“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 3 of 3

/42 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

2018–2020: Big Tech/ Big Capital/ Big Jew/ Big Brother

A key step towards making dissident thought unlawful, and ensuring “Secure Tolerance,” is the effort to represent it, in its totality, as culturally illicit. As early as 2015, Brian Marcus, head of the ADL’s Internet Division, had been contacting Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with threats that allowing “hate” material on their service “would be bad for their business.”[1] Backed with reports, policy proposals, and “recommendations” from their own alphabet soup of think tanks and solo Jewish intellectuals like Cohen-Almagor, the ADL and the European Jewish Congress began more widespread intensive lobbying of tech companies in late 2018. The acceleration of lobbying against Big Tech should be seen in the broader context of heightened activism for the implementation of “Secure Tolerance” more generally.

Although the ADL and YouTube had co-operated since at least 2008, intensification of this relationship in early 2019 culminated in YouTube changing its content policy. Jonathan Greenblatt announced the ADL had “been working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism.”

The international Jewish strategy to bring the ethos of “secure tolerance” into tech culture again involved the high-level involvement of American Jewish groups in Europe’s “democratic” institutions. For example, in May 2015 the American Jewish Committee’s Transatlantic Institute (note again this constant reliance on a motley of Jewish ‘think tanks’), launched a fervent lobbying campaign at the EU with the aim to “detoxify social media. … Internet Service Providers are free to—and should—exclude raw hate speech.” Just to make sure the message was sent loud and clear, the AJC even hosted its main 2015 “Strategy Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism” in Brussels, during which the “AJC unveiled an action plan for European governments to address the intensifying crisis of anti-Semitism.” This, then, is our “democracy” — unelected, uninvited American Jewish groups presenting “action plans” (lists of demands) to a bloated, corrupt, and unaccountable bureaucracy.

*   *   *

Britain’s Jewish “Community Security Trust” (CST) has, since 2016, been working, again in an unelected and unaccountable capacity, with the European Commission on a “social media illegal hate speech monitoring” project. The CST was able to use the semblance of official authority given to it by this alliance to pressure social media companies by sending them regular performance reports on how well they were doing in removing CST-blacklisted speech from Twitter, Facebook and Google. In yet another stellar example of democracy in action, the unelected and unaccountable CST had earlier claimed the credit for developing “the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online.” The code was imposed on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com, following the CST’s accusation that they were “not adhering to anti-hate speech laws across Europe.”

The EU Code of Conduct, however, was only ever intended as the first step towards “secure tolerance,” and Moshe Kantor remarked in one 2017 interview that, in his opinion, Big Tech was failing even to meet the basic Jewish expectations of the Code (removal of the majority of designated material within 24 hours). In a 2017 article for Britain’s Independent, Kantor insisted “we must now look to European political leaders to take stronger action, using legislation if necessary, to prove they’re serious about combating this problem once and for all.” [emphasis added] The broader push was always for heightened legal measures that would involve law enforcement, as Kantor had himself spelled out in his 2011 Manifesto. Incessant Jewish lobbying has resulted in Germany being the first nation to take the next step to “secure tolerance.” Recently, Germany adopted Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s proposal that “racism” be treated in the same way as terrorism and child pornography. In February 2020, the German government approved a bill to “force social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to report criminal posts to the police.” The Financial Times reports:

Under the planned new law, which is the toughest of its kind in the world, social media platforms will not only have to delete certain kinds of hate speech but also flag the content to the Office of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Posts that companies will be required to report include those indicating preparations for a terrorist attack and the formation of criminal and terrorist groups, as well as those featuring instances of racial incitement and the distribution of child pornography. The networks would also have to give the BKA the last IP address and port number most recently assigned to the user profile. [emphasis added]

Early resistance from Facebook to the legislation, focused specifically on the issue of “Holocaust denial,” prompted the ADL to go into attack mode. Reverting to tactics once used against Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, the ADL dropped its “Boycott is not a solution” rhetoric that had been employed against the BDS movement, and initiated a “Stop Hate for Profit” advertising boycott in early June by circulating images showing advertisers anti-Jewish (really, often simply anti-George Soros) Facebook posts alongside which their ads were running. The move shaved almost $58 billion from Facebook’s stock value, with over 1,000 major companies leveraged into action. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s series of demands to drop the boycott include the granting of high-level access to “civil rights” (ADL) officials who will perform “regular, independent audits” of “hate” on the platform (which would allow them to engage in intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate removal of “thousands” of White advocacy groups, and the use of Facebook software to “target” “neo-Nazis and White supremacists.” Simultaneously, the ADL and Moshe Kantor have been pushing a Holocaust-narrative marketing campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and elsewhere, with Kantor commenting “The best way to spread any message today is through social media.” Censorship and propaganda thus go hand-in-hand in the effort to gain a monopoly of the public mind.

As the world’s largest and most influential Jewish organizations tighten their hold on Big Tech’s conglomerates, smaller rivals have emerged to fill the dissident demand for platforms. One of the most promising of these is BitChute, a UK-registered technology company with British directors. Slick and easy to navigate, the site is an obvious alternative to those exiled from YouTube, and its growing popularity has frustrated Jews whose goal isn’t simply to remove dissident speech from the larger platforms, but to remove it from the internet, and the public sphere, forever. Two weeks ago, the CST produced a maudlin propaganda video denouncing BitChute and presenting all dissident thought as “incitement to murder.” In the course of the video, CST staff announce they’ve been gathering intelligence at the site and will submit a “report” to their “partners in government, anti-terrorism police, and in think tanks.” [emphasis added] The CST has also been concentrating its efforts on Gab, 4chan, and Telegram, and CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner claims that “contact with the police” has already led to the removal of some content.

The CST recently secured another UK government grant of £14 million ($17.66 million), which it has been receiving annually since 2015. In fact, the group is so financially secure that it is now hiring “social media research analysts” so that it can better put pressure on the government to introduce legislation preventing free speech on the internet. Given that young British people are dying of cancer because the NHS claims to be unable to afford the necessary drugs, it must be a great comfort to their families that at least some Jews, somewhere, are collecting large salaries to browse memes on Twitter and send regular reports to the police about the hate they’ve found on Gab.

While BitChute has very low advertising revenue, and is thus relatively immune to boycott tactics, Jewish groups have nevertheless attempted to attack other parts of the site’s infrastructure. In particular, the site’s reliance on Disqus for video comments has been highlighted as a potential means of weakening the site, with Garner declaring “Disqus is part of this problem.” One presumes that a warning has been sent.

Online payment processors are another element of internet infrastructure that has been relentlessly attacked by organized Jews. Eric Striker’s National Justice recently revealed images from a private PayPal seminar in which audience members were told that “hate content” was referred to the ADL, among other “external partners.” Striker writes:

According to another training slide,1800 accounts belonging to individuals, non-profits and businesses in the last year have been eliminated for political reasons using guidelines provided by their “partners.” 65% were for what they categorize as white nationalist activity, while the next most censored group is people and organizations who advocate for immigration restrictions. A person cannot support Donald Trump’s winning issue from his 2016 campaign and still keep their Paypal, in other words. There is even a category for “prejudiced academic work.” 

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman is himself Jewish, and it’s hard not to conclude that this was a very willing partnership. In fact, Jewish activism in Big Tech collides with another phenomenon — what Aaron Chatterji and Michael Toffel refer to in the Harvard Business Review as “The New CEO Activists.” Chatterji and Toffel cite Schulman’s decision not to locate PayPal infrastructure in Charlotte, North Carolina, as CEO activist economic punishment for the state’s legislation banning the gender-confused from using the bathrooms of the opposite sex. The Associated Press estimated that an ensuing boycott of North Carolina by heavily-Jewish Big Capital cost the state more than $3.76 billion. Salesforce’s Marc Benioff and Goldmans Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein were similarly listed as “CEO activists” in the cause of advancing homosexuals and their culture.

Financial support to Jewish groups and associated “think tanks” and legal institutions is another crucial aspect of CEO activism. Logan Green, Jewish CEO of car-sharing company Lyft, pledged $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union when the ACLU was preparing to fight Donald Trump’s early attempt at an immigration ban. The ADL has received huge donations from most of the big names in Big Capital and Big Tech. For all the current theater about Facebook’s insistence on some modicum of free speech, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg last year made a personal donation of $2.5 million to the ADL. This can be added to $1 million from Apple, $1 million from Fox, and $1 million from Jewish Craigslist founder Craig Newmark for the specific purpose of fighting “online hate speech.”

That the ADL has been able to mobilize a massive and crushing boycott of Facebook is as much a “show of strength,” an act of intimidation against broader industry, government, and people, as it is a specific act against Facebook’s sluggishness in imposing the full list of measures demanded by Big Jew. So-called CEO activism is so very useful to the ADL because so many of the CEO’s are themselves Jewish and highly supportive of the cause. As Fenek Solere pointed out in a recent article for Britain’s Patriotic Alternative, it is almost impossible to separate Big Tech and Big Capital from Big Jew:

Public broadcasting networks both in the UK and USA are—and have been for many years—effectively owned and dominated by people like Sumner Redstone, Phillipe Dauman, Bernard Delfont, Lew and Leslie Grade and Alan Yentob. … But it is not only in the spheres of global communication, financial services and party political funding where people like Julian A. Brodsky, of Comcast, Michael Dell of Dell, Sandy Lerner, co-founder Cisco systems, Robert A. Altman of ZeniMax Media, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook, Aaron Swartz of Reddit, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Weimar at LinkedIn, Max Levchin of PayPal, Charles Schusterman of Samson Investment, Richard and Henry Bloch of the Tax Preparation Company, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, The Zionist Organization of America, The Republican Jewish Coalition, and the Christians United for Israel, hold sway. Some other areas in which they are disproportionately over-represented are: retail, governmental bureaucracies, hotel and leisure, theatre and the arts, academia, technology and software, international intelligence services, charities and NGOs, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, professional consultancy and the legal and judicial profession. Representative examples being: Devin Wenig of eBay, … Mark Weinberger CEO/Chairman of Ernst & Young, Samuel Ruben, Duracell Inc, Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communication Inc, Rachel Haurwitz, co-founder of Gene Editing and Caribou Biosciences, Leonard Schleifer, founder of biotechnology Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Beny Alagem, founder of Packard Bell, Amir Ashkenazi, co-founder of Adap. TV and Shopping.com, Jay Cohen of Online Gambling, Talman Marco of Viber, Sean Pad of Tinder, Henry Crown, founder of the Material Service Corporation in Aeronautics, the Mossad run ICTS Europe specialising in international Security, Gumar Agujar and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, Arthur Belfer of Belco Petroleum, precursor to the infamous Enron organisation, Louis Blaustien of American Oil, Leon Hess of the Hess Corporation, owners of the NFL’s New York Jets, C, Morris Mirkin of Budget Rent-a-Car, Sheldon Yellen of Belfor Construction, Leonard Abramson of Health Maintenance Organization, Bennett Greenspan of Gene testing, Joel Landau of Allure, Martine Rothblatt of United Therapeutics, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, Ben Rosen of Compaq Computers, Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon Communications, Ed Savitz owner of Amusement Arcades, and Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels.

The above listing is a mere indication of how prolific these power-brokers are and the degree of control they exert over our lives every single day. … All of them are committed Zionists and all of them are members and supporters of fanatically pro-Israel, Jewish partisan organizations.

