Fake Feminist, Genuine Jew: Blood, Sweat and Fears with Ethnocentric Media Maven Emma Barnett

/9 Comments/in /by

Female victims. They’re very important to feminists, aren’t they? Of course they are. So let’s consider some male and female victims in 21st-century Britain. First, two men murdered with relatively little suffering by a man, who did not target them as males. Second, seventeen women and girls murdered with great suffering by another man, who deliberately targeted them as females and who also maimed and badly injured dozens more women and girls. Which set of victims do you think matters more to a feminist?

Emma’s Dilemma: “Who matter more: 17 murdered women or 2 murdered men?”

The answer is obvious. Any feminist would certainly find the second group, the murdered and maimed women and girls, far more significant and important. Wouldn’t she? Well, no. It’s the two murdered men who matter much more to one prominent media feminist in Britain. Indeed, the feminist is much more concerned about the two murdered men than she is about tens or hundreds of thousands of women and girls who have been raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered in Britain since the 1950s. So what kind of feminist is she? Simple. She’s a Jewish feminist called Emma Barnett (born 1985), who spent three years presenting the feminist flagship Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio. With her broad face and deep voice, she’s a good example of the high-testosterone, masculinized women who are over-represented among feminists. But how sincere is her feminism? Let’s try and find out. Barnett grew up in the northern English city of Manchester, where seventeen women and girls were horrifically murdered in 2017 by a male Muslim suicide-bomber, Salman Abedi, who had deliberately targeted a concert by the American pop-star Ariana Grande. Abedi knew that the concert would be attended by mostly women and girls.[1]

Blonde, broad-faced Jewish feminist Emma Barnett identifies with Jewish men, not with gentile women (image from Jewish News)

Sure enough, when he exploded his suicide-bomb, the vast majority of his victims were women and girls. In feminist terms, the attack was a blatant act of murderous misogyny by a malevolent masculinist intent on punishing women and girls for exercising autonomy, pursuing male-free pleasure and celebrating female culture. But did the feminist Emma Barnett condemn it in those obvious feminist terms? No, she didn’t. She joined the rest of the Sisterhood in responding to the Manchester bombing with silence. To repeat: when dozens of women and girls were murdered and maimed in her own home-town by a malevolent male misogynist, Emma Barnett utterly failed to apply her supposedly fierce feminist principles. Now fast-forward to October 2025, when another Muslim man attacked a synagogue in Manchester and murdered two Jewish men.[2] Fierce feminist Emma Barnett didn’t stay silent this time:

The BBC presenter and host [Emma Barnett] said she viewed the attack on Heaton Park Synagogue, her old shul, in October as having crossed a “threshold” in Britain.

“[The attack] felt very different,” she said of the attack which claimed the lives of two people. “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. It was a threshold crossed in Britain. But I don’t believe we [Jewish people] can’t live here and be happy.”

In a piece she wrote for the Times filed the day of the attack, Barnett said how she had been walking home from the gym when she heard the news.

“I was very, very upset and realised I was checking the story in a different way from normal because I was trying to see if I knew anyone who had been killed, which is not a normal way to interact with any story,” she said. “I could imagine the place; I know its doorknobs.” [Barnett continued: “My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”]

Writing for the [Jewish Chronicle] in 2016, Barnett said that she “came out” as a Jew live on air during her first LBC [London Broadcasting Company] broadcast without any forward planning. She wrote: “My throat was tight and mouth desert dry as the word fell clumsily out. ‘I am… a Jew.’ And there it was. My faith out there. Live on the radio. Before that point, my religion had never been relevant in my job.” (“Emma Barnett reveals Jeremy Corbyn had to plead with his supporters to stop them sending her antisemitic abuse,” The Jewish Chronicle, 9th November 2025)

Barnett is deluding herself when she says “my religion had never been relevant in my job.” Her “religion,” that is, her cultural and racial identity as a Jew, is obviously central to her politics and to her supposed feminism. I say “supposed,” because I don’t think her feminism is genuine. She “cried” and decided that “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” only after two Jewish men were murdered in Manchester, not after seventeen women and girls were murdered in Manchester. And not after huge numbers of other women and girls became the victims of Muslim rape-gangs in Manchester and many other British towns and cities. The dead and abused White women and girls don’t seem to matter to the feminist Emma Barnett. But the two dead Jewish men? Ah, that’s different: “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. […] My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”

Blood, sweat and fears

However, when “you’ve got” far greater numbers of women and girls being murdered and maimed at a pop-concert, Emma Barnett does not find it “very, very frightening” and does not shed copious tears. Was this because the women and girls involved were shiksas, that is, gentile women? I’d suggest that it is. And what about Victoria Agoglia?

Emma Barnett has never wept for shiksa Victoria Agoglia, dead at fifteen in Manchester

Victoria Agoglia was a 15-year-old White girl who was killed in Manchester by a heroin overdose administered by a 50-year-old Muslim man. At the time she was in the “care” of the local leftist council, which, with the police, had been fully aware that she was “being repeatedly abused, raped and plied with drugs by predatory paedophiles.” Council and police did nothing to protect her and thousands of other White working-class girls from misogynist Muslim men steeped in toxic patriarchy and male supremacy. Has the fierce feminist Emma Barnett spoken out about that shocking case in her own home-town? Has she shed tears for that betrayed fifteen-year-old girl? If she has, something has prevented her words and tears being documented on the internet. But what about murders in a foreign country? Barnett can certainly wax eloquent about some of those:

When I heard the news that four Jews had been murdered last week [7th January 2015] on European soil by an Islamist gun-toting terrorist, my blood ran cold; my hands started sweating. Dazed, I found myself in the work toilets shedding a silent tear. And then I realised why I needed to be alone: I felt scared.

For the first time in my life, as a British Jew, 70 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, I felt anxious and bewildered at how this assault had happened just across the Channel. While I was stunned and enraged by the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and writers — both as a journalist and citizen — it was the murder of my fellow Jews that left me feeling personally exposed. (“Somewhere between the Holocaust and 2015 it became OK to blame Jews again,” The Telegraph, 15th January 2015)

So now we know the group that truly matters to Emma Barnett: “my fellow Jews.” But “my fellow women” don’t truly matter to her. After the Manchester bombing, she did not describe how her “blood ran cold,” how her “hands started sweating” and how she found herself “dazed” and “shedding a silent tear.” Murdered women and girls in her own home-town? Yawn! Murdered Jews in a foreign country? Yowl! And while Barnett won’t speak up for the White female victims of non-White suicide-bombings and rape-gangs, she will speak up for the kind of non-White men who commit suicide-bombings and form rape-gangs. Here’s what she wrote about the so-called “Calais crisis” in 2015, when aggressive, low-IQ non-Whites were trying to force their way into Britain via the French port of Calais. Note how she mocks Whites and “reserves” her “compassion” for young non-White men:

Frazzled British holidaymakers “desperately” trying to reach France for your annual sojourn, have no fear! Café Rouge in Canterbury is here. The chain is offering those stuck in Operation Stack on the M20 a free tea and slice of cake if they happen to be diverted towards Canterbury — you know because of all that unfortunate nonsense going on at Calais. Little ones eat free! And if the family phone still has battery after hours of “hell” on the motorway, you can tweet about the experience using the special hashtag #RouteRouge.

Pass the sick bucket.

And while I do have sympathy for anyone stuck in the traffic jam that’s cost UK industry millions, I’m reserving my compassion for a group who really could murder a slice of cake. Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.

