Introduction

Seanna Fenner, aka Odinia, is an Odinist gyðja (priestess), a völva, and the founder of the native European religious organization, Odinia International. She resides in the United States, and she is a fervent follower of the ancient European religion of Odinism.[1] Unlike most Americans today, especially the Christian majority, Ms. Fenner can probably pick out a “hekhsher” (kosher seal) or two on a packaging label. Her spiritual and religious faith likely finds these kosher seals offensive, if not reprehensible.  But if she had to buy food from an American supermarket today to survive, she’d have little choice but to submit to Talmudic and Torah laws that keep her under alien religious bondage.

In the course of investigating the kosher certification industry, I have learned of an American history riddled with crime-tainted rackets and kosher price gouging from the earliest decades of the twentieth century. Protests and riots led to the formation of organizations defending Jewish rights and their dietary laws, Kashruth.[2] Thenceforth, the movement to reform and regulate the kosher meat market gained strength, state laws were adopted that would give the kosher keeper robust legal protection.

But what if you’re the simple consumer who does not keep kosher, or wishes to avoid products and companies that are patronizing the religious kosher agencies for their certification services? Our surveys indicate that almost 40% of consumers object to this religious intrusion in food manufacturing. If you are a Christian, a Hindu, an Odinist, an agnostic, are there any protections in American society that help you avoid an unwitting donation to Jewish interests if that’s not your cup of kosher tea?

When Daughters of the American Revolution member Marian Strack boldly gave a speech renouncing the burgeoning practice in 1954, her peers scolded her and instructed her to just go buy products that are “not kosher certified” (henceforth, “NKC”). While that may have been possible sixty-seven years ago, the now colossal worldwide industry includes over 600 American kosher agencies certifying well over one million products, and for many categories of food and kitchen products there are no choices other than “kosher certified.” After a perusal of most supermarket aisles, one could easily conclude that kosher certification has been imposed on us by the system.

So with the preceding being the background in a nutshell, let’s examine the problem and potential avenues of protection. Are there any existing laws that may be applicable? Keep in mind that, as a layman in the subject-matter of our Constitution and the law, our discussion here is merely to introduce the issue and invite our true experts from our audience to help develop strategies that may protect the rights of consumers who wish to refrain from buying “kosher,” avoid the ubiquitous kosher seal, or have fair access to products free from this rabbinical intervention. Because even the most apolitical citizen should know that the largest kosher agency in the world, based in New York City, was a staunch supporter of spy Jonathan Pollard, who caused untold damage to our nation.[3]

Typical situation: a consumer walks into a supermarket and wishes to buy a few needed items, including milk and eggs (for breakfast), peanut butter (for the kid’s lunch), and dry spaghetti (for the family dinner). Our experience has shown that if the shopper’s supermarket was a Costco big box store, this would yield no option other than kosher certified goods. The same goes for other national supermarket chains, including federally funded military commissaries: a great many product categories that fail to offer any NKC brand options—NOT Kosher Certified.

So does a consumer have any religious rights to avoid “kosher” when they walk in to a general retail store under such circumstances, just as the kosher keeper certainly has laws protecting him/her when shopping at a kosher retail market? Or better phrased, does the retailer, the distributor that supplies the store, or the food manufacturers have a duty not to discriminate in favor of the religion of Judaism, for the privilege of Jewish consumers, when presenting their selection of diverse edible and inedible offerings to the general marketplace? Note: there are countless inedible products certified kosher that we buy every day, including aluminum foil, food storage bags, dish soap, food wrap, laundry detergent, and dishwashing detergent to name a few.

The Civil Rights Act

When I approached this problem by inquiring into laws regarding fair access and consumer and religious rights for the kosher-avoiding consumer, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to mind. Title II of this law is titled “Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodations.” Well, the supermarket is a place that accommodates the public when they shop for groceries, so maybe there’s something that will help here. Section 201 states:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. [my emphasis]

Okay, the supermarket or retail store is selling food products, which are goods. But then there’s this on what constitutes a place of public accommodation:

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: …

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

It was clear that retail stores like supermarkets, whose primary business is selling food to be consumed at home, did not fall under part (2)’s definition. One might argue that most supermarket chains have deli style lunch counters, but these ready-to-eat sandwiches or meals are not typically eaten on premises, as is required for qualification in this law. More searching needed.

My search turned up numerous articles covering Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Upon reading many of these, it was clear that, while this section focused on “contracts” (and retail transactions are considered a contract), this law was clearly all about race, and provided no protections under religious freedom. On further examination, we read

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Section 1981’s primary goal was to protect non-Whites. Even hypothetically in a far-out scenario, if Whites were institutionally discriminated against by a systemic Kosher Supremacy racket that wanted to ethnically suppress them and extract their wealth as insidious vengeance for European pogroms of centuries past, it appears that this law works in support of any ethnicity but Whites, given the legal text. We move on…

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) begins with Congressional Findings that

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise, and (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.

This Act restores a “compelling interest test” that grants exceptions for government interests, and “it provides a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” Many states have adopted their own RFRAs—this law has brought legal relief to Native American Indians, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and even the Floridian Orthodox Jewish prisoner, Bruce Rich, who demanded kosher food.[4] Our first potential angle here might be supermarkets that are operated and controlled by the government. This, obviously, would not include your private grocery chain, but rather the hundreds of military commissaries found on Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine bases. Since the company founder behind www.TheKosherQuestion.com is a retired veteran, I can attest that when grocery shopping on these military installations, one finds that they eschew the very small food companies that might be NKC and free from kosher certification in favor of major national brands.

