaning that an obviously Mostly Peaceful protest at the Capitol becomes an “insurrection” in which people could have been killed.

This personality type will also engage in “paranoid projection,” whereby they purport to find an aspect of themselves they dislike in others, causing them to despise these people. “I hate them” becomes “They hate me,” based on finding some minor evidence of this. Hence the Leftist obsession with how “hateful” their opponents are [8 Key Traits of Paranoid Thinkers, by Shahram Heshmat, Psychology Today. February 24, 2016].

It’s interesting in this regard that paranoia about the surrounding world is a very central aspect of Jewish culture—analyzed as what behavior geneticists label genotype-environment correlation (e.g., paranoid parents with genetic predispositions to paranoia would socialize their children (who share their genes for paranoia) in a manner that would reinforce a worldview that the outside world is dangerous). From A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7:

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage—with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification. Hartung (1992) provides anecdotal data on the emphasis on Jewish suffering and its exaggeration as aspects of modern synagogue service. Such practices have a long history. Roth (1978, 62) notes that Jewish “martyrologists” maintained lists of Jewish martyrs for commemoration during synagogue services during the Middle Ages, and Jordan (1989, 20) refers to the “forbidding martyrocentric self-image” during this period.

Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely. “Like many other generations of Jews who have felt similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon” (Woocher 1986, 73). Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the visit being a trip to a border outpost “where the ongoing threat to Israel’s security is palpable” (p. 150).

Or, as Elliott Abrams (Faith or Fear, 190) wrote, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

Hence the Jewish motivation for diversifying America, the theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (corroborated by Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates [2004]: 80), who notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). (Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Welton concludes:

The self-centeredness and implicit unfairness of the ADL operatives’ fantasy world means they indeed might very well not have thought at all about what to any outside observer appears to be the utter hypocrisy of their position on the Great Replacement [via immigration] in the U.S. as opposed to Israel.

For such people, objective truth is “defamation”—but their “defamation” of others is objective truth.

Any objective observer would indeed have to agree that the ADL is utterly hypocritical in its stance toward immigration in Israel versus the United States. But activist Jews like Jonathan Greenblatt may not even be aware of it due to their powerful tendencies toward ethnocentrism and its corollary of self-deception. And now these people are firmly ensconced in the hostile elite that is running the United States. A dire situation indeed for the traditional White population of America.

Review of Andre Øvredal’s “Mortal” (2020)

/8 Comments/in /by

Mortal is a 2020 English-language Norwegian film based on Norse mythology co-written and directed by André Øvredal (interviewed here). It begins with a strange traveler stumbling out of the wood under a dark gray clouded sky as the early evening sets in the land of the midnight sun. He can’t travel as a man among the ruins, unnoticed and unmolested. A marginal in the modern world, it isn’t long before he crosses the path of a degenerate youth of the type dragging down Scandinavia. For the stranger, he’s just a dumb punk who can’t handle the request of “leave me alone.” The wiggers yell at him from their auto, and the stranger warns, “If you touch me, you will burn.” It only takes a second. . .

There’s a fire rising from within him but there’s no control. It’s unclear whether our protagonist is harnessing this power from some unseen inner core or it’s simply an uninhibited force using him as it’s instrument. The only known catalyst for the onset of these strange powers seems to be his raw unchecked emotions. The pain overtakes him. His chest heaves. His skin burns, cracking and peeling…

The scene shifts to Christine, a sweet-faced, yet seemingly hapless therapist who works for the state. Hired recently, she’s already failed at the starting line and lost a client to suicide. We’re introduced to her through the condolences of her supervisor. “No one’s blaming you. Not the parents, no one. . . . Unfortunately, these things happen. Therapy doesn’t always help.”

Blaming herself, Christine cries to her friend. State-sponsored therapists are the last line of defense against suicides. They have the essential authority when measures have to be taken to institutionalize potential suicides before they self-harm. This is often against the will of their patients. She blames herself, insisting that all of the signals were there, but she simply didn’t want to believe it. One could surmise that she feels the guilt of someone who didn’t prevent a tragedy because they didn’t want to be bothered.