And, as I wrote at the conclusion of my 2019 essay “The Necessity of anti-Semitism”:

Today, largely worthless “branded” consumer products are overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is funded by Jewish financiers. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder, and Marc Jacobs are just some of the Jews whose very names have become synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-owned companies like Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple, Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel, and Toys “R” Us have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous production of garbage for mass consumption on credit. The consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion and the West commences its death rattle. You might ask, when you see rainbow-package Doritos, what tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that’s only because you’re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a Starbucks, and go try on a new pair of $200 jeans at Macy’s. Critique, Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the necessity of anti-Semitism.

In light of all that has been discussed, we could add that “Secure Tolerance,” Big Tech, Big Capital, Big Brother, and Big Jew have converged. The final result will be the achievement of Jewish censorship across the West, a “permanent and irreversible” cycle of laws and repression, and the theft of our children’s future. Like Milton’s Satan, these groups will declaim in favor of equality and democracy, only to later wield the tyrant’s scepter in Hell.

Conclusion

How to finish such a pessimistic essay? It’s true that the information presented here is disturbing, infuriating, confusing, and heartbreaking. Can any practical lessons be derived from it?

One clear pattern observed in this essay is the overwhelming reliance on “think tanks” and similar bureaucratic vehicles for the intrusion of harmful Jewish influence into our “democracy.” Jews, even with their very significant financial power, rely on the magnification of their rhetoric, interests, and grievances through such bodies in order to accomplish their goals. This is where they can and should be challenged. Who is granting access and power to these groups? Can existing legislation be used to prevent the intrusion of these bodies into the democratic process and, if not, can new legislation be proposed to do so? The closest the dissident right ever came to a think tank was the National Policy Institute (NPI), which despite its name, and while fulfilling an important movement function, didn’t really produce any policies. At the present time, our movement clearly needs talented legal minds and institutions to unpack existing legislation, and develop new legislative proposals that, even if not explicitly racial, can seriously hinder the movement of harmful Jewish groups through the political body of the West. There is a serious lack of infrastructure of even the most basic kind, and we simply aren’t going to make any progress until this problem is addressed.

The second lesson from this survey of developments is that social media is likely to become an increasingly compromised and dangerous place for activists. In Europe, new laws are probably a few years away, but the broader plan will almost certainly eventually envelop Canada, Australia, and, despite apparent belief that the Constitution is invulnerable, even the United States. Already American legal scholars have developed arguments for curtailing the First Amendment in the case of “hate speech” (see, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), and it is widely believed that a liberal Supreme Court majority would adopt such reasoning. The clock is probably already ticking on internet anonymity, and the example of Germany indicates that direct police involvement in “speech crime” is on the horizon. Off-line activist methodologies should be increasingly explored. Failing that, radically alternative modes of using internet networking should be considered. For example, even if someone uses a completely outrageous Twitter handle, complete with comic book avatar, most people still have their entire lives online (job, home town, friends, likes, hobbies, vacations). Don’t forget who ultimately has all of this information, and the organizations that will increasingly be able to access it.

It’s becoming very apparent that social media is itself a form of social control. We now have the ability to identify someone in a crowd simply by cross-referencing a photo of their face with available internet information. In seconds they can be identified, their employer can be contacted, and their loved ones can be harassed. In a strange way, despite the atomized condition of postmodernity, we have social control levels approaching those of the middle ages. We have new forms of social shaming, and new forms of the public pillory. Dissident activists who face overwhelming costs if they are doxxed would be well-advised to reduce their internet presence to the bare minimum, in effect, deliberately fading themselves into obscurity, thus making their life harder for the Zionist-Globalist panopticon to search for and penetrate. Remember who you were before you became an employee number, a Facebook profile, or a Twitter handle, and protect that person like you’d protect your child or other loved ones.

For the time being, however, ongoing online activism should be continued with enthusiasm and without despair. This costs our opponents dearly in terms of effort, money, and worry. Each new platform presents difficulties for them to navigate, and delays other plans they may have. Be proud that you’re still active, and be proud that while so many others in life are merely counting passes, you spotted that gorilla. I’ll leave the final word to Sir Oswald Mosley:

We have believed in our fellow Europeans. And we have believed in the destiny of Europe. My friends, it’s all there, it’s all waiting. Of course it can be done. It depends upon ourselves. You say, “But again, we’re scattered individuals. … Everything’s against us. Governments. Money. Press. Television. All the new forces are used against us. All the great forces, all the material powers of the world, you say are against you. And so they are —you’re quite right to feel that. And I don’t underrate them.

But I don’t despair, and you shouldn’t despair. Because you, like I, have read something of history. You know something of the record of the achievement of Europeans. And dark as this hour is, it’s no darker, it’s not as dark, as some of the hours you’ve known in European history. When everything was cowardice, treachery, and betrayal, and when the Saracen hordes from far outside Europe swept right across that continent, small bands of men came together in resolution, in absolute determination, giving themselves completely, and saying: Europe shall live! And they stood firm, and faced the menace to Europe, its values, its civilisations, the glory of its achievements. And more and more rallied to their standards, and those hordes were thrown back, again and again and again.

My friends it’s an immense responsibility. You’re living in a historic hour — do remember that always. Live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny. Come together, get going, get working. Inspire other people like yourselves.

[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) 219.

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 2

/12 Comments/in , , /by

Go to Part 1.

2012–2015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance

Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantor’s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European “tolerance law” for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to “criminalize ‘group libel,’ such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe.” On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and throwing his “support behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent.” Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to Times of Israel, was “undeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a “pipe dream,” the tolerance law will ultimately take root.”

Dinstein’s document, innocuously titled “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” [full text here] but also known by the name “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” was designed to legally implement Kantor’s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.” It proposes to make “education in tolerance” mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. … It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school.” The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.

The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.” It asserts a legally binding commitment that: “The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.” Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:

  • The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.

In short, the proposals aim to make “commitment to tolerance” a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of “special administrative units” dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess “intolerant” views.” The statute develops a framework of “concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.” The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that “Whilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.”

Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that “It must be understood that the “group libel” may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).” Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantor’s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: “Historically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.”

Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made “anti-Semitic” criticisms of Israel today, or “denied the Holocaust.” And these penalties are harsh. The document argues there is “no need to be tolerant to the intolerant.” Group libel, “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology,” xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as “aggravated crimes.” Juveniles “guilty of intolerance” will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via “a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.”

Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor’s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation. Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a $1 million “Kantor Prize for Secure Tolerance,” an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of “20–50 thousand Euro each” for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.


Incentivizing treason: Kantor, awarding the European Medal of Tolerance to Prince Albert II of Monaco: “Your Highness’ gesture of supporting historical truth and unveiling a monument commemorating deported Jews in World War II has been such a liberating act of contrition, all the more impressive because it concerned not only your own people, but also because of your own family’s political responsibilities for the course of events.”

2016–2018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on “Cyber Hate”

Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to “Secure Tolerance” by building a more intensive relationships with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet “intolerance.” In January 2016, Kantor’s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced “a partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,” that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship. At a meeting of the EJC’s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would “enable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programs,” while providing Kantor’s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that “Working together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.” An enthused Kantor replied, “I am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.” Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in “advocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commission.”

By 2018, Kantor’s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about “secure tolerance” had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the “intolerant” to “the censure of society. … If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it.” But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.

Moshe Kantor and the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt

In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central “think tank” for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism” the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.

The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites,” and its plan to “eliminate anti-Semitism” is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are
absent.

 

Latter-Day Elders of Zion

In much the same way that Kantor’s “secure tolerance” policy proposes that “restrictions are necessary for freedom,” many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995–2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance” Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a “defender of democracy,” acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the “think tank” strategy, this is “democracy,” but not as you know it.

Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,” appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.[1] Along with an earlier piece from 2016,[2] the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and does inspire crime,” it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.

We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: “On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).” Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident “illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.”

Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:

[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.

The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech” didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that “hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”

Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that “White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups.” The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.

In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede “quite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.” Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.” It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.

In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of “hate groups,” as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.” Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.

Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos.” They offer “eye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.” Readers of such websites “talk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.” Members “use cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.” Website proprietors can also “make appeals for funding.” Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.

Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate” buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: “Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.”[3] The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication.

It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians. Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.’ Cohen-Almagor writes:

Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.

Go to Part 3.

[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.

[2] . Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.

[3] J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1

/34 Comments/in , , , /by


“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight? 

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?


Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist

Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts. 

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[1] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6] From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8] He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11] Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law  as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.”[14] The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

Go to Part 2 of 3.

[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

Competing with the Negative Story About Whites, Part 2

/20 Comments/in /by

Part One of this article dealt with the prevailing negative narrative, or story, about white people—what it is, why it is, how it works, and its consequences.  Bottom line, it’s very hurtful to white people: it legitimizes abuse and diminution by those who resent and despise them; and it fosters self-destructive behaviors among whites who internalize its demonic conception of them.  Part Two explores what can be done about that problem.   I hope what’s here prompts your own best thinking.

*   *   *

To begin, a sobering reality.  The wicked-whites story tellers dominate the main stage in America (and throughout the West, but America is the focus of this writing).  With very few exceptions—Pat Buchanan? Tucker Carlson? who else?—everybody doing the talking, broadly defined, front and center in this country is to one extent or another pushing the negative narrative about whites.  I’m referring to mainstream news and entertainment personalities, educators at all levels, politicians in the middle of the spectrum (which means both the Democrats and Republicans), the clergy, the publishing industry, and every reputable interest group.  All of them are shooting paint balls at whites—splat!  Unless it can be done very discretely, breaking into that that action—at least in the short run—looks really tough to me.

As I wrote the “Unless it can be done very discretely” lead-in to the last sentence, I thought of something William Pierce, a prominent white advocate who was shut out of mainstream discourse, said to me. “How does Tom Wolfe [the novelist, The Bonfire of the Vanities, A Man in Full, Back to Blood] get away with it?  He’s worse [more pro-white] than I am.”  I was writing a book about Pierce and didn’t think it was my place to say it, but I thought, “Because Wolfe’s slicker than you are.  If you are going to be heard by anybody besides fringe types, you are going to have to be really slick like Wolfe.”

In this same sentence, note the other qualifying phrase: at least in the short run.”   That underscores that there is a long run, and that it is a very important reality to take into account.

Decades ago—forty, even fifty, years ago—young people on the political left who wanted to change this country in directions they favored took it upon themselves to get in positions where they’d be able to do it.   I’m thinking of Bill and Hillary Clinton and student activist Todd Gitlin and scholar Stephen Jay Gould and filmmaker Steven Spielberg and countless others like them who over time—it took the span of their careers—gained control of the core institutions in American life: politics, universities, the media, publishing.   They ran for public office.  They became university professors.  They shaped the news and commentary in both print and electronic media.  They created and produced television shows and movies and published books and magazines.

They came to control entry into their fields.  Don’t expect to get hired as a university professor unless these people, or those they brought on board, approve of your ideas (at least what they know about them—back to the need to be slick).  Don’t expect to make a movie or television show they don’t like, or get a book or article in print if it runs up against their commitments (I can speak from personal experience about this one).

Decade after decade, they indoctrinated and politicized the young people who enrolled in their classes and watched their shows and listened to their speeches (re: Bernie Sanders), until it came to a point that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson became villains in society’s drama.

It should be noted that not every one of these left-leaning young people of the ‘60s and ‘70s stayed left throughout the course of their career.  I’m thinking in particular of one young person from Wisconsin who forty years ago embarked on an academic career who didn’t.