While at one of these commissaries, I searched for dry pasta and found one brand named “Freedom’s Choice,” produced by The Defense Commissary Agency, which was strictly kosher certified. Is it too much of a burden for Freedom’s Choice to produce dry pasta without rabbinical supervision? Does this preferential bias favoring the laws of just one religion, Judaism, constitute religious discrimination when there are no similar products sold neutral of religion—NKC? Where’s the freedom from contributing to a religious organization for which you may not belong? Perhaps this is the ideal case for RFRA; perhaps just the First Amendment alone might suffice if a Navy sailor filed suit in Federal court claiming that his religious freedom was infringed due to the single choice of this or that product, all strictly kosher certified. This might be worth further investigation.

Freedom’s Choice Macaroni Products – All kosher-certified by Orthodox Union

Even in a military commissary, all this dry pasta was exclusively kosher-certified

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

But what about laws that are “neutral” to religion? How about the law behind the two government agencies which are supposed to protect the American consumer—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? These are two large government bureaucracies that fall under the supposedly religiously neutral Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1967 (FPLA). Besides its role in regulating labels for consumer commodities, disclosing net contents, identifying name and place of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, this Act further authorizes regulations where necessary to “prevent unfair or deceptive packaging and labeling.” Finally, I may have a law that will work for the kosher-avoiding consumer!

After performing our own research study on kosher seals, the statistical analysis suggested that there was a deceptive trade practice in play industry-wide, and it involves low transparency. I submitted not just one, but two FTC complaints that point towards labeling practices that keep consumers from easily recognizing a product’s kosher certification seal for what it is. Many are so small—averaging just 10% the size of most other food certification seals—that people simply don’t see them, mistake what they are, or overlook their meaning. Others, like the circled “U” of OU Kosher or the “CRC” symbol of Chicago Rabbinical Council are just symbolically too obscure. Certainly a complaint as well researched and explained as ours might pique the interests of the FTC, and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act should have proceeded to grant us religious justice! But instead, the government agency message I received back was one of indifference, a boiler plate email instructing us how to avoid fraud!

In reviewing the purpose of FPLA, it does seem that it is the most viable legal option to force companies into displaying very large, easily understood kosher symbols with the text “KOSHER CERTIFIED” stamped beside alongside, a transparency that might cause food companies one way or another into producing NKC options on their own for many products. Such a strategy might create a natural market-driven track towards religious freedom from kosher intrusion as the general consumer base becomes kosher aware.

However, our realistic view from this agency’s response to our complaints and the ubiquity of kosher certification suggests that the FTC has a bias in favor of the kosher industry. Otherwise, I don’t believe kosher labeling could have ever become so absurdly obfuscated with the FPLA in place for fifty-four years. I invite interested parties to press harder with this law. Perhaps the government’s continued disregard and purposeful inaction will trigger rights under the RFRA!

State Laws

One of our company’s own goals is to enact state-wide protectionist laws for consumers who refrain from keeping kosher, equal in power to the numerous existing laws protecting kosher keepers. Since only minute percentage of the shopping public is even aware of ubiquitous kosher certification, it is the low transparency that produces this lack of awareness; state laws could perhaps help. Interestingly, the Jewish community insists on mandated high transparency for themselves, as is evident in this California Penal Code 383b[5]:

Every person…who sells or exposes for sale in the same place of business both kosher and nonkosher meat or meat preparations, either raw or prepared for human consumption, who fails to indicate on his [sic!] window signs in all display advertising in block letters at least four inches in height ‘kosher and nonkosher meats sold here’” (my emphasis).

Just for comparison sake, with no laws protecting the general consumer from deception or mandating four-inch block letters, see the kosher-certified dishwashing detergent below. If you didn’t notice the registered trademark symbol beside the “e” in Cascade, you might have thought the OU Kosher seal was just that, a registered trademark symbol.

Yellow arrow points to OU Kosher Seal

Writing laws that would be fair to the kosher-refraining consumer might be fairly simple, and this would definitely be a strategy to promote kosher awareness while respecting religious freedom for all. However, getting such laws passed by the state legislatures would likely be difficult, requiring considerable time, effort, money and human resources—i.e., a movement. Furthermore, the largest kosher agency, OU, financially supports numerous programs for Jewish interests, and OU Advocacy is one of them. One could expect firm resistance as lobby groups like this, the ADL, and other Jewish organizations would presumably attempt to smear any legislative campaign that would disrupt the current kosher money spigot; they would likely label such a proposed law as “anti-Semitic.” One need only look at the media after the Dutch banned kosher slaughter as an example.[6] An interesting statement from this footnoted article by the ADL is this:

We call upon the Dutch Senate to prevent this action from leading to a clear violation of religious freedom that has a disproportionate impact on the Jewish community.

Only approximately 22% of the American Jewish Community strictly follow the kosher laws—about 0.3% of our entire population. And yet the food industry is almost completely kosher certified. So where are the organizations clamoring on behalf of religious freedom for the 99.7%, disproportionately impacted, disproportionately subsidizing the costs of the entire affair? Maybe The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will go to bat for our cause!

Fair and Non-Discriminatory Access in the General Marketplace

There is a need for new laws to protect the religious rights of those outside the Jewish faith when they shop for food and kitchen supplies, their first source for sustenance. It is our view that beyond the transparency in labeling, prime importance should be given to regulating “access” to NKC products in the general marketplace (i.e., not specializing in Kosher). Our best example of “access” legislation would be the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[7] Here we find a robust set of regulations protecting a particular minority in America, those with disabilities, from discrimination and prejudice so that they may enjoy the fruits of society like all others:

Congress finds that the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.