She takes an incoming call. Her services are now required by the police. After regaining her composure, she makes her way toward a small Norwegian town at the foot of a misty hilltop covered in coniferous trees. A dark primal green still rules this land, never out of sight. Her counterpart in law enforcement greets her in the lobby. Henrik is an old veteran of the force with a hard-featured Aryan face and two perennially calm ice blue eyes that betray the kind of deep thoughtfulness that comes with decades of life experience predicting the actions and outcomes of mankind’s most aberrant and abominable.

He informs her they have in custody one Eric Bergland, the Norwegian-American backpacker looking for distant relations who’d gone missing three years ago after a fire at a farm in Årdal that left five dead. He’s not been seen or heard from since then, and he’s wanted for questioning. The Crime Unit is on its way, and time is of the essence to get Bergland to speak about the freshly roasted corpse he left on the roadside, the corpse of one young legend-in-his-own-mind who had an entire lifetime of perpetual adolescence ahead of him.

Nervously she approaches Bergland and begins an interview with the passable English she possesses. She’s unsure whether or not he’s even competent for the conversation. Slowly he begins to explain. To Christine’s surprise he wasn’t even sure if everyone had died in the blaze at the farmhouse he was initially sought for. As he comes to the realization of the amount of death he’s caused, a tear runs down his face. The scruffy backpacker seems overtaken by anxiety as the young therapist watches the water bubble from the glass of water routinely given to those being questioned. Reaching a hand forward, palm down, he begins to raise droplets of the liquid to his hand, defying gravity. The room is suddenly supercharged with electrical energy whose static causes strands of his interlocutor’s blonde hair to stand on end.

Øvredal’s Norway is a primal land of low magic—an archaic elementalism that Eric does not understand. He heats up from the inside like a dynamo. With the breadth of his powers now becoming apparent, the cavalry swoops in. The United States has sent its most highly over-esteemed Third-World Janissary as the representative of Uncle Sam on earth.

The casting in Øvredal’s films is free of affirmative action hires. Those few lesser-thans who make their appearance serve as characters who are typically contemptible and at best pathetically naïve. There are no Black Vikings hiding behind a megalith—traditional horror film rules still apply. Here the role of America’s hired muscle is an Indian woman with a British accent — someone alien to a wayward American. Though she acts with the authority of the US government none among us would call her a fellow American.

The dusky-hued face of life, liberty and the pursuit of global hegemony.

 The character of Christine, though having only just met the man, fulfills her natural feminine role by pacifying the rage and anxiety in this lost soul. The strength of her character isn’t in the way she reacts to danger or the dialogue she has in this supporting role. It’s in the power to bring out growth in a man and maintain a shelter in the storm. A feminine role that complements the masculine rather than challenges it. This portrayal of the natural aesthetic polarity of the sexes is refreshing when one considers the overabundance of obligatory “battle broads” that Tinsel Town’s trash heap has been shelling out.

Throughout his other films, the special effects seep into the environment and seamlessly flow through their interactions with other characters and their surroundings. It is a characteristic of the Norwegian filmmaker to never portray a character with utter disbelief. Surprise? Yes. Terror? Often. But none in his plots elicit hysterical denial. They believe what they see. They don’t understand it, but they fear it.

Eventually Eric has no choice but to run to the only human offering him comfort in the years that have passed since he entered the forest.

Now seeking help, the little group pulls up to a river dock to cross the waterway. “I love ferries. It’s like taking a break from the real world for a few minutes,” Christine states matter-of-factly to Eric. It’s not a dreamy or romantic tone, but a statement of principle.

They learn shortly that the noose is tightening. Eric is having visions that put him in a passive state with a serene dreamy look on his face. He’s seeing things beyond our world and time. Different worlds. . . and a great tree. The most beautiful tree that fills the horizon. Yggdrasil? Christine wonders if he’s a messiah of some kind.

One of many depictions of Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life in Norse Mythology

Hardanger Bridge is the busiest bridge in all of Norway. It lies between Bergen and Oslo, the country’s largest cities. A confrontation during rush hour there means the whole world is watching. It isn’t just the traffic that will grind to a halt that concerns them—everyone will see the videos they share on social media. This, above all is what the government creep of alphabet soup agencies is trying to avoid. He cannot be allowed to manifest his powers in a major city.