The “Calais crisis” as it’s being referred to, is mostly being reported as a transport or business story. Actually, it’s a humanitarian timebomb. On Tuesday, one man died trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. We don’t know his name. He is the ninth this summer. […]

Even the language that’s being used to describe the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe is mechanical at best, and dehumanising at worst. Emergency government meetings are being held to ensure there is “upstream management of illegal migratory flows”. Excuse me? These are real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights. What if they were children instead of young men? Would we feel differently? […] This country has a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy. Let’s not let ourselves down because we’re impatient for a holiday or a booze cruise. It’s time to see the bigger picture and stop the lamentable narrowing of our horizons. An island nation we might be, but that doesn’t have to mean our mentality must follow suit. (“Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?,” The Telegraph, 30th July 2015)

It’s plain that Emma Barnett places the welfare of non-White men from the Third World far above the welfare of White women in Britain. Like countless other Jews, both avowedly leftist and supposedly “conservative,” she has welcomed unlimited immigration by non-Whites from the most corrupt, illiberal, rape-friendly and economically unproductive cultures on Earth. But the real concern of those Jews isn’t for non-White migrants: it’s for themselves. Like countless other Jews, Emma Barnett has supported non-White migration because she thinks it is “good for Jews.” That’s why she used the wrong pronoun when she said of Britain that “we are an island nation.” Her true nation — the country and group to which she is natally bonded — is plainly not Britain but Israel, which isn’t an island at all. So does Israel have “a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy”? Sadly, it doesn’t. Not if the needy are non-Jewish. Israel has erected high-tech fences on its borders to keep out “the needy” and has just spent two years using high explosive to make “the needy” of the Gaza Strip even needier than before.

Israel’s response to “the needy”: a big steel fence topped with barbed wire (image from Wikipedia)

That’s the Jewish attitude in Israel to “the needy.” But the Jewish attitude in the West to “the needy” is now shifting towards that in Israel. After the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, Jews based in the West seem to have expected that their non-White “natural allies” would side with poor persecuted Israelis rather than with murderous anti-Semitic Palestinians. To their horror and disbelief, non-Whites in the West have sided with non-White Palestinians, not with Israeli Jews. You see, non-Whites in the West have failed to absorb a loud and oft-repeated Jewish message. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are an oppressed minority just like them. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are entirely different from gentile Whites, who enjoy White privilege and oppress cowering Jews and their non-White “natural allies.” Alas, it’s now obvious that non-Whites have failed to absorb this vital Jewish message. Instead, they’ve come to regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper Privilege.” That’s why more and more Jews in the West are deciding that non-White immigration may not be so good for Jews after all.

The highly ethnocentric Emma Barnett may be among those Jews having a re-think about their natural allies. Recall how she invoked “children” in her sentiment-laden appeal for unlimited non-White immigration into Britain. Then recall how she shed copious tears and said “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” by the murder of two Jewish men in Manchester. Well, that threshold was crossed by a Muslim man, Jihad Al-Shamie,[3] who came to Britain as a child. Maybe a disturbing biological fact has now struck Emma: that ickle children can grow up and become icky adults. Of course, she didn’t shed tears or think that any threshold was crossed when seventeen gentile women and girls were murdered in Manchester by another Muslim man, Salman Abedi. My conclusion? Emma Barnett is a fake feminist and genuine Jew.

[1]  Ariana Grande’s fans are also disproportionately gay and there was at least one gay among the five men killed in the Manchester bombing. Like women, gays are group whose welfare is supposedly of great concern to the left. But just as leftists refused to condemn Muslim misogyny after the bombing, so they refused to condemn Muslim homophobia.

[2]  One of the Jewish men was in fact accidentally shot dead by police, but the Muslim attacker was morally responsible for his death.

[3]  Note that Jihad al-Shamie means “Jihad of Syria” in Arabic. Did this ring any alarm-bells with the British authorities who gave asylum to little Jihad’s family? Of course not. Jews have trained White gentiles to regard common sense and rational self-interest as “racist” and “Islamophobic.”

Rhetoric, Persuasion, and the Holocaust

/10 Comments/in /by

Contending With the Holocaust as a Tool of Extortion and Manipulation

So-called Holocaust revisionism is gaining some currency in certain circles among the dissident right. This is exhibited on various platforms and certain nooks and crannies of the Internet. Statements by mixed martial artist and podcaster Jake Shields evidence this trend, particularly the appearance of Germar Rudolf on the “Jack Shields Fights Back” podcast. Conversely, in the controversial essay by this author “Denouncing Hitler for Different Reasons” was criticized and rebuked by some for not embracing Holocaust revisionism. The subject is briefly addressed in the beginning, stating succinctly my position. Restating the late Jean Marie Le Pen’s characterization of the holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” the essay asserts that there is nothing truly unique about the Holocaust. Indeed, “over a hundred million people were murdered by various state powers in the 20th Century.” This is just one reason among many why the Holocaust “certainly should never have been allowed to be used as a tool for blackmail and extortion by various Jewish organs, in the manner documented and exposed by Norman Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry.” These and others contentions were insufficient to quell criticisms and rebukes for not indulging in so-called Holocaust revisionism or denial, even though it has nothing to do with strategic and tactical blunders made by Hitler, and should not be the focus condemning him for his wanton violence and brutality against different European peoples. At a broader level, what is regarded by many as Holocaust revisionism1—indeed what Jewish and other groups often decry as Holocaust denial—has become increasing among some dissident right circles. Such growing appeal and popularity notwithstanding, Holocaust revisionism, for lack of a better term, is an ineffective strategy to counter Jewish power and influence. It is both unnecessary and largely counterproductive.

In order to ascertain how this movement is both ineffective and superfluous, some preambles are in order. There are, to be sure, irregularities in the Holocaust narrative. The official death toll of Auschwitz was revised from between 3.5-4 million to 1.5 million.2 Stories about lampshades and the like have been recanted by even the most fervent, obnoxious advocates for Jewish activism centered around the Holocaust. It is also of note that the five million other alleged non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust seem to have been made up to garner gentile sympathy.3 Interests that fabricate or lie about statistics on such matters have dubious credibility on other matters. It is reminiscent of a phenomenon in trial procedure known as “impeaching the witness,” whereby a witness is confronted on cross-examination about a lie or inconsistent statement. The establishment of an “inconsistent statement,” characterized either as faulty memory or deception, is then used to “impeach the credibility” of that witness to the fact-finders, usually the jury. The myriad instances of retractions and revisions on both details and figures impeach the credibility of Holocaust advocacy in precisely the same way.

The Holocaust is peculiar in other ways. It is curious that there were exceedingly few survivors of Unit 731, a horrific Japanese installation in mainland China that ran gruesome human experiments on Chinese captives and even some American POWs; conversely, the Nazis left quite a few survivors. These and other considerations are interesting, but are of little import.

First and foremost, the Holocaust narrative can be much more effectively rebutted by conceding assertions concerning death tolls, assertions that are illegal to contest in most Western jurisdictions. Conceding these claims, as many are legally obligated to do, in no way changes the analysis on how Jewish interests wield such inordinate power and influence over Europe and white gentiles. This is particularly so given how such power and influence is used to extort gentile countries for seemingly endless payments in the untold hundreds of billions to Israel and various Jewish concerns.4 The shakedown extortion racket is further compounded by the manner in which the Holocaust is used as propaganda to infuse white guilt in to the white, collective consciousness, as well as the notion that Jewish interests are somehow of greater importance not just to Jews but white gentiles as well. In the United States, this includes a veritable set of industries in publication, education, and other efforts established to drone incessantly about the Holocaust. This includes expansive curricula in American and European schools at the middle school and high school levels or their equivalents.

The Berlin Holocauset memorial adjacent to the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate: An abomination that bolsters the pyschological guilt complex gripping the German national character and increasingly all European peoples.

As stated, over 100 million people were killed in the 20th Century. While this includes the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China as well as Pol Pot’s Cambodia—mass murders that afflicted alien peoples on other continents—a large contingent of these numbers pertain to the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, including the Holodomor. Stalin killed many millions before Hitler even started. Moreover, there is a particularly Kosher flavor to these crimes, as Kevin MacDonald has documented in “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.” The German populace has also been victimized5, by way of the mass murder and wholesale rape at the hands of the Red Army, the deliberate targeting of German civilian population centers by both the British and American air forces, and the deliberate deaths of German POWS, particularly while in Soviet captivity, although some historians argue that there were excessive deaths even in Allied captivity as well.