With all due respect to helping minorities that are harmed by the system, we implore Congress to find once…just once…from the goodness in their heart, the motivation to protect the majority when a minority religion has immeasurable and possibly detrimental institutional power. We would ask them to write into law the framework to regulate “NKC access” for the great majority, an access unavailable to hard-working men and women of many faiths and identities, most of whom are not kosher keepers. It took over two hundred years for the disabled to get fair access, giving them legal recourse if discriminated against. And their time has come. Let us now move to address American religious freedom vs. the kosher industry, an industry that even in holy Jerusalem has problems with under-the-table bribery payments and requirements for businesses to buy from specific suppliers.[8]

Conclusion

An orthodox Christian—one who believes that Jesus abrogated the laws of Kashrus for his sect—goes to his grocery store to buy garlic salt to flavor his meal for the evening. He is presented three choices: McCormick, Lawry’s and It’s Delish. All three are kosher-certified.[9] Similar findings would occur at any of the other local stores in his town. The man needs his salt, but to purchase any of these would impact his religious belief. He even thinks “What would Jesus do?,” and recalls John 2:16 where Jesus said in anger “Stop turning my father’s house into a marketplace!” But today, the marketplace is almost completely supervised by the rabbis. They control the ingredients, oversee the production, make surprise inspections, often install Machgichim (kosher supervisors) on plant sites, close production lines down for 24 hours for Talmud-prescribed cleaning, they even issue kosher alerts and “take corrective action” when companies miss a step. Finally, they collect tax-exempt fees for their services and travel, revenue that is unaccountable to the public. This particular Christian man wants none of this, but he is left no choice if his meat is to be flavored tonight. He could protest, like those many disabled in wheel chairs seeking ramp access, only to be rudely offered stairs to contend with. The ADA bureaucracy and an army of lawyers are prepared to help them. Instead, this lonely man prays to God and asks forgiveness for having to contribute to this growing menace, an infringement on his religious freedom.

Will there ever be legal recourse that mandates NKC access, kosher seal and kosher cost transparency, or reasonable reform on restricting the intersectional religious-secular industry in so much that they impact our liberty?  We must realistically frame such possibilities in this current system with the old saying “Cum Grano Salis.”[10]

---

[1] Traditional beliefs and practices associated with the Germanic peoples, from before their conversion to Christianity. Since the 1960s, there has been a revival. Different groups use different terms such as Ásatrú, Forn Sed, Fyrnsidu, Irminism, Odalism, Odinism, Theodism, Vanatrú, Wodenism, and Wotanism.

[2] Also “Kashrus”, depending which Jewish denomination is using the term

[3] https://twitter.com/KosChertified/status/1294319305954177025?s=20

[4] Prisoner Bruce Rich actually had his appeal filed by the non-profit organization Becket (whose slogan is “Religious Liberty for All”), which was filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a landmark civil rights law similar to the RFRA. See Rich’s case here: https://www.becketlaw.org/case/rich-v-buss/

[5] https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-383b.html

[6] https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-condemns-dutch-vote-against-kosher-slaughter

[7] Keep in mind that Halal certification is, today, the burgeoning religious industry following in the footsteps of the Kosher agencies. In fact, in the book “From Kosher to Halal: When greed, politics, and the sneaky destruction of Western Civilization intertwine” by author Suzanne Bousquet, she reports on how a leader in a European kosher agency helped start up a halal certifying company. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/from-kosher-to-halal-suzanne-bousquet/1136379404

[8] https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4891347,00.html

[9] https://twitter.com/KosChertified/status/1417625038824431617?s=20

[10] “Cum Grano Salis”: Latin for “[taken] with a grain of salt”; with skepticism or reservation

If I could’ve offered Kurt Cobain of Nirvana a word of advice before he got himself a Jewish girlfriend in the shape of Courtney Love, it would of course have been: “Don’t!” He was probably doomed anyway, but he might have lasted longer and been much happier without her. Cobain was a fragile soul; Love had all the fragility of a titanium cockroach.

“Psycho hose-beast”

Which is why she’s still here and Cobain has been dead a quarter-century and counting. But Courtney Love wasn’t the only Jew in Cobain’s life or the only Jew benefiting from his goy talent and blond, blue-eyed goy looks. There were also David Geffen at his label DGC and his manager Danny Goldberg, to name but two. Perhaps this helps explain why the legendary producer Steve Albini said: “Every other person involved in the enterprise that is Nirvana, besides the band itself, are pure pieces of shit.” Albini also said that Courtney Love was a “psycho hose-beast” and turned down the chance to earn millions from producer royalties on Nirvana’s In Utero (1993).

Goyishe kop! Cobain himself was what you might call a goy gallimaufry. He had ancestors all over north-Western Europe: Dutch, English, French, German, Irish, and Scottish. But the trouble for goy Cobain wasn’t just that he had lots of Jews around him. He also had lots of Jew inside him — inside his head, to be exact. His rebellious punk politics were standard-issue cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-male, and anti-Western. After he got successful and won a mass audience, he fretted that unclean ears were listening to his music. And so he scolded crime-thinkers thus in the liner notes of Incesticide (1992): “If any of you in any way hate homosexuals, people of different color, or women, please do this one favor for us — leave us the fuck alone! Don’t come to our shows and don’t buy our records.”

And who were those homo-hating racist misogynists, those central figures in Cobain’s Jew-curated demonology? Rednecks, of course! That’s why he dedicated one live performance of the song “Rape Me” to “hairy, sweaty, macho, redneck men [portentous pause] who rape.”