But there’s no denying it now. The U.S. sent their ‘girl Friday’ with a license to kill. The condescending Third Worlder knows the national security risk. But the state is always weaker than religion. She makes the phone call, regardless. “Imagine in a few days when people realize what he represents … or what he doesn’t represent. Imagine Christians, Muslims—everyone who believes in a god. Suddenly a god-like human proves they are all wrong. He doesn’t represent any of them. What happens then?” She ends by concluding that a final solution has been determined. “I’ll make sure it happens.” We don’t need to hear her orders to know what she’s planning next.

They try to stop him at the center of the bridge. A Norwegian hasn’t earned himself this much attention from the police services since Breivik. The sky goes black as his passions seize him. Eric is cornered. This time the full spectrum of the titanic abilities he wields is on display. There’s no denying it now.

By now the origins of his god-like destruction are obvious. Taken again under the wing of the state, they study the confused young superbeing. An ethereal call draws Eric into the orbit of the farmhouse inhabited by his ancestors, the source of whatever the polar force that has possessed him is radiating from. Gaining passage to the subterranean causeway deep within a cold dark earth, he searches among the cellar roots to find that which is most sacred and long forgotten by many. The spiritual origins of this great Northern people.

Mortal has a serious and respectable tone. It would appear to be an attempt to rescue Norse mythology from Hollywood depictions such as the popcorn-funded hipster kitsch of JJ Abrams’ latest abortions or the ominous tenor of Ari Aster’s Midsommar (2019) – a fascinating film in its own right but secular in its aesthetics. This director has proven himself as one to watch out for as he fluctuates between larger budget studio films and his more personal projects when the profits from the former are used to bring his intimate creations to life.

Blacks Bless the Benighted West: The Sacred Central Principle of Modern Western Politics and Culture

/18 Comments/in , /by

Two views on non-Whites are permitted in the modern West. The first view is leftist and rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. It states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites are cruelly oppressing them.” The second view is cuckservative and states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites no longer oppress them as cruelly as they once did.”

Whitey in the Woodpile: The eleven members of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

It was the second, cuckservative view that was laid out for the people of Brave New Britain in the recently published report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED). But the cuckservative conclusions of CRED were no surprise. After all, Britain has a cuckservative government and it appointed the commissioners who wrote the report. The part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson and his fellow Friends of Israel knew what they wanted and the commissioners have duly supplied it: “We no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities. … The Commission believes that if [our] recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of our country’s progress to a successful multicultural community — a beacon to the rest of Europe and the world.”

Shred the CRED

Yes, the report claims that Britain, with its rape-gangs, suicide-bombers and acid-throwers, will serve as a beacon to European nations like Hungary and Poland, which don’t have rape-gangs, suicide-bombers or acid-throwers because they haven’t been enriched by non-White immigration. But just as predictable as the fatuities of the report has been the response of Britain’s cuckservatives and leftists. Cuckservatives have warmly welcomed the report and leftists have loudly condemned it. The report was variously described in the Guardian as “disturbing,” “nonsensical,” “deeply cynical,” “egregious,” “poisonously patronising,” “historically illiterate,” “insulting to our intelligence,” and, of course, “divisive.”

All smiles and happy collaboration: typically leftist propaganda on a typically cuckservative report

For leftists, it is always “divisive” when someone disagrees with them. But BoJo & Co. were careful to avoid one potential complaint from the left: they followed a strict leftist rule by ensuring that the Commissioners were almost all non-White. And so it was that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was itself a glaring — and entirely unaddressed — example of a “Race and Ethnic Disparity.” In a country that is still about 80% White, the Commissioners had to be 90% non-White because it is non-Whites who decide how wonderful non-Whites are and how much of a blessing mass immigration has been. The White majority doesn’t get a vote on that.