Even conceding official figures, nothing about the Holocaust warrants the Holocaust industry shakedown, either as an instrument of extortion or propaganda that engenders white guilt among gentiles: a propaganda apparatus that also promotes a presentiment that Jewish interests are somehow of elevated importance universally. This includes marring of the German capital and other German cities with unsightly pet projects at the behest of international Jewish groups. The nations and peoples of Europe are faced with their own existential crises, including a demographic winter and an infusion of hordes of black and brown people who have no right to step foot on the sacred continent, let alone resettle there. This should be and must be the overriding priority. Judaism is defined by such in-group preference, what MacDonald has described as “moral particularism.” It is a key factor behind their inordinate level of influence and power. Adopting that same in-group preference compels European peoples to prioritize European suffering and the threats to European posterity, and focus on the existential threats facing European identity and the existence of our posterity. Holocaust revisionism—in isolation—is not about this categorical imperative to prioritize European self-interest and in-group preference, but instead is centered around an objective to counter or discredit historical records that are in turn used to advance Jewish interests, power, and influence.

This problem is compounded by several severe practical limitations and liabilities that render Holocaust revisionism ineffective, regardless of how one appraises the merit, or lack of merit, of the historical claims advanced in contravention to historical consensus. These limitations are crippling and fatal. The single greatest consideration rendering so-called revisionism to be an ineffective strategy is that a critical mass of people in the mainstream will discount such talking points out of hand, regardless of how someone presents such arguments or any arguments that may be proffered. The technical, esoteric nature of such talking points, whether ultimately valid or not, are not subject matter most are willing to grapple with or even entertain.

This is all the more damning because repudiating the Holocaust industry does not require contesting numbers claimed at all. Holocaust revisionism is simply not necessary to repudiate how the Holocaust is used for certain nefarious purposes. In illustration of this, consider how summary judgement works in American civil law. Summary judgement is a process whereby a judge awards a verdict for either plaintiff or defendant as a matter of law. This can be done after pleadings have been filed, or it can be awarded before or after a trial. When a judge grants summary judgement, he concedes all questions of fact in dispute in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgement is sought against. An award of summary judgement is predicated on the legal conclusion that, even if facts are as alleged as the losing party contends, he still loses regardless on the basis of whatever area of law that matter may pertain to.

The same principle applies concerning the Holocaust. Even given the six million—or 5.7 million—figure and all that is alleged, the manner in which Jewish interests have been permitted to shakedown the nations of Europe for untold billions is anathema. It is so repugnant regardless of who Hitler and the Nazis killed, or did not kill. Nor can the Holocaust, accusations of anti-Semitism, and the like be used as a platform to incubate and promulgate notions of white guilt, or the idea that Jewish propensity for inter-group conflict is somehow off limits as a legitimate topic for polite conversation.

The simple rebuttal that the Holocaust should not and must not give Jewish groups license to do as they have done is far more effective and efficient than contesting the historical record of the Holocaust. This simple but effective repudiation of the Holocaust as a precursor to Jewish shakedowns and as a blunt instrument to silence dissent can be stated elegantly and concisely in a few short sentences. Compare and contrast with the unwieldly arguments and contentions set forth by proponents of Holocaust revisionism. This comparison and contrast provides an important reminder of how rhetoric and persuasion share a fundamental principle with chess and indeed all turn-based strategy games: tempo. Tempo simply pertains to the economy of moves that governs strategy in chess and other games as well. The same position reached in seven moves that could be reached in four effectively cedes three “free” moves to one’s opponent, or, more precisely, forfeits three free moves by a player who squanders tempo in such a manner. This of course is an imperfect analogy, but it bears on most points regarding how to counter the weaponization of the Holocaust. This is particularly so given how deeply propagandized the Holocaust has been. The decades of propaganda, epitomized for example by the girl in the red jacket in Schindler’s List, render this topic something many are both emotive and irrational about, often with a reflexive aversion as a Pavlovian response. This is compounded by an acute stigmatization of Holocaust revisionism.

Because of this emotive, irrational aspect to how a critical mass of people feel about the Holocaust, any attempt of persuasion of the masses on this matter involves significant limitations on time, attention span, and other factors. Such constraints are almost always present to some varying degree, but are particularly acute in relation to this topic for the reasons just discussed. Such constraints indicate that there is likely only time and space for one rhetorical method of persuasion to challenge and impugn how the Holocaust is used as a shakedown tool and bludgeoning instrument to silence criticism of Jewish behavior at an aggregate, collective level. One strategy involves a far greater number of moves, and involves many weaknesses and disadvantages, including criminal liability or loss of ability to travel to Europe, a strong propensity to repel large swathes of mainstream audiences, all while getting lost in the weeds with discussions about technical dimensions of gas chamber doors, the degree to which Zyklon B is indelible, or not indelible, when exposed to the elements, and other points of discussion. These things and others are pitted against tens of billions endowed by the entertainment industry, Jewish interest groups, the higher education establishment, and various legal regimes in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia that impose criminal sanctions for such utterances.

That consideration in turn invokes another axiom of both military strategy and tactics, as well as the full gamut of strategy games, from chess to grand strategy games; do not attack an enemy at a strongpoint unless absolutely necessarily. Instead, maneuver around strongpoints, bypassing them, focusing on points of weakness. This axiom informs why, as just one example, the German armed forces did not wage a frontal assault on the Maginot Line, but simply went around it. The historical record has the full backing of a syndicate of Jewish interests, (not unlike a crime syndicate), Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and seemingly unanimous backing by history departments and other organs of higher education. From a pure, practical standpoint, it is foolhardy to go against the tens of billions endowed by these institutions, regardless of the merits or lack thereof, when a topic is opaque, vastly complicated and technical, and when there is a nigh unanimous consensus against such theories. Conversely, what response can there possibly be to acknowledgment and subsequent dismissal of the Holocaust, followed by a quick, succinct negation that it be permitted to be used as a shakedown instrument or as a bludgeoning tool to silence criticism of Jewish interests collectively and to foster Kriegschuld and white guilt complexes and other pathologies that Jewish interests seek to engender in the European soul?

While many will nonetheless balk at any pushback to the Holocaust and the many nefarious ways it is used both to advance Jewish interests and harm the interests of white European gentiles6, this strategy does not invoke the same Pavlovian response programmed in large swathes of the population. Nor does it incur legal liability. This strategy is tantamount to stating “The Holocaust is a mere detail in history.” The manner in which a rhetorical strategy is dismissive of the importance and singularity of the Holocaust can vary from the obtuse, to the delicate, to bluntly, flippantly stating “I do not care,” to more tactful language expressing measured regard for the loss of life, before placing this morose, morbid hobbyhorse in its proper context: the context of the incomprehensible scale of killing and murder that took place through much of the 20th Century. Redirecting and limiting this topic to its proper context allows for other possibilities, including asking why the French Railway was extorted for 30 million dollars, on top of some six billion paid by the French government, to benefit each survivor (and those who benefit from an inheritance) some $400,000 each,7 while those who survived the rape, murder and pillage of the Red Army in East Prussia, Silesia, and the rest of the lost territories take nothing.

However obtuse or delicate one chooses to be, it is of no pressing concern the degree to which the Holocaust happened as asserted; whether six million Jews died, 270,000 Jews died, or somewhere in between, the primary concern must always be how European peoples are on an accelerated trajectory to racial suicide and civilizational ruin because of the demographic winter, the infusion of alien, third world peoples, and other phenomena in the modern world: phenomena which are a direct result of American hegemony, of the Allies’ way of doing things. This last consideration allows one to pivot to how Jewish elements in Cultural Marxism and the “march through the institutions” are a significant predicate for the existential perils the peoples of Europe face.

In many ways, those interested in Holocaust denial and revisionism are reacting to Jewish talking points, in the same way mainstream conservatives often allow themselves to accept the terms of discourse when they adopt leftist nomenclature, buzzwords, and slogans about “racism,” “sexism,” and the like. They are addressing the argument on the terms set by their ideological enemies. Dismissing the Holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” or even stating “I really do not care whether it happened or not, I care about the future of my own people” is a bold counterstroke that displaces the opposition from any sound footing, and obliges them to react to this rhetoric, either with talking points about why the Jewish people are somehow deserving of special consideration or other rhetoric that smacks of Jewish in-group preference.