The redneck raison d’être

Yes, rednecks are racists who rape. Indeed, racism and rape are their raison d’être, as White Leftists like Cobain had learned from films like The Accused (1988), in which blonde, blue-eyed Jodie Foster is gang-raped by three White men. That film was based on a real gang-rape of a White woman, but Jewish Hollywood White-washed (sic) the rapists. In reality, they were dark-skinned Hispanics; on film, they became White. Kurt Cobain probably never knew that and certainly wouldn’t have re-thought his politics if he had. Rednecks are the problem, not “people of different color.” Rednecks are racists who rape. Kurt Cobain knew that and so did his fellow musician Mia Zapata of the Seattle band The Gits.

And Cobain went on knowing it after Zapata was raped and murdered in Seattle on July 7, 1993. Cobain must have thought the still-at-large rapist was a redneck. Who else could it have been? And that racist redneck needed to be caught before he raped-and-murdered again. So Cobain’s band Nirvana played a benefit concert with other anti-redneck bands to raise money for a private investigator. Cobain was dead himself before the money ran out, but I assume that he would have been happy to donate more to the investigation if he’d stayed alive. After all, that hairy redneck was still out there, sweating, raping, and being racist.

The faces of rape #1: Mia Zapata and her rapist-killer Jesus Mezquia

Well, the redneck rapist was finally caught in 2003, thanks to the DNA analysis developed by White scientists who shared ancestry with Kurt Cobain. But the rapist’s neck turned out not to be so red after all. In fact, he was a very dark-skinned Cuban called Jesus Mezquia — exactly the kind of person Kurt Cobain of Nirvana and Mia Zapata of The Gits were so enthusiastic about welcoming into America. Mezquia looks to have had substantial Black ancestry, especially when he’s set beside Mia Zapata. But as a Cuban he was probably entered into the rape and murder statistics as “white” or “Hispanic.”

Vibrant pathology

Even with mislabeling like that, Blacks are undisputed champions of both rape and murder in every Western nation privileged to host them. Various groups of non-Black Muslim also punch well above their demographic weight in such criminal endeavors. And while White-on-vibrant rape is almost non-existent, vibrant-on-White rape is a serious but ignored pathology everywhere from America and Australia to France and Sweden.

Did Mia Zapata finally “git” that unpleasant truth on the last night of her life? Perhaps she didn’t. She tried to walk home alone late at night from a bar in Seattle, caught the eye of the blackneck Jesus Mezquia, and was probably listening to a music-player when he struck from behind. So she may never have realized that her rapist-killer was a non-White victim of racism, not a redneck inflicter of racism.

The faces of rape #2: Morgan Harrington and her rapist-killer Jesse Matthew

If she did realize the truth, I doubt that she had time to reflect that racism would have kept her rapist out of America. The same goes for Morgan Harrington, another young White women who tried to make it home alone in a racially enriched city. She attended a Metallica concert in Charlottesville, VA, on October 17, 2009, and somehow found herself outside the arena. She wasn’t allowed back in (I wonder what color the unsympathetic security guard or guards were?) and tried to get home alone. She caught the eye of a Black called Jesse Matthew and her remains were discovered three months later.

Repairing the World

Morgan Harrington was a lot more attractive than Mia Zapata and her horrible ending was more unjust. Although she was probably misled and manipulated by the anti-White Jewsmedia just like Zapata, she was just an ordinary white woman, not a politically active White musician collaborating with the great Jewish project of Tikkun Olam, or “Repairing the World” by allowing non-Whites to flood into the West.

Whatever her politics, Morgan Harrington became yet another example of how White nations face a simple choice. We can have racism or rapism. That is, we can have pro-White governments that end mass immigration and begin to repatriate non-Whites. Or we can have more of what we’ve already had for decades: non-Whites raping us, murdering us, and eating our taxes.

Enemies, not amigos

Kurt Cobain didn’t “git” the simple choice of racism or rapism. And even if he’d lived to see the true face of Mia Zapata’s killer, I doubt he ever would have got it. Jesus Mezquia wasn’t a hairy, sweaty, racist redneck. And the odds were never good that he would be. But he was definitely macho. It’s a Hispanic word, after all, and that should have given Kurt Cobain a clue.

And if he’d thought a little more, he might even have realized that the many Jews in his life were his enemies, not his amigos.

Back in May, the Scientific American published an article on “The Forgotten History of the World’s First Trans Clinic.” Having written an essay on Jewish ‘sexology’ in 2015, it came as no surprise that the Scientific American opened the piece by celebrating the fact this clinic, Institut füer Sexualwissenschaft (the Institute for Sexual Research), “was headed by a gay Jewish man” — Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Hirschfeld was probably the most influential pervert of the twentieth century, and his legacy is so extensive in the present that I would go so far as to suggest that we are truly living in an age of his design. Our contemporary culture is molded and shaped by the homosexuality, promiscuity, transsexuality, and transvestism that this subversive degenerate devoted his entire life to promoting. If he were alive today, one imagines that Hirschfeld would be overjoyed and profoundly delighted; filled with glee at the sight of drag queen story hours and transsexuals running for state governor. We truly live in a pervert’s paradise.

So overwhelming is Hirschfeld’s legacy in the sexual sphere, however, that it is often overlooked that this Jewish medical charlatan was also a vocal and innovative “anti-racist.” This fact had escaped my attention until a reader contacted me several years ago requesting that I review Hirschfeld’s 1934 book Rassismus (Racism). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an English translation of the text at that time, and so I had to decline the request. Then, last month, I was directed by a friend to a 1938 translation that had been produced by two English communists, and was now available online at archive.org. What follows is a review of this book and a contextualization of its contents within Hirschfeld’s activism, thought, and politics.