“Heroic” murderers, rapists and pimps

And never has had a vote. After all, if Whites had been allowed to vote on whether Britain should allow mass immigration by non-Whites, they would overwhelmingly have voted “No.” And don’t take just my word for it: the treasonous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” The CRED report did not discuss this sensible White resistance to non-White immigration, except in so far as White resistance cast a literally “heroic” light on non-Whites. On page 7 of the report, we meet one of the giants of contemporary literature:

[Black] Poet and activist Linton Kwesi Johnson describes the early mass Black presence in the UK as having 2 phases or eras. The first was the 1950s Windrush arrival from the Caribbean, this he called the ‘heroic’ period, when literally doors were closed in the faces of the new Black settlers who heroically battled in the face of adversity. [Note clumsy prose and punctuation.] The children of those settlers … who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s he calls the ‘rebel’ generation, this featured running battles with police and a breakdown in community relations, which continues to have a negative legacy. [More clumsy prose.] The spirit of rebellion continued last summer during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This was a revolt that engulfed the world. We have to acknowledge the spirit of BLM was the original trigger for our report. (Report by Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, March 2021)

The talentless and unintelligent Linton Kwesi Johnson

“Poet and activist” Linton Kwesi Johnson (born 1952 in Jamaica) didn’t mention that the “Black settlers” also “heroically battled” to raise the abysmally low rates of murder, rape, robbery, pimping and anti-social noise in stale, pale 1950s and ’60s Britain. Or that they battled on behalf of the predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919–62), who would install violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. But Johnson’s omissions aren’t surprising. Here is a sample of the patois poetry that has won him acclaim and honours for decades:

Inglan is a Bitch

W’en mi jus’ come to Landan toun
Mi use to work pan di andahgroun
But workin’ pan di andahgroun
Yu don’t get fi know your way around.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no runnin’ whey fram it.

Mi get a lickle jab in a bih ’otell
An’ awftah a while, mi woz doin’ quite well
Dem staat mi aaf as a dish-washah
But w’en mi tek a stack, mi noh tun clack-watchah.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
No baddah try fi hide fram it. (Inglan is a Bitch)

Linton Kwesi Johnson is, of course, a leftist and will not agree with the report’s findings. But talentless and unintelligent Blacks like him had to appear before the Commission because negrolatry is an essential part of minority worship in general. Blacks are the most harmful, obnoxious, unintelligent, unattractive and unproductive of all minorities. In other words, they are the group that least resembles Whites, which is precisely why the hostile Jewish elite selected Blacks for transformation into the archetypal saintly victims of White oppression. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In Britain, the Jewish lawyer Anthony Lester (1936–2020) proudly described how he brought the American model of minority worship to Britain:

In Search of Something Better: Anthony Lester recalls the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality

In 1964, on my return from witnessing the “Long Hot Summer” of civil rights action in the American South, I helped found CARD (the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination). We campaigned for effective legislation to combat racism in Britain. The first measure — the Race Relations Act 1965 — was hopelessly narrow and lacked teeth, so we fought for something better. When CARD was taken over by militant extremists, in December 1967, Jim Rose [another Jewish lawyer] and I founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage. Labour’s second measure, the Race Relations Act 1968, was broader in scope but still lacked teeth. So again we campaigned for something better. (Catalyst magazine, 20th November 2006)

Anthony Lester, Baron of Bullshit

By “better,” Lester meant “better for invading non-Whites, worse for native Whites.” He was praised in his Guardian obituary as “the author of the groundbreaking legislation on racial and gender equality introduced in Britain by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in the 1970s.” Alas, the obituary also noted “a sad coda to his career,” arising “from a complaint by the author and charity worker Jasvinder Sanghera, who waived her right to anonymity to assert that in 2006 she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Lester and … offered a peerage in exchange for sexual favours.”

No mention of Muslim rape-gangs

Lester, who became a Baron in 1993, strenuously denied the accusations, but it was yet another example of how Jews have been vastly over-represented among those accused of sexual predation in recent years. This “Race and Ethnic Disparity” was definitely not examined in the CRED report, which also declined to examine any other kind of “Disparity” about those who commit crime and those who are its victims. For example, the report did not investigate the statistical anomalies whereby non-Whites murder and rape Whites at higher absolute rates than vice versa. And so the hard-working Muslim rape-gangs of Rotherham and many other British towns and cities were not mentioned in the report. In fact, the word “rape” appears only in a footnote on page 146. There was no discussion, therefore, of that remarkable representative of the heroic Black settlement of Britain, the mass gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant, who may have sexually assaulted hundreds of elderly White women after his arrival here from Jamaica.