As is so often the case, the best strategy in rhetoric and persuasion involves a steadfast refusal to address the issue at hand on those terms insisted by one’s ideological enemies. Anything other than some variance between an outright indifference or a refusal to pander to the manipulative rhetoric characteristic of the Holocaust industry and the syndicate of Jewish interest groups still addresses the issues on the terms set by Jewish interests. This is true even in a hopeless effort to refute the historical consensus that has been established. Disregarding these terms and focusing matters on those terms demanded by the dissident populist right seizes the initiative, sets our own terms as the parameter, and puts the shills off balance. Figures insisted by historical consensus only matter so long as people regard the Holocaust to have such undeserved import. Regardless of history, regardless of how many Jews were killed (or not killed), these insidious elements of Jewish influence and power must be resisted and stopped.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

_______________________________________________________

Please check out my new substack page, The Raven’s Call, featuring essays and other writing with a unique, hard-right perspective!

Notes

  1. For the purposes of this essay, this movement to question the historical consensus regarding the Holocaust will be hereinafter referred to as “Holocaust revisionism.” Describing the historical consensus as such is not necessarily an endorsement, but is simply descriptive of “the facts on the ground.”

2. For the purposes of this essay, this movement to question the historical consensus regarding the Holocaust will be hereinafter referred to as “Holocaust revisionism.” Describing the historical consensus as such is not necessarily an endorsement, but is simply descriptive of “the facts on the ground.”

3.Internet queries indicate Simon Wiesenthal presented a number of 11 million, with six million Jews and five million non-Jews fabricated to garner gentile sympathy. The Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center flatly concedes the five million figure is made up, but then goes on to claim many more millions more died because of the Nazis.

4

Germany alone, on top of almost 90 billion to Holocaust survivors, has given Israel almost 30 billion. The Luxemburg Agreement, adjusted for inflation, amounts to some 18 billion West Germany gave to Israel, with another six to eight billion in military aid after. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt documents that the United States had provided Israel with approximately $154 billion (non-inflation-adjusted) in total aid from 1948 to 2006. That book was published almost twenty years ago, so an estimate of over 80 billion (100-110 billion adjusted for inflation) can be added to this sum.

5

For a basic primer on this topic, the author recommends Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2006); Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947 (Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010); and the first half of Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation.

 

6

Section 130 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) generally criminalizes the denial, approval, or gross trivialization. Would expression of indifference, either absolute or relative, be tantamount to gross trivialization? This is unclear, but attempts to prosecute opinions that concede established historical consensus and then express relative or absolute indifference might go too far in the minds of many of a more mainstream persuasion. Denial or repudiation of what has (rightly or wrongly) been established as fact has some nexus in legal doctrines like defamation, false advertising and the like. Attempts to prosecute those who do not care to the degree desired is on another level entirely. Of course, the puppet state in Germany has been prosecuting those who rightly denounce the influx of migrants and other thought crimes, but that has been met with considerable controversy, war guilt and decades of brainwashing notwithstanding.

7

This, among many other things, was discussed in Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry. It is of note that any notion of culpability in such circumstances flies in the face of criminal law doctrine, at least in the Anglo-American system. In American Criminal law, if a person is coerced at gunpoint to act as a get away driver for a bank robbert that results in felony murder, such coercion is an absolute defense. The French people and the French railway were, quite obviously, under German occupation. There cannot be a greater case for coercion than looking down the barrel of a Mauser rifle.

The October 7 Shock Is Driving Some Jews to Trump.

/8 Comments/in /by

Just as the upheavals of the 1960s sent led to neoconservatism among a significant number of Jews, the shock of October 7 has once again opened a path rightward—this time toward sitting President Donald Trump.

Bill Ackman, billionaire hedge fund CEO and Harvard alumnus, became the most visible example. Starting November 2023, Ackman became obsessed with campus antisemitism at his alma mater. In an open letter to then-Harvard President Claudine Gay, he wrote: “The situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.” He detailed how “Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted.” Ackman warned that failure to act could jeopardize “important sources of Harvard’s revenues.” Claudine Gay was replaced by a Jewish interim president.

In October 2024, explaining his Trump endorsement, Ackman wrote: “A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support @realDonaldTrump for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats.” He emphasized: “Some have accused me of supporting Trump because doing so will somehow benefit me financially. Fortunately, I do not need any financial benefits as I and my family have well more than we need.”

Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, donated over $100 million to pro-Trump groups in 2024, emerging as Trump’s single largest donor. While the Adelsons had long been Republican megadonors, Miriam’s massive 2024 spending reflected intensified commitment following October 7. At the Israeli Knesset, Trump acknowledged her influence, stating she “loves Israel maybe even more than America.” Her contributions, along with those of other Jewish billionaires such as Jeffrey Yass, Paul Singer, Jan Koum, and the late Bernie Marcus have “pulled public policy on Israel away from the general public’s opinion,” noted Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, a more moderate-presenting pro-Israel lobbying organization.

Marc Rowan, billionaire CEO of Apollo Global Management, emerged after October 7 as a prominent voice pushing universities to address campus antisemitism. He lambasted the University of Pennsylvania’s response, telling CNBC show Squawk Box: “Microaggressions are condemned with extreme moral outrage and yet violence, particularly violence against Jews, antisemitism, seems to have found a place of tolerance on the campus.” Rowan has a history of donating to both parties. For example, he has donated to Democratic senators such as Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harry Reid, and Blanche Lincoln. By late 2024, Rowan was reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for Treasury Secretary.

Political activist Shabbos Kestenbaum personified the Jewish Democratic-to-Trump convert. A Harvard Divinity School graduate and registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders, Jamaal Bowman, and Joe Biden, Kestenbaum announced his Trump endorsement in September 2024. Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition convention, he explained: “I did not support Trump in 2016, I did not support Trump in 2020. Hell, I did not support Trump six months ago. Nobody’s perfect.” However, he stressed, “The Democratic party has taken the Jewish vote and Jewish voters for granted for far too long. I will be supporting, I will be endorsing, I will be voting for President Trump.”

Kestenbaum revealed that after months of attempting to cooperate with the Harris campaign, as well as with the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress, Kestenbaum ultimately concluded that although he hadn’t voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, he would back him in 2024, believing Trump to be the “only realistic and viable option for American Jewry.” He stressed: “The Trump campaign invited me and other college students to sit, front row, as President Trump not only condemned antisemitism but clearly articulated the policies he would implement to combat it. The Harris campaign delivered no such promises.” Despite supporting Trump, Kestenbaum maintained he still backs progressive policies including a $15 minimum wage, reproductive choice, and progressive taxation. He proclaimed, “I did not abandon the Democratic party. The Democratic party abandoned me.”

Polling data reveals modest but measurable rightward movement among Jewish voters post-October 7, though the majority has remained Democratic. Vice President Kamala Harris won 71% of the Jewish vote compared to 26% for Trump, according to the Jewish Electorate Institute. However, Trump’s 32% share according to Fox News exit polling marked “the highest number for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988.” The Republican Jewish Coalition emphasized Trump’s historic gains with Jewish voters: 38% in Arizona, 42% in Nevada, 44% in Florida, 46% in New York, and 41% in Pennsylvania.

The most remarkable shift occurred among Orthodox Jews, who voted for Trump at 74%. This contrasted sharply with Reform Jews (84% for Harris), Conservative Jews (75% for Harris), and non-denominational Jews (70% for Harris).

A 2025 UJA-Federation of New York study found that 22% of Jewish New Yorkers reported becoming more conservative since October 7, compared to 13% who became more liberal, while 65% reported no change. Among those already conservative in 2023, 46% became even more conservative by 2025. Additionally, 49% reported their attachment to Israel had become stronger since October 7, especially among moderates (70%) and conservatives (62%), compared to just 33% of liberals.