Hirschfeld’s Culture War

Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants, and Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”^[1] Like many other founders of Jewish intellectual movements, Hirschfeld promoted social, cultural, and political universalism, and advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”^[2] A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity, and his criticisms resembled in many respects those concocted by Freud and the Frankfurt School. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”^[3] Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”^[4] Sickness and degeneracy were therefore to be associated with Western society, rather than Jews, homosexuals and other outsiders, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed cure was sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a proliferation of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”

Hirschfeld engaged in a direct form of political and social activism in the fight to break down Western social and sexual mores. He was a “socialist and an active member of the Social Democratic Party.”^[5] Hirschfeld, described by Mancini as “cosmopolitan to the core,” essentially created the first homosexual “communities,” beginning in Berlin where he would parade in women’s clothing and was known as “Aunt Magnesia” by the city’s homosexuals. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and get involved in the growing campaign for “emancipation” that was developing under the auspices of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which he had formed in 1897. Hirschfeld pioneered modern Social Justice Warrior tactics by urging celebrities and high-profile politicians to add their names in support of the campaign for “sexual equality.” Hirschfeld and his protégés produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, and “transgenderism” (the latter two terms were Hirschfeld neologisms). Through his work with the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, Hirschfeld published the 23-volume Yearbook for the Sexual Intermediates, the first periodical devoted to “homosexual studies.” Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science was the world’s first gender identity clinic and his staff performed the first known transsexual surgeries.

Despite the labels attached to his committees and journals, Hirschfeld’s work rested largely on political argument rather than legitimate scientific investigation. Edward Dickson argues that Hirschfeld’s field was “characterized by unresolved and often speculative arguments.”^[6] Whereas many of the early non-Jewish sexologists had a background in zoology and the sexual behavior of animals, particularly primates, Hirschfeld rejected such strictly biological or evolutionary interpretations of human sexual behavior. Following from this, the methodology he employed was extremely close to that employed by Freud — sexology was conceptualized as a “science” of patient interviews and circular reasoning rather than statistics and empirical observation. The same ‘methodologies’ will be apparent in his discussions of race.

Despite the bankruptcy of his science, the dramatic success of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee at mobilizing large sectors of German and European society on behalf of homosexuals was due to Hirschfeld’s personality. Like many Jewish intellectual leaders, he was an aggressive and relentless agitator. Respecting few social codes, he was the darling of the Social Democrats and the reviled enemy of Weimar conservatives (Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany”). By the end of the 1920s Hirschfeld’s activism meant that Weimar Germany saw homosexuality less as a medical disorder and sign of degeneration than as a major cause célèbre.

Hirschfeld’s perverse bonanza came to an end on May 6, 1933 when Nationalist German student organizations and columns of the Hitler Youth attacked the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute library was liquidated and its contents used in a book burning on May 10. The youths also printed and disseminated posters bearing Hirschfeld’s face complete with the caption: “Protector and Promoter of pathological sexual aberrations, also in his physical appearance probably the most disgusting of all Jewish monsters.” Hirschfeld himself had been on an international speaking tour since 1931. He lived in exile in France until he died of a heart attack in 1935, shortly after he wrote and published Racism.

“Sexual Type Conquers Racial Type”

Hirschfeld’s theories on race and sexuality are essentially linked by flighty invocations of love, human universality, and what Hirschfeld described as “Panhumanism.” At the most basic level of his sexual theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.^[7] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”^[8]

Love as a concept was altered and weaponized by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism in order to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”^[9] Today we see this legacy everywhere, in the constant use of “love” slogans as a kind of incantation against the perceived twin evils of racism and homophobia.

Demonstrating ‘love’ now involves little more than adopting a flamboyant and performative passive attitude to the displacement of White people on their own soil, or to the endless demands made by increasingly strange and deviant sexual subcultures. The ‘loving’ people of postmodernity are, in their own mind at least, morally superior beings by basically leaving themselves open to anything except the self-assertion of White identity and normal sexuality, which are sins beyond redemption. Racism, homophobia, and transphobia, which together essentially boil down to the idea that Whites should be able to live normally and by themselves, are perceived today as beyond the sphere of this deified ‘love’ and are therefore representative of a kind of modern heresy.

Hirschfeld lies at the heart of this weaponized quasi-New Age nonsense—indeed, our new religion, and yet for all his bogus rhetoric he must have known on some level that ‘love’ featured significantly less in the lives of homosexuals than mental illness, pederasty, promiscuity, and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement (and later, “anti-racist” movement) and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that

when we strove for emancipation of the Jews, we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.

One could easily substitute “homosexuals” or even BLM and “anti-racism” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work in our culture today, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashion-following and easily duped may gravitate. Whether it’s gays, transsexuals, or dead Black criminals, Whites everywhere are much more inclined to comfort themselves with some feel-good, abstract, morally framed principles rather than walk the more socially uncomfortable path involving a confrontation with hard reality.