Heroic Black rapist Delroy Easton Grant

Grant certainly caused the premature death of some of those women, but he wasn’t a deliberate murderer like the Black rapist Leroy Campbell, who raped and murdered a White nurse, Lisa Skidmore, after previously serving a so-called “life-sentence” for rape and other offences. The judge who gave him a second (and perhaps genuine) life-sentence said this: “Miss Skidmore had to suffer the pain and terror of being raped by someone in her own home before she died. This was a sustained incident lasting over two hours. There was a significant degree of planning that went into the commission of these grotesque offences. Your actions on that day have had a most dramatic effect on a number of people.”

Meteor malefactors

But the Black genius for vicious crime is by no means confined to rape and murder. For example, three enterprising young Blacks were jailed in 2018 for a “‘shocking’ spree of brutal robberies … across London” in which they had sprayed “acid and alkali” into the faces of their victims. The three young Blacks did not express remorse for their crimes, probably because they didn’t feel any. Black psychopathy and its probable genetic roots were something else that the CRED report did not discuss.

Heroic Black rapist-murderer Leroy Campbell

But that’s unsurprising. High-achieving Blacks like Delroy Grant, Leroy Campbell and the acid-throwers of London are not celebrated in Brave New Britain. They are what you might call meteor malefactors, whose misdeeds flash across the headlines and then vanish forever. But Black criminals have been having “a most dramatic effect” on the White majority ever since Blacks began arriving here in the 1950s against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority. The CRED report did not discuss this prolonged Black predation on Whites or undertake the admittedly herculean task of estimating how many Whites have been murdered, raped, beaten and otherwise harmed by Blacks during the heroic Black settlement and subsequent Black rebellions.

A cuckservative and her controllers: Priti Patel with convicted Jewish fraudster Sir Gerald Ronson and
Jewish Board of Deputies leader Marie van der Zyl

But the Commission wasn’t set up by the cuckservative government to investigate the harm done to Whites by Blacks. As I pointed out at the beginning, both leftists and cuckservatives are agreed on the sacred central principle of politics and culture: that Blacks Bless the Benighted West. Leftists and cuckservatives merely disagree about whether Whites are as evil and oppressive towards non-Whites as they used to be. Cuckservatives don’t think Whites are, but Whites are still forbidden to have any say on how wonderful Blacks in particular are.

That’s why the Commission itself was headed by a Black, Dr Tony Sewell, who thereby gave the whole proceedings that essential glow of Numinous Negritude. At least, he did so in cuckservative and libertarian eyes. To leftists, however, Sewell is a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside), “race traitor” and “house negro” working for Whitey. How dare Sewell suggest that Britain was not “institutionally racist” and that minorities could achieve success by their own efforts despite White racism?

Crushing the left, ending the racism racket

The Marxist libertarian Brendan O’Neill hastened to the defence of Sewell and other non-Whites behind the report, condemning the “identitarian bigots” who were accusing Sewell and others of betraying their own kind. O’Neill threw up his hands in horror at “the racial conformism outrageously demanded by sections of the left” and spoke darkly of “the rise of a kind of woke racism.” In other words, he was firing the most powerful weapon in the cuckservative and libtard armoury: the deadly and devastating argument that leftists are the real racists. Well, people like O’Neill think it’s a devastating argument. Of course, they’ve been using it for decades and it’s never had the slightest effect, but they remain eternally optimistic that with just one or two more repetitions it will crush the left and end the “racism racket.”

It won’t, of course. Nor will this cuckservative report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. One big reason for that was noted by Commissioners themselves: “We recognise that building a confident, successful multi-ethnic society is a huge and difficult endeavour.” In fact, it’s an impossible endeavour, but even if it were merely “huge and difficult,” one glaring question would remain unaddressed. Why did Britain need to become a “multi-ethnic society”? What was lacking in the land of Shakespeare, Newton, Milton, Darwin, Watt, Hume and many other giants of art, science and philosophy before it became “multi-ethnic”? What overwhelming advantages has Britain gained by importing huge numbers of illiberal tribalists with low average IQs from corrupt, violent and intellectually void countries like Pakistan, Jamaica and Somalia?