In sum, the evidence indicates an emerging trend rather than wholesale realignment, but the direction is unmistakable. What’s unfolding with American Jewry’s rightward shift isn’t a principled conversion but a strategic repositioning. Jewish political activists have mastered the art of maintaining powerful voices across the entire political spectrum, ensuring that no matter which faction gains power, Jewish interests are represented at the highest levels and their racial will to power is realized.

The neoconservatives of the 1960s perfected this playbook. They did not simply defect from the Left; they penetrated the conservative movement, refashioned it, and aligned its priorities with their own communal interests. The consequences were unmistakable. Figures on the Right who once embodied older traditions—skepticism of mass migration, hostility toward compulsory racial integration, and opposition to foreign entanglements—were steadily purged from positions of influence and denied any real livelihood within Conservatism Inc. In their place, a cadre of Jewish neoconservative operatives rose to the helm and steered the movement according to their own ethnic imperatives.

What we are witnessing is not a political anomaly but an attempt at historical recurrence. Just as in the 1960s–1990s, Jewish power brokers are trying to reorganize the Right to their advantage, and at least some in the conservative movement are knuckling under to their influence. There is a pervasive fear among conservatives opposed to this influence that the GOP will revert to its neoconservative trajectory when Trump leaves —although Trump himself has obviously made peace with the pro-Israel pro-intervention activists, many of whom, like Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol deserted him in 2016. How else explain the U.S. joining Israel in bombing Iran? Indeed, the neocons never really left their positions of power in the foreign policy establishment.

The problem for the neocons this time around is that in the pre-internet, pre-podcast 1960s–1980s there were no popular voices representing paleoconservative ideas and the mainstream media was completely locked down with pro-Israel shills and didn’t raise a peep when paleoconservatives were pushed out of positions of power in mainstream conservativism during the Reagan administration. Now there are voices like Tucker Carlson with very large followings who have continued to be part of the mainstream Right despite being called “anti-Semites,” despite their opposition to foreign entanglements (not only in the Middle East but also in Ukraine), despite their open criticism of the Israel Lobby and advocating that pro-Israel organizations be forced to register as foreign agents, despite calling Christian Zionism a “heresy,” and despite their open hostility to figures like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz with their often-declared fealty to Israel despite its ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and its genocide in Gaza.

So this isn’t over. Jewish neocons have been around for a long time and anyone paying attention sees them coming and knows them for what they are: Jewish ethnic activists who see genuine American interests as a distant second to their overriding concern with Jewish interests. Or they are ambitious traitors like Cruz who believe that continuing to support neoconservative ideas on foreign policy is the key to attaining the White House. In other words, a typical sociopathic American politician for whom power is all that matters.

 

The Real Story Behind Trump’s Pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández

/6 Comments/in , /by

The story of a man who turned a lifetime of pro-Israel service into the ultimate form of political protection.

The news came in quietly from a federal prison in West Virginia. Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras once sentenced to spend most of the rest of his life behind bars, had walked out of Hazelton penitentiary a free man.

According to an AP report, Hernández had received a presidential pardon from Donald Trump after a conviction that tied him to hundreds of tons of cocaine shipped into the United States. On paper, this was a spectacular reversal of fortune for a man whom federal prosecutors had branded the head of a Central American narco state. In practice, it looked like something else. It looked like a reward for loyalty to the one cause that towers above all others in Washington and in Trump world.

Hernández did not rise overnight. He entered Congress in the late 1990s, representing the rural department of Lempira, and spent more than a decade climbing inside the National Party machine. He then became president of the National Congress and finally president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022. While he projected the image of a tough conservative modernizer at home, another storyline unfolded in U.S. courtrooms.

Federal prosecutors charged him with a vast cocaine conspiracy involving the movement of multi-ton loads into the United States and with the possession of machine guns and other weapons in support of that network. The Justice Department later described his administration as a narco state fueled by millions in cartel bribes. Testimony and media investigations painted an even darker picture. According to Democracy Now, Hernández allegedly used Honduran security forces to protect drug shipments, partnered with major traffickers including the Sinaloa cartel, and used drug money to build his own political power. His brother Tony Hernández ended up with a life sentence in a U.S. prison on similar charges.

Court filings and investigative reports in outlets like CNN repeatedly tied the sitting Honduran president to drug traffickers. U.S. prosecutors said he took payoffs from drug networks as early as 2004. Hernández’s story also intersected with one of Honduras’s most prominent Jewish families. Prosecutors alleged that he received bribe payments and other favors from the Rosenthal family, a powerful clan of Romanian-Jewish origin led by Jaime Rosenthal, whose Grupo Continental controlled Banco Continental, a soccer club, and auto import businesses, as reported by Reuters.

The Rosenthal patriarch, a frequent Liberal Party presidential hopeful of Romanian Jewish extraction, stood near the top of the Honduran economic and political pyramid for decades. For his part, Hernández treated that network as another source of money and influence. A Univision investigation detailed allegations that he used drug money to finance political campaigns. After his arrest, Honduran authorities seized dozens of properties, vehicles, businesses, and other assets linked to his family.

The saga culminated in extradition to the United States in 2022. A New York jury convicted Hernández in March 2024, and a federal judge handed down a 45-year sentence plus supervised release in June of that year. By any normal standard, this was the end of the story. A disgraced former head of state, proven in court to have worked hand in glove with drug traffickers, destined to spend the rest of his days in prison.

However, Hernández did not bet his future on normal standards. For decades, he had invested in a different kind of protection. That protection wore a blue and white flag with a Star of David at the center.

His relationship with Israel began long before he held national office. As a young man in the early 1990s, Hernández traveled to Israel under the auspices of Mashav, the Israeli Agency for International Development Cooperation. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted that he completed a Mashav enrichment course in 1992, at the beginning of his diplomatic career.

Three decades later, at the opening of the Honduran embassy in Jerusalem, Hernández stood before an audience and called that first visit to Israel a “life-changing” experience. He said the trip had shaped his view of security, agriculture, and innovation.

Once he entered the presidential palace, Hernández turned that personal link into state doctrine. In October 2015, he arrived in Jerusalem as head of state and told an audience convened by the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and the World Jewish Congress that “As long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel.” The World Jewish Congress described the event in glowing terms and singled out his declaration that ties between the two countries had never been closer.

This was not idle rhetoric. Hernández set out to reposition Honduras as one of the most reliable pro-Israel governments in Latin America. Honduran and Israeli diplomats had initially signed formal relations in the 1950s, and Honduras had allowed Jewish immigration during the Second World War. Under Hernández, those historical connections became the foundation for a new foreign policy.

He adjusted the Honduran voting record at the United Nations so that his country would abstain from or oppose resolutions deemed hostile to Israeli interests. During the 2017 General Assembly vote that condemned the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem, Honduras was one of only a tiny group of countries that sided with Washington and Israel against the overwhelming majority.

Hernández also opened a diplomatic and trade office in Jerusalem, signaling recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. He then promised to relocate the full Honduran embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, issuing joint statements with Israeli and U.S. officials that set public deadlines for that step. In June 2021, he completed the move. At the inauguration, Hernández proclaimed that he was “here today in the eternal capital of Israel” and vowed to work “against antisemitism, often presented as anti Zionism,” as quoted by Israel Hayom.

Israel rewarded this loyalty with gestures of its own. It agreed to reopen its embassy in Tegucigalpa and provided security cooperation, technical assistance and emergency relief after devastating hurricanes and during the early stages of the COVID era.

Furthermore, Hernández pushed Honduras into the orbit of Christian Zionist networks. The Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, an institution that promotes Christian support for Israel and campaigns against antisemitism and BDS, gave him its Friends of Zion Award in 2019 for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and for his diplomatic support. The Friends of Zion Museum and the Jerusalem Post emphasized that he now shared an honor roll with figures like Donald Trump and other leaders celebrated for their pro-Israel policies.

In the security arena, Hernández took positions that aligned perfectly with Washington and Tel Aviv. His government designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a move welcomed by major American Jewish groups. This decision mirrored similar steps by other U.S.-aligned governments in the region–such as Argentina under Mauricio Macri–and confirmed that Tegucigalpa had no intention of straying from the Judeo-American consensus on Middle East security.