Some context before continuing with his story:  Books by university faculty rarely make any difference to anybody but the person who writes one—namely, they pave the way to his permanent status in the university (tenure) and promotion up the ranks to full professor.   The book gets published, university libraries buy a copy for their collection (the profit to the publisher), the author’s mother buys one (and puts in her bookcase unread), and that’s it.  You could put twenty-dollar bills in academic books and be very sure you’d be able to retrieve them from the pristine books five years later.

Every once in a great while, however, there’s an exception to that pattern. A prime example, in the 1980s, a book about university education, Closing of the American Mind, by a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, Allan Bloom, became a surprise best-seller.  Stephen Jay Gould, mentioned above, a university professor who argued (he has passed on) a nurture-over-nature take on human evolution, wrote books that were read by the general public.

Back to the story of the young left-leaning person from Wisconsin.  He got his Ph.D in psychology and embarked on a career as a professor at the California State University, Long Beach, rising to the highest rank of full professor.   Between 1994 and 1998, he wrote three books about the impact throughout history of Jewish individuals and organizations on gentile life.7  The experience of writing the books changed his outlook; he shifted to the right politically.  His three books had the formidable look of the usual academic book: lots of pages, small print, and voluminous footnotes.  It would have been understandable if his mother had bought the first one and taken a pass on the last two.

But the darnedest thing happened: the three books hit big, especially the last one, The Culture of Critique.  All three asserted that Jews have been adversarial and detrimental to gentile cultures, societies, and political arrangements.  That message ran head on into the party line of the academics who do the talking about Jews, and they were highly put out and let that be known.   His university colleagues came after him as an anti-Semite, which he wasn’t.  Witch hunters from the Jewish-dominated Southern Poverty Law Center descended on his campus.  If his adversaries had had their way, he would have been fired from the university.

I’m reminded of how this same kind of thing went on from the opposite angle in German universities in the ‘30s dominated by National Socialist ideology, and how German academics in fear of losing their jobs—including the great philosopher Martin Heidegger—caved and told the inquisitors what they wanted to hear.8  But to his great credit, this quiet, proud man from Wisconsin didn’t cave: he stood tall and strong, and the notoriety of the attacks against him encouraged still more people, including me, to read his books.

Many of the readers of The Occidental Observer know I’m referring to its founder and editor, Kevin MacDonald.  Kevin’s trilogy, as well as his books and articles since, and his editorial work—imagine keeping this complex site going day after day, week after week, month after month—have made the world a different place than it would have been if he hadn’t embarked on his life-long journey so many years ago.

The point here is that if you are young, you can choose to do the same kind of thing Kevin did.  The same kind of thing, not the same thing.   Kevin is Kevin and you are you.  He lived in his time; you will live in yours.  But you can be inspired by Kevin—and yes, by the Clintons and Todd Gitlin and Stephen Jay Gould and all the rest of the people who changed the world, including the narrative about white people (unfortunately, they took it in a negative direction).

As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu put it, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.  The challenge is to comprehend how today’s small step will someday get you a thousand miles.  And keep in mind the destination doesn’t have to be a university professorship or a powerful political or media slot.  Any reputable position on the inside in public life—a doctor, a business owner, a skilled tradesman—can be the base for influencing the thoughts and actions that define your time and set the stage for the times ahead.  The school board takes you more seriously, you have money to give to political campaigns—little things add up.

*   *   *

That’s the long range.  What can be done in the short range—today, tomorrow, this year—to change the anti-white narrative?  Two things come to mind:

First, don’t yourself get sucked into the negative story about whites. Earlier, I alluded to the problem of white people—particularly young—buying the villainy attributed to their race.  It’s understandable because it is the only story they hear, and they hear it over and over and over and over again from grade school through graduate school and beyond.  I worked in a university and know how relentless the indoctrination is—every class in the social sciences, humanities, education, and social services—bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.  It stands to reason that many if not most students would take it in as gospel truth.

Practice critically analyzing the stories coming at you.  In my last post on this site, I referred to developing what the novelist Ernest Hemingway called “a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”  Put a shit detector filter between you and the racial vitriol.

How do you do that?  By doing two things they don’t want you to do:

Look hard at the facts, or lack of them, behind the story.  What are three concrete examples of systemic racism?  Name them.  Did that knee on Floyd’s neck really asphyxiate him? Why haven’t they demonstrated with a volunteer that it cuts off air supply?

Employ reason and logic.  Why is it you can predict with a very high level of certainty, anywhere in the world, what a place will be like if there is a critical mass of blacks there—a school, a community, a business, anything?

Come up with your own, positive, story to compete with the horror story you’re being told: “My people are artists and poets and pioneers and architects and composers and filmmakers and novelists and philosophers and scientists and business owners and internet designers and farmers and construction workers and mountain climbers and Little League coaches and loyal and loving parents and spouses, and I’m a good person and so are my parents and grandparents.”

And second, become a regular consumer of a positive white narrative.  There was a time, and not all that long ago, when pro-white voices couldn’t be heard at all.  There were only the three television networks—CBS, NBC, and ABC—and eight Hollywood movie studios, and a few New York publishing houses, and all of them were antagonistic toward white people.  Now there is the internet, independent filmmaking, cable, and social media, and white advocates are readily accessible, and many of them are top of the line.

Here are some internet examples of special note.  I’m not a social media and podcast person, and I’m sure there are equally impressive things going on in those areas:

  • Kevin and this site. Among TOO’s fine contributors is Andrew Joyce, nobody better.
  • Jared Taylor, a marvelous thinker and writer, and his American Renaissance site and the writers on his staff, including Gregory Hood. Jared has been at it for twenty years, an inspiration to us all.
  • Greg Johnson, dedicated, and courageous—he’s taken shots—and his site Counter-Currents.
  • Peter Brimelow and his VDARE.com site. Peter has been at it for many years and prevailed amid numerous attempts to discredit and silence him, including one that’s going on now.
  • The Taki’s Magazine site has first rate contributors, including Steve Sailer and Jim Goad. Goad is arguably the best prose stylist of any social/political commentator in America.
  • Ron Unz at his Unz Review is doing great work.
  • Andrew Anglin on his site The Daily Stormer crosses the line at times, but he is an exceedingly bright, perceptive, and entertaining young writer. Old as I am, I’m not in his target audience, but I’m a regular with him and better for it.

The quality of writing in this list is so high, the arguments so compelling, I have to believe that it is having, or in the near future will have, a significant impact on the dialogue and debate in this country.  And to think that little of it existed just a few years ago.   It is a very encouraging phenomenon.

Ideally, every white person would know about the sites and people I’ve just listed, as well as, I’m sure, others I’m not familiar with.  Absolutely, the most informed, persuasive, and articulate voices are on our side. Those skilled in getting the word out about their existence—through social media, however it is done, it’s not a skill I possess—would do a great service if they took on that challenge.

I’d like to think that in the coming years the Republican Party in particular will pick up on the white advocacy message and popularize it.  And that whites will leave the Democratic Party that despises them and join up with the Republicans.  With all the talk of whites becoming a minority in this country, whites will continue to be by far the largest voting bloc, and frankly, the most capable.  Coalesced, whites can be the dominant political force in the coming years.

The challenge for white advocates is to present their case in a way that mainstream politicians, academics, and others can make use of it without being shot down as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the rest of the litany of epithets.  As I see it, the argument for white interests should not be framed in radical, extremist, rhetoric and imagery, as historically it has been.  The argument for white people can, and should, be grounded in the core values, ideals, of America—freedom, fairness, and self-determination.  There’s nothing inherently extremist about white advocacy.

*   *   *

What can be done to counteract the negative racial message young people are getting from the schools and media?   They need to hear the other side.  One possibility is an internet site aimed at and operated by young white people that offers a counterbalance to the current indoctrination.  I’m hopeful that it will appeal to whites from all social backgrounds.

That theme with me, the site I have in mind would not be a neo-Nazi repository.  Selling Hitler and Himmler to the masses and equating white concerns with National Socialism in particular and the far right in general has a long and painful history of setting us up to be written off as wacko losers and cancelled hard and fast.  White advocacy should be positioned as a centrist effort and presented as non-controversially as possible.  That is what is going to appeal to the most people, make entry into the mainstream of American life an easier row to hoe, and make us a more elusive target.

What’s the content of the kind of site I’m talking about?  I’m thinking of short biographies—Mozart, Lindbergh, Knut Hamsun, Rudyard Kipling.   Accounts of events—the Alamo, Charles Martel, the Vikings.  Excerpts from great fiction and nonfiction.  Critiques of the diversity and multicultural propaganda.  People to network with.  Self-strengthening tips. Videos.  Podcasts.  Events.  Suggestions of good books to read.  Discussion forums.  People of all ages could submit things to be approved by the young people who operate the site.

There will be the challenge to get the word out to every white high school and college student, that this site (or whatever it turns out to be) exists.   But I am sure there are people who know how to do that effectively.

*   *   *

I’ve been attending to the nature and fate of white people for nearly twenty-five years.  I’ve come to the conclusion that when all is said and done, white people come out on top.  And that goes for those from working class backgrounds, who these days are having some issues with despair and drugs; I have faith that they’ll come through, especially if they can be given a way to ascribe a positive meaning to their lives.

I go back to the years of the Black Panthers in the 1960s.   They were much like today’s Black Lives Matter activists—good at calling attention to themselves, posturing, threatening, media darlings.  The problem for the Panthers, and I suspect it is true of the Black Lives Matters bunch, is they were incompetent (which is perhaps why they were so enamored with socialism, as is BLM).  The Panthers were good at finger-pointing, but very bad at making anything productive happen.  Businesses they set up failed.  They failed in their personal lives.

The Antifa crowd is no better.  Pull back the curtain and they are Wizards of Oz.  I’ve read dire warnings that they are going to take their looting and burning act to the suburbs—oh, the menace!  I publicly invite them to try that stunt.  Those people in the suburbs are armed and bad-asses.  The Antifa will scurry back to the basements of their parents’ houses and not come out for days except to reheat some chili.

The true story favors us, and we’re up against screw-ups and fakes.  We’ve got work to do, but we’ll be fine.

Endnotes

  1. Robert S. Griffin, “A Message in the In-Box,” 2009, in the writings section of www.robertsgriffin.com.
  2. Neil Postman, The End of Education (Vintage, 1996) pp. 5-6.
  3. See, Herbert Kohl, The Discipline of Hope, (Simon & Schuster) pp. 319-20.
  4. Robert Griffin, One Sheaf, One Vine (1stBooks Library, 2004).
  5. Edward McNeil Burns, David Starr Jordan: Prophet of Freedom (Stanford University Press, 1953).
  6. See, Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II (University of Chicago Press, 1997).
  7. The three Kevin Mcdonald books, all published by Praeger: A People That Dwell Alone (1994); Separation and Its Discontents (1998); and The Culture of Critique (1998).
  8. See, Adam Knowles, Heidegger’s Fascist Affinities: A Politics of Silence (Stanford University Press, 2019.)

Competing with the Negative Story About Whites, Part 1

/22 Comments/in /by

An attack against whites is raging full bore these days (it’s July of 2020).  Hoards are roaming about desecrating and toppling statues of white heroes.  Every center-stage talking head and computer key tapper and every school teacher and administrator from grade school to graduate school is steadily piling on—racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism . . . and racism.   Seriously, I’m wondering whether Goebbels with the Jews and the Turks with the Armenians had worse things to say about their prey than what I’m hearing about my people—who, by the way, as far back as I can trace, worked a small peanut farm, went deaf tending a roaring-loud machine in a factory, stood arms and hands in the air with shoulders throbbing cutting people’s hair, rang up a cash register all day at Schuneman’s Department Store in downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota, came up with the money (just barely) to pay the rent for the second-floor rooms in Mr. Jensen’s house we were living in, bought me corduroy pants to wear to Davis Grade School, and oppressed absolutely nobody on the face of this earth.