No action by cuckservatives

No advantages whatsoever, that I can see. But I and many others can plainly see the huge disadvantages of mass immigration from the Third World. They include suicide bombing, rape-gangs, honour killings, female genital mutilation, inbreeding, exotic diseases, censorship, political corruption and the massive transfer of White taxes to subsidize unproductive but fast-breeding non-Whites. And thanks to imported non-White pathologies — and the hard work of Jewish activists like Anthony Lester — ever-harshening laws have been passed to restrict the free speech and free association of British Whites, even as an immoral and voyeuristic surveillance state pries ever more closely into their private lives.

The Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is not going to mitigate any of those pathologies, let alone end them. As I pointed out at the beginning, the leftist view of race relations — “Blacks are Saints, Whites are Demons” — rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. This cuckservative government isn’t going to make any attempt to change that. For example, Tamara Finkelstein, a high-flying Jewish bureaucrat who is the “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network,” has supported Black Lives Matter (BLM) on an official government Twitter account and issued the stirring call to “fight racism.” Have she and similar promoters of “far-left identity politics” been reprimanded in any way? Not in the slightest. After all, Tamara is the sister of the high-flying Conservative peer Daniel Finkelstein and her commitment to “anti-racism” is almost certainly the same as his.

Like sister, like brother: the anti-White Jews Tamara and Daniel Finkelstein

And it was the so-called Conservative prime minister Theresa May who added “Stephen Lawrence Day” to Britain’s religious calendar. The day honours Britain’s new patron saint, a Black teenager who died after being stabbed twice by a gang of “white racists” in 1993. It was a very rare and unusual crime, because Blacks are overwhelmingly murdered by other Blacks, not by Whites. Blacks also murder Whites much more often than the reverse. But none of that matters to the martyr cult of St Stephen Lawrence, which endlessly repeats the lie that Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to non-Whites and their welfare.

Martyr vs Meteor Murders: Stephen Lawrence is eternally remembered as the
far more numerous White victims of non-Whites are forgotten

Will the so-called Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson remove Stephen Lawrence Day from the calendar? Of course not. Nor will Johnson or any other cuckservative criticize the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre, which is working to further demonize Whites and sanctify non-Whites at De Montfort University in the ancient British city of Leicester:

The Stephen Lawrence Research Centre aims to drive forward conversations that will shape and influence how we think about race and social justice. It intends to honour the enduring legacy of Stephen Lawrence’s life and his family’s ongoing pursuit of justice by asking new questions, debating critical issues, raising awareness, and advocating to bring about positive change. …

National Stephen Lawrence Day 22 April

The 22 April 2018 marked the 25th anniversary of the senseless murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young man who had a bright future ahead of him.

At the memorial service to celebrate his life, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced the annual national commemoration of Stephen Lawrence Day which is to be held each year on 22 April.

Schools and their communities are invited to use the memory of Stephen’s life and legacy as an opportunity to empower young people in their care to live their best life. Find out how to get involved. …

Stephen Lawrence Research Centre news and events

An evening with Baroness Doreen Lawrence: Bringing Legacy to Leicester

Ahead of Stephen Lawrence Day, 22 April, Baroness Lawrence will be joined by [the Trotskyist race-baiter] Imran Khan QC [Queen’s Counsel], educators, students and community leaders for a discussion on how Stephen’s legacy is inspiring a change for good across the nation. (Propaganda and mendacity issued by the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre)

Martyr’s mother: Black Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Baroness Doreen Lawrence is the martyr’s mother, an utterly undistinguished and intellectually void Jamaican woman who has been lavishly honoured and celebrated by Brave New Britain, and is treated as the fount of all wisdom on matters of race and racism. The Guardian was delighted to report that Baroness Lawrence, who was ennobled by the treasonous shabbos-goy Tony Blair, has joined the “Shred the CRED” campaign. She has condemned the recent report for “giving racists the green light.” That’s how she expresses her gratitude for cuckservative pandering and Theresa May’s creation of Stephen Lawrence Day.