Even when the walls began to close in, Hernández treated Israel as his ultimate safety net. As his legal exposure increased and the prospect of extradition grew more likely, he reportedly turned to Israeli officials to ask for help in delaying or preventing his transfer to U.S. authorities. The Times of Israel reported that plea and underscored Hernández’s assumption that his years of unwavering support had earned him political capital in Jerusalem.

That calculation looked naïve when he arrived in New York in chains. It looks far more rational now that Donald Trump has delivered a pardon.

Trump himself cultivated a brand as perhaps the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S embassy there, backed the annexation of the Golan Heights, and surrounded himself with advisers and donors who made support for Israel a central test of loyalty. The Friends of Zion Museum honored him with the same award it later gave Hernández, presenting both men as partners in a shared historic mission.

So when Trump announced in late 2025 that he would pardon Hernández, it was natural for mainstream outlets to emphasize the legal controversy and the scale of the drug conspiracy. But there is another thread that runs from the Mashav classroom in the early 1990 to the Jerusalem embassy ribbon cutting to the moment the gates opened at Hazelton. That thread is the politics of Zionism in the Americas and the unwritten rule that governs advancement and protection in that world.

Hernández spent his adult life proving that he would stand behind Israel. He did it in the United Nations chamber, in ceremonial torch-lighting invitations, in embassy relocations, in his fights against BDS and in his designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. He did it in speeches where he promised that “as long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel” and in the moment when he described Jerusalem as the “eternal capital of Israel.”

Trump saw that record and recognized a fellow shabbos goy. He understood that this was not just a corrupt Central American politician but a loyal member of a global pro-Israel camp who had delivered meaningful victories in a region where Israel has long worked to secure dependable allies. In a political universe where servility to world J ewry carries more weight than any anti-corruption sermon, Hernández did not just have a lawyer. He had a patron.

The pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández is therefore more than a quirky case of presidential clemency. It is a message about the real hierarchy of values in U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era. Flooding American streets with cocaine will not necessarily erase your credit if you have spent years moving embassies to Jerusalem, voting the right way at the United Nations, and branding your small Central American country as an extension of Israel’s diplomatic network.

In that world, a man who helped turn his own nation into a narco playground can still find a way out of a 45-year sentence, as long as his record on Zionism is pure and his friendship with the most pro-Zionist president in modern U.S. history remains intact. For Juan Orlando Hernández, that friendship did not simply buy influence. It bought his freedom.

From José Niño Unfiltered on Substack. Definitely worth supporting.

Israeli-tainted Irishman slithers into World Bank job

/6 Comments/in /by

Paschal O’Donohoe with Janet Yellen

Paschal O’Donohoe has been Finance Minister here for eight years, on and off. He has wrecked the place. Now he is moving onto the world stage. God help the world.

“Paschal brings more than twenty years of public service, and knows firsthand how good policies can unleash private capital mobilization, boost growth, and generate jobs,” said World Bank Group President Ajay Banga.

His main “good policy” was the importation of at least a million foreigners in ten years. He did it in the face of sustained widespread protests. We ethnic Irish are only 4 million and there are at least 1.5million foreigners. As Paschal jets off to the U.S., the foreigners are pouring in it at at least 120,000 a year and quite possibly twice that.. The government and every single opposition party supports Paschal’s latest plan (“Future Forty: Ireland’s demographic outlook”) which burbles cheerfully that our aging population needs lots of immigration. They predict a total population of close to eight million by 2065. At the rate they are flooding in, it might be sooner than that. At the same time, politicians reassure us that there is too much immigration and that they are doing things to reduce it. It is pure Doublespeak.

Paschal is the smiling, mild-mannered mastermind of the Great Replacement in the Emerald Isle. They have promoted him as a reward. He is delighted with himself and cannot wait to leave boring old Ireland and strut his stuff in Washington, DC.

Unless we stop him, he will Great Replace the whole world. Even the African will not be immune from Paschal’s enthusiasm. Already in the Ivory Coast and in South Africa, African governments are importing foreign blacks. What madness will Paschal do in Africa?

He boasted on radio that his main achievement was that there were a half million more people working in Ireland than when he started. He is happy with the disastrous and hugely unpopular mass migration.

He smirks that he will get on fine with Trump who is continuing to fund and participate in the World Bank. He knows Trump is on Team Israel, and so is Paschal. Paschal is very much on Team Israel.

Paschal spent six years in Britain working for Proctor and Gamble. Did he make his first Jewish contacts there? The Israelis clearly love him and he loves them. Since 2018 Irish politicians have supported a bill to boycott products from Israel’s occupied territories. Although almost every single politician supports the boycott in principle, they have not managed to pass the law. Even the two years of Gaza massacres could not speed things up.

The Ditch.com reports that in 2019 Paschal took a call from Israeli finance minister Moshe Kahlon. They want him to stop the bill. Don’t worry, he tells them. We’ll slow it down. And he did. They still haven’t passed the bill, six years later.

Paschal denies that “a call of that nature” ever happened. He helpfully added that he would make no further comment.

But he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Perhaps in his new job, some journalist will be brave enough to ask him about that call. They should also ask him if he ever met Epstein. Jeffrey stopped in Ireland three times. The dates fit, so it’s possible.

For context, an Irishman who wished to call the Minister and discuss some matter of concern would be insulted, patronised and openly threatened if he persisted in trying to contact the Minister. Our ever so-sensitive Simon Harris is our new Finance Minister. He recently got the cops to arrest a civilian employee of theirs working in cyber crime. The cyber guy is accused of making threats against Simon who is possibly Jewish. But it seems that he was just posing questions. I wonder what questions they were?

When Paschal was a young man, the Irish government was able to pass a law in 24 hours. It was written, debated, voted and signed by the President in that time. It was brought in to benefit one man: The Irishman with the Anglo-Jewish surname, the fabulously wealthy beef baron Larry Goodman. Larry had sold a couple of hundred million of beef on credit to Saddam Hussein. When the war came, Larry had a cashflow problem. So he made the call and got the government to jump to it and pass a law.

Is it not a remarkable contrast how quickly they passed the Goodman law and how they still cannot pass the Palestine law? No wonder the Israelis closed their Dublin embassy. They don’t need it. The Israeli minister calls the Irish minister in charge and Paddy just does what he is asked to do.

Paschal served the Israelis as Irish Finance minister. He will serve them in the World Bank also.

A Modest proposal to deal with Paschal.

Let’s drive him to a total nervous breakdown. He is half mad already. If he gets lots of in your face anti-migration, anti-Israel sentiment in his circles in Washington, this will have an effect ón him. A cabinet colleague of his, Eoghan Murphy, went mad while in office. On an escape holiday to London, he ended up running through the streets all night in a panic. He attributed his breakdown to critical remarks to his face by members of the general public and the evil nature of his political colleagues. Murphy says he was trying to do something positive for housing, but it was clear that Paschal and Leo Varadkar didn’t care.

Trump is talking tough about deporting the Third World. One growl from Trump, or even Vance and Paschal would scuttle back home. Can US politicians be incentivised to criticise Paschal for the darkie disaster he has inflicted ón Ireland and plans to inflict on the whole world, including Africa? Can Irish Americans call for his deportation because of his treachery to dear old Ireland? Can the anti-Epstein lobby jump on him? After all, he paid the monies for the airport authorities who lost the Epstein flight logs and never investigated it. Can Black politicians attack him? He is going to mess around with tribal dynamics in Mother Africa. Can some decent trad Catholic bishop roast him as a baby killer? He signed the check for every fully funded recreational abortion.

Can the suddenly huge anti-Israel lobby in the US attack him? Would Carlson Tucker do an interview with him and ask him about his support for Israel? Paschal has enabled the Gaza massacres — the quickest route for US-Israeli arms shipments is through Irish skies. Sometimes they even stop and refuel in Shannon. Paschal’s government has strongly condemned the genocide but it has not stopped Israelis flying their weapons through.