I’m not up on history enough to know to what extent, if any, the Jews and Armenians bought the horror story being told about them, but it’s scary how many white people these days, particularly the young, are, in self-flagellating fervor, beating their heads against cement walls.  I go all the way back to Adlai Stevenson, who ran as the Democrat candidate for president in 1952.  Dignified, urbane, quick-witted.  I’m comparing him to the current presumptive Democratic nominee—a shaky, nursing home apparition—putting down an entire race of people and offering slurred promises, scout’s honor, not to select one of them to be on his ticket as vice-president.   It takes my breath away.

The Black Lives Matter thugs, Antifa marauders, and establishment bad-mouthers didn’t spring up from nowhere.  What we are so painfully experiencing is a continuation, and escalation, of what’s been going on for decades.  In 2009, eleven years ago—and it could have been written years before that—with a focus on elementary and secondary schooling, I wrote this (I’ve added some present-day parenthetical inserts):1

We need to put forth a positive narrative of the white race to counter the negative one being imposed on our children.  The late scholar Neil Postman wrote that a narrative 

tells of origins and envisions a future; it is a story that constructs ideals, prescribes rules of conduct, provides a source of authority, and, above all, gives a sense of continuity and purpose.2

The narrative, the story, of whites being preached to our children these years is one in which the themes are not the truly remarkable accomplishments of whites but rather repression and injustice: racism, sexism, economic and political exploitation, arrogance, and exclusion.  The late critic and novelist Susan Sontag, honored far and wide and a regular on the commencement speech circuit, proclaimed, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”  Especially villainous in the story are white men, or, in the parlance of the day, white males—insensitive, boorish, authoritarian, violent.

The challenge facing humankind, the current narrative has it, is to put whites in their proper place, which, depending on the version of story being told, is either on a par and mixed in with everybody else or chastened and deferential at the back of the line.  Absurdly, whites are being charged with bringing themselves down; and even more absurdly, many are taking on the task.  Is there any other group of people—blacks, Jews, anybody—you could con into self-abnegation and turning on their kinsmen?

White young people are taught the contradictory beliefs that 1) race doesn’t exist—it is a social fiction, 2) race does exist but doesn’t matter, and 3) race exists and matters, and for them their race is something to feel guilty about and atone.   Decades of teaching college students and I never heard one of them point out the irrationality of that package of assertions.  Though I don’t want to conclude that it got by all of them; white students know to keep their mouths shut, even with someone like me who has the appearance at least of being on their side.  In any case, they got the basic idea, and I believe great numbers took it to heart: they have no business feeling one iota of positive connection with their race, their European heritage, or one another.

What’s going on in our schools is nothing less than a subtle genocidal attack against a race of people.  The first step in this pogrom is to get white children and only them—no one else is taught this—to reject, even disdain, their racial identity.

Prominent educator Herbert Kohl reflects widely held views in the field of education when he writes about a university class he instructed in which he sought to “level the playing field” by teaching white students that their culture is “no more permanent or special that other cultures.”3

Kohl says he discouraged whites from seeing themselves as separate and distinct or feeling pride in being white.  His lessons—coming after years of similar ones in many other classrooms and in countless movie theaters and on countless television screens—bore fruit: he reports with obvious satisfaction that his white students said they “hated being called white” and were “annoyed” and “angry” that they are white.    Kohl is Jewish; would he have been as proud of getting Jewish students to say they were annoyed and angry that they are Jewish?

White students need to hear another story, another narrative, about their race.  They need to hear of their adventurous and visionary and daring and spiritual ancestors—farmers, warriors, philosophers, poets, scientists, architects, civilization builders.  To be sure, white history isn’t an unblemished record, but the main thrust of the white race isn’t the tale of oppression being imposed on us.

Last weekend, I was sitting with a friend at the lake front in Burlington, Vermont.  There were hundreds of people around where we were— parents and children, young couples, older people.  There was a gentility, a peaceful flow, a grace, to the people and the setting.  It was safe where we were.  I remarked to my friend how impressed I was with the architecture in the lake front area and in the downtown stores and offices just behind us, and how everything was kept up so well.  After a time of silence, she said, “You know what I’m thinking?  Everybody here is white.  This is what they built, this is what they created; this is how they live when they are among their own.”

Young white people—all white people—have a right to acknowledge the worth as their race, and to be proud of it, and to feel connected to it, and to feel responsible for continuing and extending its best aspects.  A white narrative needs to include the reality that this way of life is threatened.  There are fewer and fewer Burlingtons now days (and how long will Burlington be Burlington?) and more and more Detroits and Londons and Cincinnatis.  My hometown of Minneapolis, a lovely, safe city of lakes when I was growing up, has gone through drastic demographic changes and, predictably, much of it isn’t lovely and safe any longer.  It has come to be called—I find this so sad—“Murderapolis.” [Unemployed, ex-con, drug-using, bad-check-passing, arrest-resisting, and future-mural-idol George Floyd graced the city with his presence after leaving his young daughter and her mother in Houston.] It goes unreported, but white people everywhere are under siege and fleeing—it’s disdainfully called “white flight” by people who live in gated communities.

My book One Sheaf, One Vine is made up of the personal statements about race from seventeen everyday white Americans, who if it hadn’t been for my book would be publicly silent [just as, to a remarkable degree, everyday white Americans have been publicly silent throughout this recent post-Floyd rampage].4  Those who control the public discourse don’t want us to hear from them, and anyone, like me, who makes them visible is subject to attack.  Hear from two of the white people who speak out in my book:

The first is a forty-year-old man from the northeastern part of the United States.

People who think of themselves as enlightened and on the moral high ground in matters of race write off people like me as ignorant racists.  Unlike them, so it goes, we pre-judge people.  If only we were exposed to racial and ethnic diversity we would learn to value different kinds of people—etcetera, etcetera, you’ve heard the line.  You’ll notice that most of these people doing the pontificating and finger pointing about racial equality and harmony and the virtues of integration and multi-racialism do it from the far distance of the leafy suburbs or a university campus somewhere.  The fact of the matter is that, unlike practically all of them, I have lived up close with the reality of race in America.  And regardless of what they might like to think, I am not stupid or unenlightened or their moral inferior.  Those who look down their noses at people like me should come live for a year or two or three where my family and millions of other white families live.   Let their children grow up and go to school in this pigsty and be threatened and attacked and robbed and raped.  Then they can talk. 

The second is a twenty-eight-year-old woman who is leaving southern California for Washington State or Oregon, or perhaps Canada, she’s not sure, in the face of the non-white infusion of the area in which she lives:

I just want to live a normal life, preferably with a family, but if I can’t have that, a life with good friends in a community where I feel safe and I’m free to walk down the street without looking over my shoulder.  I want to be able to express pride in my people and admiration for our white ancestors and continue their traditions without minority harassment and interference.  When I am really old, I want to live in peace instead of like the old people in the neighborhood where I live who are eighty-ninety years old without the energy or the money to escape. 

This is going on, and our children are hearing their race and heritage denigrated in schools, and they are being deluged with crude and vulgar messages and images from the lowest rung of black culture, and they are the victims of racial discrimination when they apply for college or a job, and demographically their race is steadily disappearing from the face of the earth.

I received an e-mail yesterday from a father who told me that his daughter, who had worked incredibly hard in school and had graduated at the top of her high school class, had been rejected by all the Ivy League schools she had applied to while many of her black classmates with far lower academic achievements and test scores had been admitted.  He said his daughter “cried and cried.”

After reading what this father wrote, I cried and cried.  A new narrative should include this white girl, along the invitation to white people to expel their sense of isolation, their feeling of separation from one another, their atomization, and join with their racial kinsmen to put a stop to this injustice and cruelty.  Doing that isn’t about being against anyone or hurting anyone.  Rather, it is about racial self-love and self-preservation and self-determination, which are the rights of every race of people.

*   *   *

The campaign against whites sets up a demonic category—white—and puts every last white person in it, whether they be from Silicon Valley or rural West Virginia, are a janitor or corporate head, old or young, liberal or conservative, or from the distant past or alive now.  They are all the same, and they are all bad, bad, bad.

What does that accomplish?

It replaces reality with a narrative.   What white people actually did, or do, or are—the incredible complexity of that—becomes a simple, and negative, story.  Now, the basis of truth isn’t facts or logical inference; it is the story.  All you need to keep the story going is a single instance that seems to affirm it.  A police-related death in Minneapolis—ah yes, the story is true.

It makes the grievances of blacks, thirteen percent of America’s population, the national agenda.  It makes a group of people all-important who on their merits deserve little or no attention until they get their acts together.  It gives people unearned respect.  It relieves blacks of personal responsibility, a basic tenant of this culture and society,

And frighteningly, ominously, as it did with the Jews and the Albanians, it sets whites up for being debased, abused, taken down, robbed, assaulted, and killed.  Narratives are deadly serious business.

*   *   *

Part of exploiting, injuring, and displacing people is to keep them from thinking about what you don’t want them thinking about.  Stories keep concerns, questions, issues, and possibilities out of peoples’ minds.  To illustrate, here are a couple of white people who at one time were prominent in American life who have been excised from the past—David Starr Jordan and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning.   Those currently in power don’t want us to know about Dr. Jordan and Ms. Van Hyning because if we did, we might be prompted to think about things they don’t want us getting into.  As you read through these accounts of the lives of these two people, think about what that might be.

*   *   *

David Starr Jordan (1851–1931) was a distinguished naturalist and social philosopher, published poet, and the first president of Stanford University. He was described by his biographer as “one of the most versatile men America has produced, winning distinction not only as an educator, philosopher, and scientist but also as an explorer, crusader for peace, advisor to presidents, and statesman.”5

Jordan was openly and proudly racially conscious.  He used the term “Aryan” and asserted that the “whole body of the ‘blond race'” constituted a brotherhood.  He held that race was “the blood of a nation” and the primary determinant in its history.

Jordan’s believed white racial superiority to be the observation of every intelligent person.  Jordan asserted that northern European peoples have the highest level of the qualities needed to produce a superior society and culture.  Very important to Jordan, Nordics didn’t have what was most detrimental to civilization building: a high percentage of dissolute and disorganized.  He cautioned that even the most favorable surroundings “can never change a bad breed into a good one.”

Jordan saw America as a Nordic nation:  “Its freedom was won and its integrity maintained by Nordic methods,” he wrote.  “Who gave them this chance?” he asked.  “Did they not take it for themselves?  They have had liberty, education, and self-government because they wanted these things and wanted them badly enough to put forth the effort to get them.”

Jordan despaired of the introduction of Africans into the country and the prospect of racial intermixing.  He decried the immigration of “weaker groups” being fostered during his time by industrialists in search of cheap labor.

He prophesized that unless Jewish power in the world was held in check the result would be “nothing less than Armageddon.”

Jordan opposed war as an instrument of public policy.  He pointed out that in the American Civil War half of the best young men in the South were killed or died of disease, and that forty percent of them did not leave descendants.   Jordan noted that wars breed hatred, resentment, grievance, and the desire for revenge, which lead to future wars and even more slaughter and devastation.  He repudiated the contention you must fight fire with fire. “Fire will not put out fire,” he warned.