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, long-forgotten White victims of horrific racist murders

In complete contrast to the saintly Doreen Lawrence, White mothers who have lost children to racially motivated murder, often in far worse ways, are never honoured or celebrated in Brave New Britain, and are never consulted on matters of race and racism. There is no “Kriss Donald Research Centre” to honour the White Scottish teenager who was kidnapped, repeatedly stabbed, and incinerated by Pakistani Muslims in 2004. And there is no “Mary-Ann Leneghan Research Centre” to honour the White English teenager who was raped, tortured and repeatedly stabbed by five Blacks and an Albanian Muslim “asylum-seeker” in 2005.

Britain is a Land of Lies

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan were the victims of meteor murder. The horrible details of their prolonged and agonizing deaths flashed through the British media and then vanished forever, because no mainstream institution in Brave New Britain is interested in the truth about mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks and other non-Whites are not a blessing to Britain. They are a curse imported against the will of the White majority by the hostile Jewish elite and its treasonous gentile collaborators. The overwhelmingly non-White Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities could never admit this. It has no more interest in the truth about non-Whites than the cuckservative government who appointed it.

Like all other Western nations, Britain is a Land of Lies where liars rule, minority-worship is mandatory throughout public life, and non-Whites impose huge and growing costs on the White majority. And what should we do in the face of the lies, ugliness and evil currently rampant in the West? I think Vox Day’s advice is good. We should devote ourselves ever more firmly to what the great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc called the “indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.”

Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!)

/66 Comments/in , , /by

In a previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson’s comments on ‘replacement’ in the context of immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted that Carlson’s comments were “anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic.” Accusations of racism—and especially anti-Semitism—are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.

So I was gratified that Carlson didn’t back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites (and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it’s not about compassion as usually advertised, but about power. And anyone with any brains knows it.

To date, Carlson’s monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there. He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. ‘Client’ is the right word (from the Latin for ‘dependent’) because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all the free stuff — medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again). They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government. Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.

Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about White people’s vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to 30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used to. It’s shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where, even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they couldn’t win a statewide election.  And that’s the whole point. Permanent hegemony.

But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted that the voter replacement argument doesn’t apply so much to Blacks because the people replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino, after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.

California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate. Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. … The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms. Lee.

As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.

Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg’s NYTimes op-ed, “We can replace them,” which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen shot of Goldberg’s statement: “The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic White.” He didn’t mention Goldberg’s ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is “a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger.”

The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact, it’s an obsession on the left. “It’s the central idea of the modern Democratic Party.” So true. And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.

As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump’s plan to deport illegals on the basis that Trump was trying to “remake the demographics of the country”; she tweeted that such actions are “deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values.” Of course, the left would never think of remaking the demographics of the country!

What’s immoral—and obviously so— is the left’s scheme to remake  the electorate in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as “cheating.” This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White population of America is profoundly immoral. It’s an important message because we Whites are uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly prone to forming moral communities rather than kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It’s a very exploitable weakness, and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the community’s interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength. But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of the West since World War II are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture, i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it’s a moral imperative to replace the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to replace its founding population.

However, the best part about Tucker’s monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence immoral, while legitimizing Israel’s ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate ethnic nationalists—exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland that remains theirs.

Granted, Carlson didn’t mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:

With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically—and potentially physically—vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.

This is another recurrent theme on TOO—that the traditional White majority will become a hated and oppressed minority (58 articles) because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their influence in passing the 1965 immigration law, should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.

In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to Fox News, demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the  hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: “Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind.” But he rejected the argument that Carlson had endorsed “anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism,” retreating to Carlson’s original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.

In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson “did not accidentally echo these talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. … At a time of intense polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence.”

Intense polarization indeed. That’s what happens when there is a powerful attempt to dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism that is tearing the country apart.

Greenblatt thinks that Tucker’s message will galvanize “extremists.” Let’s hope that it does indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it’s important for Carlson to not let this issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies, print media, and throughout the educational system.

The message of White replacement is powerful. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[1]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

White replacement is our most powerful message. Let’s hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We certainly will.

[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.