Under his rule, Ireland is the second biggest market for Israeli goods — machinery and electronics mostly. (We also export huge amounts of blood and blood products to our Israeli fellow humans, although the Irish Blood Transfusion Board deny this completely. Central Statistics Office numbers aggregate our animal and human blood exports. Strange that they aggregated those numbers…)

As a deliberate distraction media here is full of talk about Israel in the Eurovision song contest and the possibility of switching the name Herzog Park to commemorate instead an innocent Palestinian child killed by the Israelis. Jewish voices, including a chap from Holocaust Awareness Ireland, strongly argued against this name change, claiming that it would mean an erasure of their history.

Paschal portrays himself as a pleasant, good-as-gold,Mommy’s Boy type. Slightly autistic genius — he has collections of various dolls. He is supposedly heterosexual and married with children. It seems the wife and family will stay in Dublin as Paschal goes to Great Replace the world from his Washington DC office.

He is potentially vulnerable to good looking young men or women who have hidden cameras. Get him talking on the subject of mass migration and you could have some dynamite quotes. Mememasters can have great fun with his flabby and ugly face.

The previous World bank MD lasted 37 years. Let us push Paschal out in one.

Beir Bua!

Ganainm publishes at https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/.

Legale Hexerei und Umkehrung der Opferrolle

/in /by

Trotz der lobenswerten Bemühungen von Präsident Donald Trump und Außenminister Marco Rubio, die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit auf die zunehmende Unterdrückung der Meinungsfreiheit in der EU aufmerksam zu machen, sind sowjetische Rechtspraktiken in bestimmten Bereichen der EU-Justiz nach wie vor weit verbreitet. Um es klarzustellen: Der Zweite Weltkrieg ist nie wirklich beendet worden; er befindet sich lediglich in einem verlängerten verbalen Konflikt, der möglicherweise wieder gewalttätige und kriegerische Ausmaße annehmen könnte.

Der jüngste Fall ist der von Martin Pfeiffer, dem ehemaligen österreichischen Redakteur der inzwischen eingestellten Literaturzeitschrift Die Aula, der am 3. Dezember dieses Jahres wegen „erneuter Beteiligung an nationalsozialistischen Aktivitäten“ gemäß Paragraph 3g des Verbotsgesetzes zu vier Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt wurde .

Die Staatsanwaltschaft hatte rund 300 Artikel aus der inzwischen eingestellten Zeitschrift „Aula“ vorgelegt, die unter anderem rassistische Ideologie und Antisemitismus verbreitet haben sollen. Diese Artikel wurden während der teils langwierigen Verhandlungstage einzeln mit der Jury besprochen. Pfeiffer, damals Chefredakteur und gleichzeitig Bezirksabgeordneter der FPÖ in Graz, hat alle Vorwürfe stets zurückgewiesen. Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft ihm vor, in „Aula“ Rassismus, die Lehre von der Herrenrasse und ethnischem Nationalismus, ein biologisch rassistisches Konzept des „Volkes“ sowie nationalsozialistische Rassentheorien verbreitet zu haben.

Die Zeitschrift befasste sich selten mit ideologischen Themen, sondern konzentrierte sich stattdessen auf kulturelle Themen und die Idee des Imperiums – Themen, die eng mit der konservativen Partei Österreichs, der FPÖ, verbunden sind.

Auffällig ist, dass die Gesetze, auf deren Grundlage Pfeiffer angeklagt wurde – insbesondere Paragraph 3g des 1947 erlassenen Verbotsgesetzes – aus der Zeit stammen, als Österreich noch unter der gemeinsamen Besatzung der vier Alliierten stand: Sowjetunion, USA, Großbritannien und Frankreich. Zudem wurde Pfeiffer rückwirkend für Artikel angeklagt, die er zwischen 2005 und 2018 veröffentlicht hatte – in einigen Fällen mehr als fünfzehn Jahre zuvor. Die Justiz in Graz ignorierte dabei sowohl die Verjährungsfrist als auch den Grundsatz „ nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege“ („Kein Verbrechen, keine Strafe ohne vorheriges Gesetz“). Die hochgradig abstrakten, fast unübersetzbaren zusammengesetzten Substantive des deutschen/österreichischen Rechtsjargons – „Wiederbetätigung“, „Volksverhetzung“, usw. – entziehen sich einer präzisen Wiedergabe ins Englische, was ihre Undurchsichtigkeit nur noch verstärkt, wenn man sie aus der Perspektive eines amerikanischen Juristen betrachtet.

Der Fall Pfeiffer zeigt, dass jeder abweichende Autor – ungeachtet seiner politischen Überzeugung oder Nationalität – rückwirkend strafrechtlich verfolgt werden kann, wenn die herrschende Klasse ihn als Störfaktor betrachtet. Diese Taktik der gezielten Verfolgung von „Volksfeinden“ war ein gängiges Instrument der Justiz im gesamten ehemaligen kommunistischen Osteuropa.

Nebenbei bemerkt: Pfeiffers Prozess weist frappierende Ähnlichkeiten mit den zahlreichen Schauprozessen im kommunistischen Jugoslawien auf. 1984 wurde mein verstorbener Vater, ein katholischer Konservativer und ehemaliger Anwalt, wegen „feindlicher Propaganda“ gemäß Artikel 133 des jugoslawischen Strafgesetzbuches („neprijateljska propaganda“, YU-KZ) zu vier Jahren Haft verurteilt. Er hatte anonyme kritische Artikel für die in London erscheinende, zweiwöchentlich erscheinende kroatische Emigrantenzeitschrift „Nova Hrvatska“ verfasst und darin die brutale Unterdrückung begangen zu haben. Deutsche Nationalisten bezeichnen solche denunzianten- NGOs verächtlich als „ Gutmenschen “; ihre französischen Pendants heißen „bien-pensants“ . Im Klartext: Diese sogenannten NGOs stellen die akademische Gedankenpolizei dar.

Am besorgniserregendsten ist jedoch das Klima der angstbedingten Selbstzensur unter europäischen Akademikern. Viele glauben, dass sie ihre Karrieren und Privilegien am besten sichern können, indem sie unpolitisch bleiben, schweigen und keine Wellen schlagen – ein fataler Irrglaube, der von Dissidenten in den ehemaligen kommunistischen Ländern Osteuropas längst widerlegt wurde. Früher oder später wird die Gesinnungspolizei vor ihrer Tür stehen, ungeachtet dessen, wie zurückhaltend sie in ihren früheren politischen Aktivitäten waren.

Im modernen Westen sind Gulags und Erschießungskommandos überflüssig, da raffiniertere Repressionsmethoden weitaus effektiver geworden sind: „Deplatforming“, „Debanking“ oder, noch schlimmer, das, was die Franzosen „ l’inversion accusatoire “ – die „Umkehrung der Anschuldigung“ – nennen. Vereinfacht gesagt bedeutet dies „Umkehrung der Opferrolle“, eine Technik, die einst in der kommunistischen Justiz Osteuropas üblich war: Um die eigenen schweren Verbrechen zu vertuschen, beschuldigt man die Gegenseite noch größerer Verbrechen. Die Dynamik der gegenseitigen Umkehrung der Opferrolle ist heute im Konflikt zwischen der Hamas und der israelischen Armee sichtbar, und viele weitere werden in Kürze folgen.

Viele der juristischen und rhetorischen Taktiken, die jüngst gegen Präsident Trump eingesetzt wurden, haben ihre Wurzeln in der multiethnischen Sowjetunion und im ehemaligen kommunistischen Osteuropa. Folglich greifen europäische Staatsanwälte und Medien bereitwillig zu denselben kommunistischen Schimpfwörtern – „Nazi“, „Ustascha“, „Antisemit“, „White Supremacist“, „Rassist“ –, um politische Dissidenten zu entmenschlichen, während sie die Millionen Opfer kommunistischer Regime zwischen 1945 und 1950 fast nie erwähnen. Präsident Trump ist sich dieser juristischen und semantischen Verschiebungen sicherlich bewusst, da er selbst ähnliche juristische Angriffe seiner inneren Gegner erlitten hat . Die langfristigen Folgen dieser juristischen Farce in der EU und den USA sind völlig vorhersehbar: wachsendes gegenseitiges Misstrauen, eskalierende Konflikte zwischen verschiedenen Ethnien und Bevölkerungsgruppen, institutioneller Zusammenbruch und letztlich der Zusammenbruch des Systems.