Racism

So much, then, for Hirschfeld’s corrupt vision. But what of his 1934 text? Hirschfeld’s Racism is a strange book that left very little lasting impression on me. As such, I must apologize to readers expecting an interesting review because what follows resembles something closer to a sift through garbage. At 320 pages of 20 chapters that follow no logical progression, Racism is about 200 pages too long, being a poorly organized mass of repetition. Hirschfeld doesn’t so much attempt to convince his readers as hypnotize them, repeating stock phrases and approaches when discussing even the most basic themes. In terms of style, and assuming he has been translated well, Hirschfeld writes in the same terse, sarcastic tone throughout, which is interesting at first and excruciating some hundred pages later. The book is above all a bitter invective. Hirschfeld hates the National Socialists, and especially the race scientist Hans Günther. Hitler, Rosenberg, and Günther are trotted out with monotonous regularity for repetitive and pithy straw-man treatment. Aside from these issues of style and approach, the book is made all the more tedious for its lack of any serious engagement with the concept of race. Instead, the tome is a 320-page promotion of a GloboHomo prototype, in the form of Hirschfeld’s “sexually diverse” Panhumanist Utopia—the Pervert’s Paradise. One is thankful to read the text in digital form, thus alleviating the urge to consign a physical copy to the flames.

The book opens with an introduction by the prolific English Communist translators Eden and Cedar Paul. The introduction is a panegyric to the then-deceased Jew, with the writers asking “Is it not fitting that Magnus should arise from the tomb with a work which is intended to dispel the poison gas of racism?” No sooner had I recovered from this interesting turn of phrase than I found the only truthful sentence in the introductory essay: “Certainly no one could have mistaken him for an Aryan or a Nordic.”

Truthful as it is, it’s a strange way to open a book intended to dispel the notion that there is any such thing as an Aryan or a Nordic. And yet, on such already shaking foundations, we move on to the thoughts of Aunt Magnesia himself.

In the book’s first chapter, “Origins of German Racism,” Hirschfeld offers nothing of the sort. Acting as if such figures as Bernhard Varen (1622–1650) and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) never existed, Hirschfeld doesn’t give a full history of the development of racial thought in Germany but rather highlights a very small number of near-contemporary German race scholars whom he despises. Opening with the statement, “I trust that my readers will find me fair and unprejudiced,” Hirschfeld immediately outs himself as a Communist by castigating German race scholars for promoting “race war instead of class war.” Count Georges Vacher de Lapouge, whose thought isn’t even remotely touched upon, is declared a “prophet of the race war,” while Ludwig Woltmann is patronized as “recalling Parsifal the pure fool.” Also coming in for scathing insult without serious engagement are Hans Günther for his Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (Racial Categories of the German People), and Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss for his Rasse und Seele (Race and Soul).

The second chapter, “Arthur Gobineau and H.S. Chamberlain,” takes petty aim at two of the innovators in racial thinking as well as the Russian-born Joseph Deniker (son of French parents, and author of The Races and the Peoples of the Earth, 1900). It’s been a common tactic of Jewish activists over the last century or more to portray themselves as truly native while describing any co-operation among Europeans as being a kind of “foreign” threat. In this view, Jews are always the ultimate patriots while things like anti-Semitism or racism are a “foreign subversion” of native values. Hirschfeld falls immediately into the same well-worn trope, remarking “Strangely enough, Günther’s forerunners, the pioneers of modern racist theories, were not Germans but a Frenchman, an Englishman, and a Russian.” Petty and superficial, Hirschfeld doesn’t even pause to reflect on the meaninglessness of his criticism, ignoring the fact that, in the scheme of Hans Günther, the Anglo-Saxon Chamberlain and the Nordic Deniker were about as close to racial kin as one could find outside the immediate family and locality. In terms of criticism of the ideas of any of these scholars, Hirschfeld does little more than condemn them for attempting to divide humanity while attacking Gobineau in particular as a “misanthrope” and an “asexual.” This latter accusation I found interesting not only because it hints at Hirschfeld’s own preoccupations but also because it prefigures today’s accusation of “incel” directed at conservative males. In other words, one’s intellectual legitimacy is apparently tied to sexual activity—the logic of the sex-obsessed. In terms of any potential substance behind the claim, Gobineau does appear to have been childless (I may be wrong), but most accounts of his life seem to suggest Gobineau was possessed by fears that his Martinique-born wife may have had some distant Black ancestry. Gobineau, occupied by the science of racial lineages, would have been horrified less by sex than the prospect of mingling his genes with Africans.

The next two chapters concern “Race as a Concept” and “Aryans and Semites.” In the first of these we find a brief etymology of the word “race,” followed by a snide and unconvincing denunciation of Immanuel Kant’s 1775 lecture Von den verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen (On the Different Races of Man). Kant is condemned for advancing the idea that there is a “unified race of Whites,” with Hirschfeld remarking in Chapter 4 that the “White or Caucasian race is non-existent.” By way of argument, Hirschfeld merely invokes his fellow Jew Ludwig Gumplowicz, who “stressed in every way the immeasurably small role of biological heredity and the decisive role of the social environment in the determination of human behavior, while attaching a positive significance to the mixing of races.”

As well as resorting to ethnic nepotism in his habits of citation, Hirschfeld is prone to descending into fits of fantasy. In one of the most ludicrous, he claims that German Jews are descended for the most part from ancient Teutonic tribes, since “The German tribes of that part of the world were converted from Paganism to Judaism, as well as to Christianity, these conversions leading to or resulting from mixed marriages.” I have to hand it to Hirschfeld because I’ve spent over a decade reading endless reams of Jewish nonsense and I think this may be the boldest and most daring piece of bullshit ever to dribble from a Hebrew pen. Aunt Magnesia caps this stunning intellectual jab by declaring ethnology a “pseudo-science,” and insisting that “to speak of Aryans is fraud.” This then leads into an unexpected and diversionary condemnation of Hitler, whom Hirschfeld insists is a bad nationalist for renouncing his Austrian citizenship. One suspects that even had he lived to see the Anschluss, Hirschfeld would not have been honest enough to recant.