Along with many prominent people of his time—among them, John Harvey Kellogg of breakfast cereal fame, naturalist Luther Burbank, and Harvard president, Charles Eliot—Jordan was a eugenicist. “A race of men or a herd of cattle are governed by the same laws of selection,” he wrote.  He condemned social policies impelled by paternalism and charity that result in racial deterioration by encouraging “weakness to mate with weakness.”

*   *   *

Lyrl Clark Van Hyning (1892–1973) was a leader of a women’s movement in the late 1930s and early ’40s that centered its efforts on opposing America’s involvement in the war in Europe.6  At its peak, the confederation of women’s groups that conducted this campaign had six million members.  Although Van Hyning saw herself as a champion of women, she stood in stark contrast to today’s feminists.  Her politics were right-of-center.  She was highly nationalistic, patriotic, anti-communist, and critical of Jewish influence, and pro-free-enterprise.  Her orientation was, in the first instance, maternal: she saw herself as a mother and approached things from that perspective.  Only mothers, she believed, could save their sons from the war that was impending and then waged.  She upheld the traditional family, which included a strong and vital patriarchal presence. She didn’t set herself off against men: her husband and son and other men, weren’t “them” to her but rather “us.”  She didn’t portray men as competitors or adversaries, or see them as needing to be held in check or reconditioned.  Last, she was a strong Christian.  A few weeks before the invasion of Europe that everyone knew was coming soon, she declared: “Those boys who will be forced to throw their young flesh against the impregnable wall of steel are the same babies mothers cherished and comforted and brought to manhood.  Mother’s kiss healed all hurts of childhood.  But on invasion day no kiss can heal the terrible hurts and mother won’t be there.  Mothers have betrayed their sons to the butchers.”

*   *   *

What might these two lives bring up among white people, particularly young whites, that those in power want to suppress?

  • The possibility of white racial consciousness and commitment. That’s for other people—in fact, all other people—but not for whites.
  • The possibility that, in fact, there are qualitative differences among the races. What if instead of looking down our noses and blotting out figures like Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson as ignorant racists, case closed, we said, “We would do well to look into why people as capable and accomplished as these men thought about race as they did.”
  • That America was founded as a Nordic nation and would have been better off staying that way. And that now, Nordic people should have the right to live their way among their own.
  • That everybody concerned about Jewish impact isn’t a lunatic bent on exterminating them. That there is the possibility of considering this issue rationally, dispassionately, and objectively.
  • That woman’s issues are not the sole province of the political left and its perspective. There was a women’s movement—with six million members!—that demonstrated that.
  • That war isn’t simply a necessary evil, including the beloved World War II, which resulted in 50 million deaths in Europe alone. Those in power back then loved it when Iowa farm boys set down their plows and sailed across the ocean to anonymously kill European boys who looked just like them.   And they loved it that the boys’ mothers went along with it.  As a very small child in the early ‘40s, I remember seeing small stars on pieces of cloth tacked on to front doors of houses.  I have since learned that a blue star represented a family member in the military and a gold star a family member who had been killed in the war.  The Sullivan family made the news for having five gold stars for the five Sullivan brothers who lost their lives in the war.  I don’t know how the mother of the Sullivan boys thought about the war, but Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, the mother of a boy, wasn’t having any part of that government program of destruction and slaughter.  The thought of Lyrl Clark Van Hyning’s example crossing the minds of mothers sends shivers down the spine of those who want a ready supply of young bodies for the next killing spree in the Middle East.

What can be done to compete with the prevailing negative narrative about white people? In Part 2, I’ll offer some thoughts in response to that question.

Go to Part 2 of 2.

Race and King of the Hill

/9 Comments/in /by

King of the Hill was a popular animated sitcom series on Fox which ran from 1997 to 2010, created by former Simpsons writer Greg Daniels along with Mike Judge, the latter also known for comedy films like Idiocracy and Office Space. The show’s portrayal of race was conventional at the time, sometimes unflattering toward Whites, and even pro-immigration, but would be condemned as “racist” by the social justice mob of today. Not only was it not sufficiently flattering to non-Whites, but the series portrays small-town Whites in a relatively sympathetic way which would never be acceptable under contemporary rules of political correctness.

King of the Hill focuses on the Hill family, led by Hank, a proud salesman of propane and propane accessories. He and his wife Peggy, an incompetent substitute Spanish teacher, have a son named Bobby and have informally adopted their niece Luanne, both being generally good-natured but neither very bright.

Indeed, the ignorance and incompetence of many of the characters is a frequent subject of humor. Hank’s friend Bill, a dimwitted and divorced army barber, often beclowns himself. At one point he attempts to commit suicide, but is unsuccessful as he slams his head in a drawer, puts his head inside an electric stove, tries to drown himself in the toilet, and falls off the roof of a one-story building from which he meant to jump. He is even incompetent at stepping in front of traffic. Hank is more intelligent and less clownish than Bill, but still sometimes shows his naivete, such as when he unwittingly buys crack cocaine to use as fishing bait.

Bill is confused and saddened by Hank’s humor at his expense.

The show does not express the outright malice towards Whites which is becoming the norm today, but unfortunately is implicitly anti-White in some ways. The clearest such theme in the show involves Dale Gribble — a paranoid exterminator and one of Hank’s best friends — and his unfaithful wife. Nancy, a blonde White woman, has been having frequent sexual encounters for many years with John Redcorn, a Native American healer. In contrast with Dale, who is comically out of shape and cowardly, Redcorn is very muscular and stoic. At one point, Nancy is disgusted and ashamed by the fact that she has slept with Dale, rather than by her extramarital affair. A running joke in the series is that Dale, while often expressing paranoia about government conspiracies, never suspects the relationship between his wife and Redcorn. This is despite repeated hints, such as his “son” Joseph having strangely dark skin.

A White male character is thus portrayed as not only an undesirable mate but also a cuck at the hands of a non-White man, and too foolish to even be aware of it. Although no one explicitly makes an issue of Dale’s race, there is a general emasculation of White men in the series. None of the White male characters are as masculine as Redcorn, either physically or psychologically. Even Hank, though more authoritative than Dale, is emasculated; he is out of shape, horrified by any reference to sexuality, and had trouble conceiving due to his narrow urethra. At one point he even finds he has a low sperm count.

Outside of his adulterous relationship with Nancy, John Redcorn is portrayed as noble and wise. However, this is done in a way which would trigger censors to flag it as “racist stereotyping” today. He is always wearing Native American jewelry, and often when he speaks of his people’s traditions, it suddenly becomes windy so that his long hair is accentuated, while tribal music plays in the background.

John Redcorn is unmoved by Hank’s threat to “kick your ass” if he touches his wife inappropriately.

The other consistent racial theme in the series is the relationship between the Hills and their Southeast Asian immigrant neighbors. Kahn and Minh Souphanousinphone are from Laos, which as Kahn explains to Hank and friends’ bewilderment is neither China nor Japan, but a landlocked country between Thailand and Vietnam. Kahn often derides Hank and his family as “rednecks” or “hillbillies,” which is likely meant as a racial slur; he calls Hank “cracker” as well. The Hills, of course, being White and having conventional attitudes toward race, never attack the Souphanousinphones’ ancestry, but only express ignorance of their culture. Peggy at one point claims that according to their Buddhist faith, it does not much matter if their daughter dies because she will be reincarnated as “a grasshopper or a seahorse.”

The more conservative Hank does not like the boastful and manipulative Kahn, however, and at one point wishes he had never been let into the country. In one episode when the Hills are on a road trip to Mexico and they come to the fence at the border, Bobby asks if the Souphanousinphones came through the fence, and Hank responds that “Kahn applied the legal way; sometimes the system fails us.”

In the same episode, partly through Dale’s paranoia and incompetence, Hank is put in the position of sneaking back into the United States illegally. His White friend Dale abandons him after Hank helps him over the fence, but his Asian neighbor Kahn saves him by giving him his hand just as the border patrol is approaching, and the “camera” focuses on their clasped White and brown hands to emphasize their interracial cooperation. Kahn later taunts Hank, calling him the real immigrant and boasting of his own knowledge of the history of “my country,” meaning the US. The sequence seems to be designed not only to Americanize immigrants but even to romanticize illegal immigration.

Hank demonstrates a non-confrontational White response to his Asian neighbor’s obnoxious singing.

The Asian neighbors have named their daughter Kahn Jr., but she calls herself Connie. This and other facts point to her desire to assimilate into American culture. She briefly dates Bobby Hill, despite her parents’ desire that she date a particular high-status Asian boy.

Current-year pieties would suggest that Whites are particularly narcissistic and greedy, while other races are more noble. But the Souphanousinphones are more materialistic and status-seeking than the Hills, despite being nominally Buddhist. Along with both parents’ obsession with fitting in with other high-status Asians, Kahn boasts about how much money he makes and the luxuries he can afford. The more Westernized Connie, who born in the United States, is disgusted by this mindset.

The Laotian family would be considered an offensive caricature by producers today, and not only because of their unpleasant personality traits. Like Apu Nahasapeemapetilon in the Simpsons, who was recently cancelled for being a “racist” stereotype, the Souphanousinphones have an absurdly long surname. Kahn and Minh also have comically strong accents, despite living in the United States for at least 20 years according to Kahn. But one of the most interesting displays of their racial difference comes at the funeral of Buckley, Luanne’s boyfriend who died in an accidental explosion.

Few people are willing to speak about Buckley, as he was an unremarkable character. But Kahn decides to draw attention to himself by giving a speech in which he clownishly pretends to be very moved by Buckley’s death. In an even stronger accent than usual, he tells a Buddhist fable, which in contrast to the show’s usual animation is illustrated in the style of traditional East Asian paintings. The narrative follows a man being chased by a “ferocious tigah.” The man falls over a cliff, stops his fall by catching a protruding branch on the cliff face, but then sees a similar monster on the ground below. Knowing he is trapped and about to die, he reaches for a strawberry growing from the branch and finds it is “the most delicious strawberry he ever had.” This scene is cartoonishly exotic, like the caricatures of Asians in South Park. It would surely be considered “otherizing” and offensive stereotyping today.

A tiger menaces an Asian man in Kahn’s telling of a Buddhist parable.

Further emphasizing how unfamiliar the mindset of a supposedly assimilated immigrant is to native-born Americans, none of the Whites in the audience understand this parable about appreciating the small things in life, even in the presence of death. Hank initially misinterprets it as a joke and considers it inappropriate. He later repeats an Americanized version of it to Bobby, with Detroit Lions in place of tigers and Gatorade in place of the strawberry, but the younger Hill has a similar problem understanding the Asian wisdom, saying, “I get it — it’s funny.”

Bobby expresses what was then the standard attitude among Whites toward Asian culture; he is neither “xenophobic” nor a self-hating White who would distance himself from his own nation to identify with another. In one episode he becomes enamored with Taoism and quotes Lao Tzu, even getting Hank to accept the concept of wabi sabi, meaning the beauty of minor imperfections. In another episode, though, he affirms his attachment to a traditional American lifestyle. A group of Tibetan monks come to town, suspecting that Bobby is the reincarnation of their deceased master, Lama Sangluk. Their final test to confirm his status and grant him a new life as a monk is to show him a set of items and let him identify the one that belonged to Sangluk. Knowing that the monastic lifestyle does not allow girlfriends, he points to Connie’s reflection in a mirror, telling the Tibetans that he chooses her. Although the mirror belonged to Sangluk, the head monk interprets this as a choice for romance instead of a monk’s life, and Bobby continues as a regular White American rather than assimilating into Asian Buddhist culture.