Anmerkungen:

Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (Wien und Leipzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997), S. 74.

Alain de Benoist, „Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition“, in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), S. 190–205.

 

Der folgende Artikel wurde erstmals in The Occidental Observer, am 6. Dezember, 2025 veröffentlicht. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/12/06/legal-witchcraft-and-victimhood-inversion/

Legal Witchcraft and Victimhood Inversion theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/12/06/leg…

 

 

Legal Witchcraft and Victimhood Inversion

/11 Comments/in , /by

Honoré Daumier (1808–1879), Two Lawyers Conversing

Despite the commendable efforts of President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio to alert the American public to the rising tide of free-speech suppression in the EU, Soviet-style legal practices in certain segments of the EU judiciary remain very much alive and kicking. Let us be clear: The Second World War has never really ended; it has merely entered a prolonged verbal conflict, potentially on track to assume again violent and war-like dimensions.

The latest case is that of Martin Pfeiffer, former Austrian editor of the now defunct literary magazine Die Aula, who was sentenced on December 3 of this year to four years in prison for “re-engagement in National Socialist activities” under Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz).

The prosecution had listed approximately 300 articles from the now-defunct magazine, which allegedly propagated, among other things, racial ideology and antisemitism. These articles were discussed individually with the jury during sometimes lengthy trial days. Pfeiffer, who was editor-in-chief at the time, was also a district politician for the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Graz and has consistently denied all charges. The prosecution alleges that he provided a platform in “Aula” for racism, master race and ethnic nationalism, a biologically racist concept of “the people,” and National Socialist racial theories.

The magazine  rarely dealt with ideological subjects, focusing instead on cultural themes and the idea of empire—topics closely associated with the conservative party in Austria, the FPÖ.

What is striking is that the laws under which Pfeiffer was indicted—particularly Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz), enacted in 1947—date from the period when Austria was still under the joint occupation of the four Allied powers: the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom, and France. Moreover, Pfeiffer was prosecuted retroactively for articles he had published between 2005 and 2018—in some cases more than fifteen years earlier. The judiciary in the city  of Graz  simply brushed aside both the statute of limitations and the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (“no crime, no punishment without prior law”). The highly abstract, almost untranslatable compound nouns of German/Austrian legal jargon—Wiederbetätigung (“re-engagement”), Volksverhetzung (“incitement to hatred of the people”), etc., defy precise rendering into English, which only adds to their opacity when viewed through the lens of an American lawyer.

Pfeiffer’s case demonstrates that any dissident author—regardless of his political persuasion or nationality—can be subjected to ex post facto prosecution if the ruling class deems him a nuisance. This tactic of selectively targeting “enemies of the people” was a standard tool of the judiciary throughout former communist Eastern Europe.

In passing, it is worth noting that Pfeiffer’s trial bears a striking resemblance to the many show trials of communist Yugoslavia. In 1984, my late father, a Catholic conservative and former attorney, was sentenced to four years in prison for “hostile propaganda” under Article 133 of the Yugoslav Criminal Code (neprijateljska propaganda, YU-KZ). He had written anonymous critical articles for the London-based Croatian émigré bi-weekly Nova Hrvatska, exposing the communist regime’s harsh repression of the Croatian Catholic Church and culture. He was subsequently adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International and championed by U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, Senator Bob Dole, and several other conservative politicians and journalists, among them Pat Buchanan.

There is a far more scarry dimension to the Pfeiffer’s story. After 1945, both the United States and the nations of Europe were compelled to adopt the model of the “proposition nation”—an abstract political community defined not by historical continuity, race or shared culture, but by universalist, immigrant-welcoming, open-entry-for-all principles. The mass influx of non-European migrants into the EU over the past decade was therefore entirely predictable: it was the logical, even deliberate, outcome of the post-war Allied strategy to suppress Europe’s historic interethnic tensions by diluting the cultural and racial homogeneity of its peoples. Likewise, the introduction of the Schengen open-border regime in 1985 (fully implemented in the 1990s) was perfectly in accordance  with the liberal-capitalist dogma of the “free movement of people and capital.”

Germany was particularly affected by these capitalist open-border policies. As the late German legal scholar Günther Maschke observed, “The German people had to adapt to the constitution, instead of the constitution being adapted to the German people.” German constitutionalism, he continued, has become a kind of “civil religion” in which multiculturalism has replaced traditional national identity with a purely legal construct—what Maschke called an imaginary “Basic Law country.” When this is combined with the quasi-sacralized, unquestionable historical narrative of the Holocaust, the result is a birth of a political entity that should be seen as a “secular theocracy.” Within this framework, the only form of patriotism still tolerated in Germany and Austria is Verfassungspatriotismus—constitutional patriotism.(1)

Victimhood Inversion

Today, core elements of the German and Austrian Criminal Code function in some ways reminiscent of former Soviet criminal law. Germany and Austria must demonstrate, daily, that they can meet their “self-re-education tasks” even more rigorously than its post-WWII mentors. Comparable dynamics exist in other EU member states, where semantic drifts have turned the charges of fascism into an all-purpose label of the ultimate cosmic evil.

Despite the phenomenal rise of right-wing parties across the EU, many judicial institutions—both in Europe and in the United States—remain largely staffed by judges and prosecutors from the post-1968 Marxist-inspired “boomer” generation, along with various former left-wing Antifa activists, modern SJWs and virtue-signalers (2). These judges and prosecutors make little effort to conceal their hatred (and fear) of Trump, while also displaying open hostility toward right-wing populist movements and parties such as the growing AfD in Germany or the FPÖ in Austria. In addition, a network of influential and wealthy non-governmental organizations across Europe, such as the CRIF and LICRA in France, the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung in Germany, and the hard-left DÖW in Austria—operate in a manner comparable to U.S. advocacy groups such as the  ADL or the SPLC. Their primary function, very similar to that of the old Soviet people’s commissariats, is to monitor academics, journalists, and public figures suspected of non-liberal ideological transgressions. German nationalists derisively label such snitching NGO outfits Gutmenschen (“do-gooders”); their French counterparts are called bien-pensants. In plain English, these so-called NGOs represent the academic thought police.

Most worrisome, however, is the climate of fear-induced self-censorship among European academics. Many believe that by remaining apolitical, silent and not rocking the boat they will best safeguard their careers and perks—a grave illusion long disproven by dissidents in the former communist countries of East Europe.  Sooner or later the thought police will show up on their doorstep regardless of how mute they were in their former political activities.

In the contemporary West, there is no need for gulags or firing squads given that more sophisticated methods of repression have become far more effective: deplatforming, debanking, or even worse, what the French call l’inversion accusatoire—the “reversal of the accusation.” Broadly speaking, this means “victimhood inversion”, a technique once common in the communist judiciary of East Europe: to cover up one’s own mega crimes, one accuses the opposing side of even greater crimes. The dynamic of mutual victimhood inversion is visible today in the conflict between the Hamas and IDF with many more to come shortly.

Many of the legal and rhetorical tactics recently deployed against President Trump were pioneered decades ago in the multi-ethnic Soviet Union and throughout the formerly communist Eastern Europe. Consequently, European prosecutors and media outlets eagerly reach for the same communist shut-up nouns—“Nazi,” “Ustasha,” “antisemite,” “white supremacist,” “racist”—in order to dehumanize political dissenters, while almost never mentioning the millions who perished under communist regimes between 1945 and 1950. President Trump is surely well aware of these legal and semantic shifts having himself endured similar “lawfare” waged and  staged by his domestic enemies. The long-term outcome of this judicial parody in both the EU and the United States is entirely predictable: growing mutual distrust, escalating interracial and interethnic conflict, institutional breakdown, and, ultimately, the collapse of the System.

Notes:

  1. Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (Wien und Leipzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997), p.74.
  2. Alain de Benoist, “Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition,” in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), p. 190–205.