The hogwash valve is turned once more in Chapter 5, “Race and Genius,” which opens with the claim that Goethe was probably Jewish, and proceeds with the argument that “most persons of genius are of mixed type.” Those seeking any kind of reliance upon statistical data for such claims will be sorely disappointed. As with the case of his work on “sexualities,” Hirschfeld’s methodology is purely in the realm of anecdotes and speculative and unresolved arguments, and is supplemented by tales of personal interaction and observance that read like extremely poor fiction. Most confusing of Hirschfeld’s tactics is the fact he engages in outright denial of Günther’s racial categories for Whites while using the same categories to defend his ideas about the mixing of racial groups. Hirschfeld, for example, declares such groups as Ostics and Dinarics to be non-existent, and then later proceeds to argue that the mixing of racial groups is beneficial because Schopenhauer, Luther and Beethoven were a blend of Nordic and Ostic types. Making both arguments simultaneously in the same work is a clear instance of logical fallacy.

The next three chapters are some of the worst in the book, concerning mostly Africans and those of mixed race. In Chapter 6, “Is a human being’s worth dependent on the colour of his skin?,” Hirschfeld has nothing to say other than that skin tone is a matter of sun-bathing and that he once saw some very darkly tanned Swedes at a Mediterranean resort (I urge anyone thinking that I’m joking to consult the text). In Chapter 7, “Coloured Peoples,” Hirschfeld asserts that Black Africans are equal to Whites, and that pygmies are intelligent and peaceful (the IQ of African pygmies is in fact estimated at 53, which is in the category of mild mental retardation). In Chapter 8, “Half-Breeds,” Hirschfeld insists that “the alleged dangers of [racial] crossing are apocryphal.”

In fact, science clearly shows that, but for advances in medicine, many mixed-race children would not survive birth, and many non-White mothers would die in childbirth. Asian and Black females, for example, very often struggle to give birth naturally to offspring of a White father, due mainly to increased cranial size and birth weight. One 2012 study found that “Biracial status of parents was associated with higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes than both White parents.” A 2008 study by Stanford also found that “Pregnant women who are part of an Asian-white couple face an increased risk of gestational diabetes as compared with couples in which both partners are white. … The researchers say the findings suggest that the average Asian woman’s pelvis may be smaller than the average white woman’s and less able to accommodate babies of a certain size.” Moreover, mixed-race offspring are on average more socially dysfunctional, with those who call themselves biracial tending “to be more likely to smoke and drink, to have sex at younger ages, and to have poorer experiences at school such as through suspensions, skipping class and repeating grades.” Mixed race children are also “more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various aches and pains.”

Hirschfeld, meanwhile, offers the opinion that “mixed breeds are beautiful,” and praises the German Jewish physicist Heinrich Hertz for suggesting Whites are globally outnumbered and could be exterminated in their African and East Asian colonial territories:

The White race makes up only a fraction of mankind, and its members are greatly outnumbered by the coloured races. … This ferment may lead ere long among the Yellows to a war of extermination against the Whites within their borders.

In terms of promoting the mixing of races, Hirschfeld also refers to the work of Dutch “anti-racist” anthropologist Herbert Moens, who castigated Whites for “false belief in our own superiority,” and predicted a “great race war of the 20th century.” Moens, the self-promoting anti-racist, was in fact a fraud (his credentials were faked), a pervert and a pedophile, who was eventually convicted in the United States in 1919 for taking obscene photographs of naked Black children under the guise of “anthropological research” while on a bogus “research tour” undertaken to prove that Whites had “as much Negro blood in them as coloured people.” Frauds, fellow Jews, perverts, and child abusers — such are the authorities relied upon by Magnus Hirschfeld in his quest to debunk racism.

In Chapter 9, “The Little Races,” the repetitive Hirschfeld returns again to Günther’s racial categories for Whites, offering nothing that he hasn’t already said in Chapters 4 and 5. In the chapter that follows, “Is a human being’s worth dependent on the shape of the bones?,” we find a mixture of maudlin appeals to sentimentality, a shameless promotion of the likely fraudulent cranial studies of fellow Jew Franz Boas, and the ludicrous anecdote-backed claim that the physical features normally ascribed to Nordic Aryan types are found more commonly among Jews than among Germans.^[10]  In Chapter 11, “The Blood Myth,” Hirschfeld engages in straw man tactics by pretending not to know that when early twentieth-century racialists spoke of ‘blood’ they meant the transmissible hereditary composition of the human being. Hirschfeld instead portrays racialists as mystical fantasists, and remarks “it is a futile dream to suppose that race can ever be ascertained by an examination of the blood.” Of course, this “futile dream” is today not only a reality in relation to blood, but race can also be accurately ascertained by an examination of every other bodily fluid, as well as hair, teeth, and bones.