On the other hand, Bobby expresses the common infatuation of White American youth with Black culture and has to be reminded of who he is. In one episode, Hank catches Bobby walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic while listening to rap music. Bobby explains that the artist is Pimp Franklin and that “he don’t need your respect, ’cause he don’t pay no man no mind.” Hank angrily rejects this cultural enrichment and takes Bobby to the record store to find more race-appropriate music.

In another episode he becomes a fan of a crude Black comedian named Booda Sack, who often mocks White people. As an aspiring comedian himself, Bobby tries to emulate him and proposes joking about how the police are always pulling him over. Mr. Sack has to explain to him that “you’re not Black,” and invites him to perform at a local comedy club as soon as he can make jokes more in line with his own perspective as a White male. This leads him to make “offensive” racial jokes based on material he finds on a White nationalist website. The audience boos him, but Mr. Sack, rather than calling for him to be blacklisted or for his father to be fired as would be customary today, defends his right to free speech as an American tradition.

Thankfully, although Mr. Sack is ultimately depicted as a loyal American, the episode does not romanticize Black culture or imply that he is just like a middle-class White man under the skin. He is depicted as exceptionally loud and obnoxious, and his humor is simply lowbrow personal insults. He even practices his comedy at work, where he is expected to be acting as a driving instructor, and gets fired for offending too many clients. He had previously experienced a downturn in his comedy career for similarly offending people with his performance on a Black sitcom. His dark-skinned audience at the comedy club is not depicted as particularly civilized either. They are clearly baffled when he defends the tradition of freedom of speech, even though he explains it using appropriately colorful terminology.

In one episode, King of the Hill actually mocks the hysteria around “racism.” Hank’s dog Ladybird attacks a Black repairman named Mack who has come to fix the water heater, and the man accuses the dog of being racist. Hank invites Mack to stay for lunch to show that neither he nor the dog are racist, but Ladybird attacks him again. He takes Ladybird to a dog trainer and nervously explains her apparent prejudice, but the contemptuous trainer, who boasts that he has a Black girlfriend, explains that it is impossible for a dog to have such feelings; she must instead be responding to cues from a racist owner. The other people in the room glare at Hank disapprovingly, and after he fails a questionable online racism test, the local church congregation soon joins in scorning Hank as “racist,” even praying on his lawn for his soul.

Ultimately a White repairman comes to his house, and Ladybird attacks him as well. Hank realizes that the dog does not hate Blacks, but only repairmen, as he himself does. The episode ends with him laughing joyfully at the realization that he is not racist, unconcerned by the dog’s ongoing violence toward the repairman. Whether intentional or not, this is a fitting mockery of how the popular obsession with appearing “non-racist” takes precedence over addressing real-world problems such as violence.

Hank Hill and his neighbors Bill, Dale and Boomhauer drink beer by the side of the road.

Despite every White character being laughable to some degree, King of the Hill implies too much sympathy for the wrong people to fit with current-year social justice sensibilities. Even the lowest elements of White society are portrayed sympathetically. Luanne Platter, Hank and Peggy’s niece, is the product of the teen pregnancy of a violent and manipulative alcoholic named Leanne, and previously lived in a trailer. But Luanne herself is more wholesome than her mother, despite being dimwitted. She never displays any criminal tendencies beyond minor mischief, never abuses the Hills, and takes great pride in putting on a Christian puppet show.

The Hills are often shown to have wholesome family relationships, as when Bobby says to Hank at the end of one episode, “this is the best birthday ever, and you’re the best dad ever!” They also display an admirable ability to take joy in small things; when Bobby sees a new dryer which he misinterprets as his birthday present, he is so pleased that he literally embraces it.

The main characters in King of the Hill are ordinary gun-owning Whites in a red state who express vaguely conservative attitudes such as a general suspicion of government. As such, if they had existed in 2016, they might have voted for Trump. But they are never portrayed as the monsters such people would be in present-day entertainment media. We can only hope that during our lifetimes, anti-White trends in the mass media and wider culture will be reversed and it will again become normal to portray such people in a sympathetic light.

The German Aristocracy and National Socialism

/26 Comments/in /by

Those who are acquainted with the many books and films produced recently about the 20 July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler led by Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg may have the impression that the plot was a result of the aversion of the German aristocracy to the political ambitions of a commoner like Hitler. In fact, Stauffenberg’s failed attempt was only the last of a series of attempts to assassinate Hitler that originated from General Ludwig Beck (1880–1944). Beck was not an aristocrat but belonged to the officer class and resigned his post as Chief of Staff of the German Army in August 1938 mainly on account of his disagreement with Hitler’s aggressive foreign political aims.

The German aristocracy itself was incorporated into the National Socialist movement from the twenties on without much difficulty, even though some of the aristocratic National Socialists had to tolerate the contempt of peers who were opposed to the socialist aspects of Hitler’s government. According to Stephan Malinowski,[1] in all, about 300 noble families of the lower aristocracy based in Prussia contributed about 3,600 members to the National Socialist Party, and the number of adherents from the upper ruling families rose from 70 in the thirties to around 270 by 1945. Most of these were Prussian and Protestant rather than Bavarian and Catholic, since the Bavarian Catholic aristocrats were dedicated to the House of Wittelsbach, whose crown prince, Rupert of Bavaria, was firmly opposed to Hitler and was exiled in December 1939 to Italy while other members of his family were interned for some years in concentration camps.

It is true that Stauffenberg and some of his fellow conspirators in the 20 July plot were shocked by Hitler’s extreme persecution of the Jews, but it cannot be clearly said that all of the conspirators were impelled by philo-Semitic sentiments since the German aristocracy was, in general, anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist like Hitler himself. Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (whose 1934 essay is presented here) was in fact a vigorous anti-Semite in the thirties[2] and may even have played a part in the organisation of the Kristallnach riots, though he eventually joined the conspirators led by Stauffenberg. That all the aristocratic National Socialists did not revolt against Hitler is also clear from the fact that the editor of the collection of essays here presented, Prince Friedrich-Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe, remained a proud National Socialist even after the war.

The following three extracts from the collection of nine essays by aristocratic National Socialists that was edited by Prince Friedrich-Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe, Wo war der Adel? (Where was the aristocracy?, Berlin: Zentralverlag, 1934), show that many of the aristocrats indeed welcomed the opportunity given to them by the National Socialist movement to renew their own aristocratic estate after it had been destroyed alongside the German monarchy in 1918. In turn, the elevated codes of conduct of the aristocrats as traditional rulers of the German domains helped to strengthen the chivalrous image that is often associated with the German military of the Third Reich. It is true, however, that the SS as developed by Himmler from 1929 came to represent the real elite formation of the Third Reich since it was originally created as a bodyguard for Hitler and expressed more directly the dedication to the Führer that was the hallmark of the entire Third Reich. The members of the old aristocracy were absorbed into the SS, as well as into the earlier SA, without much strain since the old and the new elites had in common a desire to renew Germany after its devastating defeat in World War I. One feature that may have been novel, however, about the involvement of the aristocrats in the National Socialist movement is the more socialist conception of themselves that they now manifested, no longer as superior leaders of an anonymous population of subjects but as close collaborators with the latter in the task of building a new German empire.

*   *   *

Count Bernhard von Solms-Laubach [1900–1938]
Director of the National Theatre,
Standartenführer[3]

The Aristocracy is dead – Long live the Aristocracy!

We do not wish to be sentimental, we admit openly that which everybody, however, already knows. That there is no aristocracy any longer in Germany that in its entirety is still capable of representing a clear ideal. The aristocracy is dead because it has killed itself. We stand before a sad remnant, before a burial mound that has been raised up with effort but without jewels, and unlamented, to which one has given the impressive name ‘German aristocratic society’.

And there was once a time when all the names had a strong resonance and an inner significance, when all the families had a calling in the nation, all the names and all the families  as they are neatly recorded today in peerage lists and Gotha pocketbooks[4] as though for museum purposes. There was a time when the German aristocracy was a living fact, when there was bound with the aristocratic name a sacred responsibility towards the people, when the German aristocracy was the bearer of a quite definite worldview, an idealistic worldview in which one’s own advantage could have no meaning compared to the duty to serve to the utmost the people, the country, the state and its representatives. Then the aristocrat stood naturally at the very front, as a spearhead, for the affairs of his people, ready to give up and sacrifice not only his life but also his possessions, if that might help. Everywhere in the Empire they were based in their residences and castles like the conscience of the people, watchmen and preachers, but always fighters for the existence of the Holy Roman Empire,  each alone for himself, bound to one another only through the common goal – and one who did not acknowledge this goal through fighting and sacrificing and made it his own was considered a traitor, an apostate. Germany owes its life to this aristocracy.

But if Germany had depended on the present-day aristocracy it would have died along with it. The aristocrats still dwell everywhere in the Reich in their residences and castles, but it is only due to the people that they are recognised as their conscience. They no longer watch over or preach and, if they fight, then it is in defence of their property or their vanity. Every aristocrat no longer stands by himself, today they are organised, but their organisation lacks any goal that rises beyond their selfish aims.  Anyone of them that acknowledges  the goal of his nation in fighting and sacrificing and internalises this is today a traitor, a renegade.

This all of us who, members of the German aristocracy based on our origin, were able to be incorporated into the National Socialist movement during the battle period must have experienced in a personal way to a sufficient degree. One should not today expunge the fact that we took up the fight in the movement under the express disapproval of our so-called peers, that we were fought and laughed at. If we felt it as obvious to fight when our nation is in the process of fighting for its life — perhaps because we were conscious of the responsibility and the duties transmitted to us from ancient times by our name, that is, because we belonged to the German aristocracy — the opinion of our aristocratic colleagues was the opposite, namely, that we became National Socialists in spite of belonging to the aristocracy. We were, considered from the intellectual viewpoint of the German aristocratic society, actually the traitors, the renegades, and would have been condemnable if we had not been granted extenuating circumstances on account of our idiocy. Besides, it was not in good taste. Politically one had to be a German nationalist, but that one was not a monarchist was an absurd thought. For the further pursuits of the really energetic there was available, besides, the Gentlemen’s Club and, for the others, country riding clubs and — one may perhaps add — leadership positions in the Stahlhelm.[5]

To express it briefly: the German aristocracy disgraced itself to death. It pathetically missed the last chance to prove its raison d’être. Here too exceptions confirm the rule. The question is hard and clear which the people today pose to you: Where were you aristocratic gentlemen when Germany perished? What did you do when the adversity became ever more unbearable? Where did you fight and what did you sacrifice? You thought of yourselves and how you could save yourselves! You thought of yourself and the welfare of your family and perhaps regretted the misery of the people, perhaps even found it depressing, but did nothing! Did nothing! And you dare to raise a claim even today to leadership?

The people have known you for long. I shall never be able to forget with what suspicion I was accepted into the National Socialist movement and in the SA on account of my name. With what mistrust the workers stood against me at first because they attributed to such a person everything bad rather than an honest National Socialist disposition. Remarkable how this mistrust, this suspicion accorded with the attitude of the aristocratic society members! National Socialist even though one is aristocratic. This contradiction signifies the self-esteem of the aristocracy and at the same time indicates its estimation among the people. Exclusivity, which arose from the obscurantism that was inclined to rest comfortably on the laurels of one’s ancestors and to skim off the cream of history as a traditionally born leader, the self-willed isolation, detached the aristocracy from the people and killed its instinct. The result: a great yesterday, a petty today and no tomorrow at all.