In Chapters 12 and 13, Hirschfeld returns to a subject close to his heart—sexual perversion. Hirschfeld remarks that all races must be identical because sexual abnormalities occur with equal frequency in all ethnic groups, but provides no evidence for any such parity of frequency. (It was the claim of several historical anti-Jewish activists, and also of Hans Günther, that there was a particularly high frequency of homosexuality among Jews but this has never been empirically proven.) Hirschfeld then departs from the topic of race to rant about the equality of homosexuals, remarking that heterosexuals only “regard themselves as ‘normal’ because they are in the majority.” I leave readers to judge just how normal Magnus Hirschfeld was, leaving for their consideration only the facts that this man walked around in women’s clothing as Aunt Magnesia, and oversaw a fatal attempt to transplant a uterus into a Danish man.^[11]

Above all, Hirschfeld asserts in these chapters that race has no biological basis but that sexuality does. Or, to put it another way, Hirschfeld argues that a homosexual is “born that way” and thus on some level determined by his biological make-up, but that a African man is not determined in any way by his genetic ancestry. As Hirschfeld says, “beyond question, the sexual type conquers the racial type.” Isn’t this the philosophy of the present day? Belief in race is derided and scorned while the homosexual and the transsexual are celebrated for their “Pride.” Meanwhile, in scientific terms, it is perfectly possible to determine the race of someone from their skin, fluids, and bones, while it remains utterly impossible to determine their sexual proclivities in the same manner. Which is the real pseudo-science here? The science of race and genes, or the ‘science’ of Hirschfeld’s “homosexual panhumanism”? We all know the answer, even if it is suffocated by cultural manipulation.

Hirschfeld’s true priorities lie in merging the populations of the world, either biologically or psychologically — the “Globo” that compliments and enables the “Homo.” He writes,

The individual, however close the ties of neighbourhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity with which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship — that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.

Chapter 14, “Race in the Melting Pot of Mimicry,” is dedicated to the advancement of this idea of “oneness with humanity,” with Hirschfeld pointing to “the Unified Americans” as an example of how this can be accomplished. Reading this chapter, I wondered if Hirschfeld had ever actually been to the United States and seriously considered the history and lives of its citizens. On one level, it must be admitted, Americans are united — overwhelmingly by language, government, dress, pop culture, and other customs. But Americans are also strongly divided, as they always have been, on racial grounds. In fact, this is one of the defining features of the American trajectory when compared, for example, with European migrations to South America (although even racial considerations have at times been strong there). North Americans are not universally racially united. It is true there has been a mixing of European populations (the Celt with the Slav, the Nordic with the Mediterranean, etc.), and the inevitable mixing of some Europeans with non-European peoples, but for the most part, American history is the story of the White man carving out a new world for himself. And any mawkish suggestions during the Obama era that we might enter a kind of post-racial America of Hirschfeld’s imaginings, have evaporated dramatically in this age of Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter. Race is here, and it is here to stay.

Chapters 15 and 16 contain Hirschfeld’s thoughts on the Nature versus Nurture debate, which have already been uttered countless times already in the book and are unremarkable. In Chapter 17, “Are there ‘Elect’ Nations and Races?,” Hirschfeld launches himself into Freudian analysis of “racists”:

Racist dislikes … can only be elucidated by ‘depth-psychology’ for they are rooted in the unconscious. … The taproot of racial hatred is the self-assertive impulse which is so deeply planted in human nature.

Hirschfeld is forced to concede that Jews have designated themselves an ‘elect’ race. While Germans are pathologized, however, Jews are excused because of an “inferiority complex” initiated by their “positions as members of a despised race.” The problem with Hirschfeld’s reasoning here is that the concept of the Jews as a chosen and elect race is rooted many centuries before their arrival in Europe, and thus precedes anti-Semitism rather than proceeding from it. This doesn’t prevent Hirschfeld, who declares himself a Zionist (what happened to “world citizen”?), from continuing with the argument that “anti-Semitism is more dangerous to the peace of the world than all other class divisions, religious dissensions, and artificial severances.”

The final three chapters are highly propagandistic, promoting meaningless, raceless, forms of patriotism and advancing a kind of neo-Lamarckism in which all races have the ability to adapt to their surroundings because “Nature has no sharply defined frontiers.” Racial conflicts are said to occur from selfishness, the Will to Power, fear, and an inferiority complex. Any idea that they might arise from a genuine conflict over resources or interests is glossed over. The book concludes with a call for the creation of an international “League for the Prevention of Racism.”

Concluding Thoughts

Magnus Hirschfeld’s Racism is an extremely poor text which merits even less attention than some of its more recent echoes like Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. It contains almost nothing of scientific or philosophical merit. The book is, however, an interesting historical artefact to the extent that it anticipates ideas and trends which are now widespread, such as the promotion of “love-based” globalist panhumanism, and the proliferation of sexual identities. The book also offers an interesting glimpse into the psychology and tactics of one of the twentieth century’s most influential and destructive Jewish intellectuals. As noted, Hitler once remarked that Hirschfeld was the most dangerous Jew in Germany — an interesting choice given the preponderance of influential Jewish politicians and financiers at the time the remark was made. What set Hirschfeld apart was his socially destructive ambitions, which were both more amorphous and more far-reaching than the ambitions of any politician or banker. We can see these ambitions fulfilled today, in the daily advance of the multiracial Pervert’s Paradise. The monstrous Hirschfeld has truly risen from his tomb.

---

^[1] Ibid., 4.

^[2] E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 30.

^[3] Ibid., 160.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid., 4.

^[6] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880–1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 249.

^[7] Ibid., 7.

^[8] Ibid., 5.

^[9] Ibid., 6.

^[10] The precise anecdote concerns a Jew who in Hirschfeld’s presence, while looking through Günther’s text, pointed to a portrait of a Nordic Aryan and exclaimed “That looks like my Aunt Selma!” Such is the extent of Hirschfeld’s empiricism.

^[11] It’s an interesting point of history that the National Socialist government more or less pardoned and then adopted the equally freakish non-Jewish surgeons of Hirschfeld’s clinic responsible for these monstrous procedures (Kurt Warnekros and Erwin Gohrbandt). The pair were then recruited as surgeons for a program of involuntary sterilisation to be performed on designated undesirables.