The people have become mature. The leaders and saviours have emerged from the people. Adolf Hitler arose from the soul of the people. You, aristocratic gentlemen, may bristle because that insults your vanity, because each of you in your opinion must be the leader, you might agitate and stir up trouble, as you still do today, but the aristocracy is dead, because you have killed it by your behaviour, your attitude, your selfishness. Besides, your inveighing too will cease. The aristocracy is dead and already there arises from the people a new aristocracy filled with the sacred duty of building up Germany. New names have once again a strong resonance and inner significance. A new elite has a new calling among the people. A new aristocracy rises again as the bearers of the idealistic worldview in which one’s own advantage cannot mean anything compared to the duty to serve the people, the country, the state and its representatives to the utmost. One who stands at the very front is the aristocrat!

The aristocracy is dead, long live the aristocracy!  We thank our Führer that, when the old failed, he gave and trained for the people his new aristocracy, for which it is no longer a matter of names and external appearances but which simply exists and fights.

*   *   *

Dr. Achim von Arnim [1881–1940],
Professor of Military Science, Technical University of Berlin,
SA Oberführer[6]

The German aristocracy belongs to Adolf Hitler

One can grow to be a National Socialist, but the disposition must indeed be inborn. Forms that are once internally imprinted begin to develop no matter how hard one tries to disperse them. As the son of a Prussian officer and a mother from Alsace, a certain dichotomy of temperament was allotted to me. Along with Prussian sobriety I possess enough imaginativeness and sprightliness to have a quick sympathetic understanding of new things.

My parents lived in various garrisons of the Imperial Guard and, like every officer’s son, I attended the high school. It was the nineties of the last century, in which the memory of the victorious wars of 1866[7] and 1870/1[8] was still alive. It seems to me that the German nation was brought too quickly to life through the success of Bismarckian politics. Wealth and splendour had fallen suddenly into the lap of our people, who had hitherto been modest and sober.  It thereby lost its spiritual equanimity.  The German, distinguished by his depth and his rich world of feeling, developed in the last 20 years of the century into a man of rational understanding and a materialist. The school offered no counterpoise. The teachers were not aware that they had to  conserve in the best sense the  tradition of German Humanism and the idealistic tendency of German Classicism. Of course there were among them men rich in ideas and pedagogically skilled, whose instruction I still remember with gladness.

In general, however, a  too copious information was transmitted to us and, specifically, without any political influence. I can especially not forget that, during my schooldays, no explanation of the political development of our nation was given to us. We learnt nothing about social and economic development, nothing  about the significance of the battles that began with the French Revolution, of the opposition to Liberalism at the beginning of the  previous century, of the dissemination of the mercantile spirit and of capitalism. To be sure, one occasionally heard frightful things about the  Social Democrats[9] — at the elections one was frightened by the increasing percentages of their mandate. I went to school for many years in Spandau, there there was a strong population of workers with whom  there was no connection at all. We high school students met only with our peers, and I always had the feeling that the boys of the  public school were  particularly rough  and uncouth.

But a slightly better insight was then given by my entry into the army.  In just a few months — and that is too short a time,  the prospective cadet was, when he left school,  consigned to the squads. I served in the First Regiment of the Imperial Guard and this had the best reserve troop from all of Prussia, tall blond men from the healthiest families of our nation. I had imagined the time in the ‘barrack room’ as something very unpleasant, as being  in the company of a number of coarse, immature and boorish fellows and still remember my surprise that this image did not correspond at all to the reality.  On the contrary, the  young soldiers with whom one lived  — 20 in a room — were actually, in their  moral constitution and habits, cleaner and more modest than the higher society with which I later socialised. It was also not difficult to find the right tone in communication, one just could not act like something better — and indeed one was not, for, as a scholar, one was not so familiar with the practical matters of life as the young soldiers. I then had similar good experiences as a young corporal. This first period as a soldier, which lasted only a short time, was a period of learning, perhaps not for the prospective officer but for the growing man. Nowadays, the young men, and even the women, come into contact more often, through the German Youth,[10] the  German Girls’ League,[11] the Hitler Youth and  community service, with all strata of the  working people. Thereby they develop a stable judgement and learn to have the necessary consideration in dealings with  men of different backgrounds.

The pre-war officer corps, which I entered a year and a half later, did not at all correspond to the caricature that was made of it at that time in the Liberal satirical papers and in the bourgeois world. There was alive, especially still in the older generations, the  sincerity and  loyalty of the  older generation that had fought the wars for unification. Fastidiousness in service, conscientiousness,  the  consciousness that one had to set an example through personal commitment, the feeling of responsibility for subordinates and even one of the necessity of a comradely relationship with them was totally alive.

But I became aware early of one thing, that this officer corps, not only in my regiment but everywhere else, represented an exceptional class that was, to a certain extent, separated by a glass wall from the life, activity and  feeling of the rest of the nation.  In it there lived on a portion of the eighteenth century. The officer was obligated to the warlord and felt himself bound only to him,  and, because reverence for the monarchy and devotion to its sustenance was his political morality, the officer believed that he did not need to worry about other political questions. It was the time when Germany stood at its absolute peak economically.  Everywhere great fortunes arose. One did not  know of any unemployment.  Every worker could hope that he could, through  his own industriousness and  economising, conduct his children to a higher profession. There existed therefore the total possibility that the upper strata would continually supplement itself from the people.

In reality, however, that took place only to a small degree. The institution of the ‘one-year service’[12] formed an absolute class border.  One who had taken this test — he did not even have to have served for a year —  belonged to the cultivated and higher strata, everybody else was a subaltern and belonged to the people. If we look back retrospectively at this period with Liberal eyes, we must ask ourselves how it was possible that Social Democracy rose so powerfully in a period  when everybody had a good income. From a materialistic standpoint there is no answer to that. But from the idealistic standpoint, it is a  question of the longing of a great part of our people who had reached adulthood in the course of the century for a national community, for a spiritual rapprochement with the so-called higher strata. Not all of us overlooked the role of the Jews in that period. But one who spoke of a Jewish danger was laughed at as a fantasist. If as a young man I had been invited to become a Freemason I would have accepted the invitation in the belief that one may find a rich spiritual life in this order. But this spiritual  life and this  understanding were lacking precisely in those classes with whom we officers socialised. The bureaucrats, owners of large landed properties and other highly placed persons with whom we socialised were duty-conscious and industrious but matter-of-fact men careful of their careers.  Only seldom did one find intellectually open-minded and  artistically inspired personalities.  The attitude to the  people was benevolent but derived from a feeling of  an obvious inborn social superiority. Manual work was considered as inferior compared to intellectual work, which we supposedly performed.

We would have been able to obtain stronger impressions  of the life and feeling of the people if there had existed the possibility of being instructed on worldview, political and social questions.  But who would give this instruction?  We officers were considered educators of the youth entrusted to us and doubtless did our best. Indeed, in the education for the soldier’s profession and war, performance was at an optimum. But the worldview education which we had to impart through our instruction had to be a failure because we ourselves lacked the necessary knowledge. It was indeed so, as the Führer said: before the period of service nobody cared about the young man, and after his service period neither.  One knew hardly anything about the Marxist organisations and the trade unions.  Their intensive propaganda work was hidden from us.

Then there came the war and very close contact with all strata of the population on the front in cohabitation, for weeks, in damp trenches and in basic accommodation. I definitely believe that not only I but all the older officers of the front felt that we had a close sense of bonding with comrades of all service grades and that in moments of danger it did not matter if one wore the epaulets of an officer or a corporal’s cross or a lance-corporal’s button. To all those who felt in this way the Revolution,[13] with the sudden revolt of the soldiers against the officers, was then a bitter disappointment. One recognised soon that it was not the good elements of our squad that became mutineers and deserters but young elements that had been poisoned in their hometowns and were inexperienced, who had to suffer the bitter deprivations of the wartime in the last years and had perceived the affliction in their homeland. With no defenses, they were exposed to the influence of Red propaganda. The revolution period separated the men. The major part of the officer corps and the members of the former higher classes were starkly against the revolution and its manifestations. These men saw only the ugly external images and wished to hide from the knowledge that here a people who had been misguided strove for a better social status through a semi-conscious longing. They should not at that time have separated themselves in this way from the people but followed the path that Adolf Hitler did, attempting from the start to give the people what it strove for and to combat what was pernicious.

While most of the officers, also demoralised, had to take up the difficult battle for survival and persevered in their rejection of the social questions, I remained for a while vacillating and searching. Finally ,thrown in the country, I found myself one day, in 1925, a District Leader of the Stahlhelm. One had heard something of Adolf Hitler and his movement in Munich only through the Putsch. It is astonishing and hardly believable today how little one knew, here in the country in the east, of the National Socialists. I saw my duty as saving the small town workers, and especially the rural workers, in my district, filled with estates and small cities, from Marxism. These were strata of the population into which the Red organisation had not yet penetrated fully. The Stahlhelm had inscribed on its shield the spirit of the soldiers of the front, that is, the community of the comrades in the trenches. With lorries and bands we drove through the country, held speeches in every village — whereby there was also a ‘beer movement’ — and founded everywhere local groups of the Stahlhelm. Even the landowners and — what was not always very easy — the agricultural bureaucrats were won over to our ideas and, in this way, we succeeded in the beginning in achieving something that was of course not even closely as well-thought out, but similarly felt, as what Adolf Hitler strove for.

If later, after a seven-year activity as Stahlhelm leader, I turned my back on the organisation, I must give the reasons for that without wishing to hurt the former comrades of the Stahlhelm who had been won over to our cause. There had entered a certain torpidity in my feelings on account of the faltering politics of the federal leadership, which had to wriggle through with difficulty between a more conservative and military orientation and a social orientation, and, in the meantime, National Socialism had arisen among us. In all villages and small towns there were Brown departments, and the Stahlhelm people were the proof that these were really more active, that, in neighbouring Berlin, hard battles for rule were fought in the Red quarters, that a strong atmosphere of intellectual tension emanated from the Hitler movement and that a good and clearly orientated press helped the movement to move forward. The Stahlhelm found itself at a dead end since it did not want to fight in a parliamentary way and did not have the power to rise to power with arms. Finally the social question also seemed to me to fade somewhat. The workers won over by me and bound to me for a long time expressed many doubts about the goals of the Stahlhelm. They seemed to them as if they were all about a movement in favour of the old ruling classes.

So finally there was a certain discord because I freely acknowledged my view which favoured National Socialism, and that led to my exit from the organisation, which made some sensation at that time, when the SA was prohibited. There followed a period of bitter hostilities on the part of former friends and comrades. But I can only say that I have not regretted my step one day and have seen during my career in the SA so much that was elevating and invigorating that it seems to me a good fortune to be able to continue to experience the present times. If the Prussian aristocracy for the most part showed at first little understanding of the way that I took that must be explained by its strong adherence to the Prussian tradition. The feeling of rulership cultivated through the generations, especially of the rural aristocracy, perhaps made it difficult to find a way to our people the way we in the SA did. But I think that the conviction must seize some earlier, others later, but hopefully all one day, that another way than the one that our Führer has taken is not passable for our German people. If we wish to come through victoriously in the tremendous fight for survival that we must still undertake in order to sustain our nation, given our unfortunate international situation and our unequal mixture of races, it will happen only if all the strata of our sorely tested people march together with complete trust, and that is possible only in National Socialism.

Berlin, 15 January ,1934.

*   *   *

Count Wolf-Heinrich von Helldorf [1896–1944]
Police Commissioner of Potsdam
Gruppenführer[14]

The Aristocracy and National Socialism

The entire public and private life in Germany today is influenced in a decisive manner by National Socialism. Everything that was ready and willing to cooperate in the building up of the nation is gathered under the sign of the swastika. We have to regretfully acknowledge that the bearers of old aristocratic names are involved to an extremely small degree in authoritative positions in this work of construction within the movement and in the state. This fact is especially surprising considering that the NSDAP has declared not once but many times that it would reach out its hand for the purpose of cooperative work to anybody who would place himself at its disposal unconditionally. The reasons that led to this superior aloofness of the aristocracy should be investigated here, and I think that we will reach a conclusion most easily if we review once again the political development in our nation during and after the war and, in this way, examine the attitude of the aristocracy to the National Socialist idea.

The ruling and state-governing classes in the Bismarckian empire were the officer and bureaucratic classes. Aristocratic officers and bureaucrats stood here in a preferred and leading position. When Germany decided in 1914 on the fateful four-year long armed conflict and the Prussian German army marched in the glow of its centuries-old military culture to the defence of the homeland and carried the war to hostile countries, the Prussian German aristocracy, following the old tradition, occupied a leading position within this national army. This army fought and won in the battlefields of the whole world and, at its head, fought and bled the German aristocracy. Once again, before the great collapse of the monarchy and the aristocracy, those fit for military service from the aristocratic families were conscious of their proudest privilege sanctified by tradition: they died a heroic death in a natural fulfilment of duty.

If, later, people repeatedly and rightly pointed to the total inaction of individual families and members of the German aristocracy, one must, on the other hand, rightly acknowledge and ascertain that no class in Germany took part in this four-year long conflict with such an enormous sacrifice of blood and death as the aristocracy and declare that the best of us have fallen.

In the political leadership of the German nation in the pre-war and war years the aristocracy did not live up to its duties. The aristocracy and the people no longer understood each other. The aristocracy no longer spoke the language of the people and thus it failed, detached and separated from the people, both in internal and in external politics. In the foreign policy of that time, which was especially strongly influenced by the aristocracy and unfortunately also by Jewry, there was no politician or statesman who rose even a little above the average level. After the enormous blood sacrifice of the international conflict, the aristocracy seemed to have exhausted its last strength, which had been kindled in its old families even during the war. Only a few of us confronted the mutineers of 1918 vigorously. The throne and altar were abandoned, the Kaiser empire crumbled, and with it the aristocracy.

The history of the revolution is at the same time the history of the collapse and disintegration of the German aristocracy. The heroes of yesterday, the pillars of support of throne and altar, soon became spineless servants of a state that could be created only after the strongest supports of this state had bowed down before traitors and mutineers. When the red flags of the revolt fluttered and the mobs raged in the streets, they of course complained and protested but they forgot to fight, and found the required justifications for everything that they did and were not sparing in declarations dripping with patriotism. The majority of the aristocracy accepted the situation as it was. The majority of the aristocracy came to terms with the Weimar Republic. For the majority of the aristocracy and especially for the older generation it was still only a matter of a lesser evil that one had to put up with, in order not to lose everything. On major patriotic festival days the uniforms of the old regiment were brought out now and then to keep up tradition, one gave pleasant speeches at war associations and expressed the hope that God would indeed grant us better times once again. None of us wanted battle itself. Indeed it was much more convenient to be promised peace and order from the Weimar Republic and, for that reason, to change one’s attitude a little. It is worth mentioning that, in this period, Jewish families with and without noble surnames played the principal role in the aristocracy. Everything pressed round the golden calf and one was able to note, for example, with trembling fear, in Berlin society in the years 1924–1925, that degenerate aristocrats were tolerated guests in rich Jewish families, that all the so-called good houses were open to a notorious criminal like, for example, the Jewish state secretary Weismann.[15] In general, one who disseminated propaganda for the ‘Realpolitik’ of the ‘statesman’ Gustav Stresemann,[16] eulogising with many fine speeches in cities and the state, was valued as a specially intelligent aristocratic comrade. One put up with everything, even the worst phenomena of the time, and even the German aristocratic association, as a socio-economic organisation of the aristocracy, was in no way directive but satisfied itself merely with transferring external forms of the past to the republican present.

The aristocracy organised itself after 1918 chiefly in the German National People’s Party[17] and the Stahlhelm and, in the battle years, both groups virtuously did everything that was in their power to make life bitter for us few National Socialists from the aristocracy and to mock and denigrate us and our battle for the German nation. The first great election assembly will always remain in my mind in which I was to appear in Halle for the first time in my life, in 1924, as a speaker for the National Socialist Freedom Party. In front of an overflowing assembly that absorbed with enthusiasm the programmatic representation of the National Socialist battle goals there spoke, after me, as a respondent, the party secretary of the German National People’s Party, and also the Stahlhelm leader in Halle, Senior Lieutenant Düsterberg,[18] and a war-blinded Communist. While the performances of the latter were completely moderate, Mr. Düsterberg, who, as is well-known, is Jewish, used the opportunity to oppose the young freedom movement in the harshest way.  Even at that time I was amazed by the blind hatred that filled this man but did not know that the formerly active officer of the military staff was Jewish.

Therewith I come to the saddest chapter in the history of the German aristocracy of the present. We stand before the shocking fact that that part of the population that, according to blood, race and a centuries-long tradition, was called and, as we believe, is still called to present to its people statesmen and soldierly fighters in the great freedom fight that the National Socialist movement had conducted for 14 years stood aside without any understanding of the great changes that had occurred in the German national soul, retreated into a completely misunderstood aristocracy and, often not without justification, invited upon itself the hatred and the contempt of large masses of the people.

The aristocracy took part only to an extremely small degree in the powerful battle within the country under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. It must indeed be said clearly that the aristocracy, and especially the post-war generation, succumbed frightfully quickly to the influences of liberalism and democracy. The smaller part of it encapsulated itself in the seclusion of conservative or nationalist clubs and in professional associations conducted in a parliamentary political manner. The German national Stahlhelm leaders in the aristocracy laughed at us ‘reckless and immature young people’ when we stated clearly in public that we love our German people and hate its enemies. They thought it was not ‘chic’ to get into close discussions in national assemblies with KPD[19] and Reichsbanner[20] people. If we fought in national assemblies and in the street with fellow Germans filled with hatred they spoke of us as hooligan elements that had unfortunately not learnt to behave according to their ‘class’.

Even if one accepts and understands — for the reasons that I have presented at the beginning of this essay  — that the aristocracy in 1918 did not oppose any decisive resistance to Ebert,[21] Scheidemann[22] and Noske[23] with their mutineering hordes, the meagre participation of the aristocracy in the political battle of Adolf Hitler will always remain incomprehensible. It cannot be explained or excused by anything that a class that presented to the people through the centuries leaders, and not the worst, refused adherence to the man who set about, after the collapse of the old leadership in Germany, to educate new young leaders, who however demanded even from these young leaders that they had to prove their suitability and set for each of us strong endurance tests before the title ‘leader’ was granted to us.

After the aristocracy had been unable through its own strength to change the fate of its people, we must, in retrospect, regretfully state that, even in the last part of the development of German history, which stood under the sign of victorious National Socialism, it did not understand to put a stop to its inner disintegration and cooperate in the new formation of affairs with all its forces. This failure of a valuable and, insofar as it is a question of the landed aristocracy, racially superior and healthy section of the population, is so much more regretful in that the National Socialist movement built and conducted on aristocratic principles had to correspond completely to the inner constitution of the aristocracy. Just as among the ancient Germans the best person in terms of family, clan and tribe was the heir-apparent and became the leader, so also in the National Socialist movement the best person in terms of performance and blood is the leader. People may say of the aristocracy that it is in the process of committing serious mistakes that can never be remedied, both to itself and to coming generations. There is no doubt there is forming in National Socialism a new ruling class of the German nation.  If the aristocracy stands aside from this great aristocratic national movement, destiny will pass over it and then it would be better if it decided to discard its aristocratic titles which have becomes worthless.

The aristocracy stands at the turning point of its history. It is up to it to demonstrate, through its conduct in relation to National Socialism, that race and blood can overcome darkness and class conflict. If the aristocratic principle of the NSDAP according to which only one who fulfills special duties may claim special rights for himself penetrates the aristocracy of today, and if the aristocracy incorporates itself wholly and unconditionally in the great national community of Adolf Hitler, then the possibility will be offered to it even today of recovering its position in the German nation which has been strongly shaken by the events of the last 14 years. And then the proudest privilege of the aristocracy will remain that of offering its sons to the fatherland.

[1] Stephan Malinowski, Vom König zum Führer. Sozialer Niedergang und politische Radikalisierung im deutschen Adel zwischen Kaiserreich und NS-Staat, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003.

[2] See, for example, Elke Fröhlich, Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, I, iii, p.470.

[3] The rank of an SS Standartenführer was equivalent to that of a colonel.

[4] The Almanach de Gotha was a standard directory of European nobility published from 1763 to 1944.

[5] The Stahlhelm was a league of ex-servicemen of the First World War that acted as a paramilitary force of the monarchist German National People’s Party (DNVP) from 1918 to 1935.

[6] A rank between colonel and brigadier-general.

[7] The Austro-Prussian war fought between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia.

[8] The Franco-Prussian war fought between the French Second Empire and the North German Confederation led by Prussia.

[9] The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) was established in 1863 and Friedrich Ebert of the SPD became the first president of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933).

[10] The ‘Deutsches Jungvolk’ was the junior division of the ‘Hitler Jugend’, for boys aged 10 to 14.

[11] The ‘Bund Deutscher Mädel’ was the female youth organisation of the National Socialist party.

[12] A reference to the ‘Einjährig-Freiwillger’ volunteers of the Prussian army who, after a year’s service as volunteers, were made reserve officers.

[13] The German Revolution, or November Revolution, of 1918 was a mutiny of German sailors in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel that led to prolonged civil unrest in Germany that ended with the establishment of the parliamentary constitution of the Weimar Republic in August 1919.

[14] Section Commander.

[15] Robert Weismann (1869-1942) was state secretary for Prussia during the Weimar Republic.

[16] Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929) was a politician of the Weimar Republic who served as Foreign Minister and, briefly, Chancellor.

[17] The Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP) was a nationalist and monarchist conservative party of the Weimar period which rejected the Weimar Constitution and the Treaty of Versailles.

[18] Theodor Duesterberg (1875-1950) was a staunchly anti-Semitic leader of the Stahlhelm who was discovered in 1932 to have partly Jewish ancestry. He consequently resigned from the Stahlhelm in 1933.

[19] The Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, founded by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, was a major political party of the Weimar Republic. It was banned in West Germany in 1956.

[20] The Reichsbanner was an organisation of the Weimar Republic devoted to upholding parliamentary democracy in Germany.

[21] Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) was a member of the SPD and first president of the Weimar Republic.

[22] Philipp Scheidemann (1865-1939) was a member of the SPD who served as Chancellor of the Weimar Republic between February and June 1919.

[23] Gustav Noske (1868-1946), of the SPD, was Minister of Defence of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1920.