Knife on Earth: Exploring the Idiocy and Arrogance of Two Atheist Icons

/7 Comments/in , , /by

The Genetic Book of the Dead is a good read by Richard Dawkins. Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder is a bad read by Salman Rushdie. One is about science, the other is about society. The two books are very different and so are the two authors. Dawkins is White; Rushdie is brown. Dawkins is ancestrally Christian; Rushdie is ancestrally Muslim. Dawkins is a scientist; Rushdie is an egotist. Dawkins has earnt his success; Rushdie has been given his.

Good read and bad read: Richard Dawkins’ The Genetic Book of the Dead and Salman Rushdie’s Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder

But Dawkins and Rushdie are united by two big and important things. They’re both atheists and they’re both members of a political cult. It’s a cult dedicated to the destruction of everything its members claim to hold dear. In other words, it’s a suicide cult and it’s called leftism. Dawkins’ leftism is intermittent and indirect in The Genetic Book of the Dead, which is about evolution and genetics. Rushdie’s leftism is overt and obtrusive in Knife, which is about the near-death experience he underwent in 2022. He was attacked with a knife whilst appearing at a literary festival in upstate New York. In his own words, he was at the festival “to talk about the importance of keeping writers from harm.” Rushdie, of course, recognizes the irony of that.

A logolatric littérateur

At the festival, he was very seriously harmed by a New Jersey man called Hadi Matar. And Rushdie does not recognize the full irony of that. Like all mainstream leftists, he sees absolutely no contradiction between a description like “New Jersey man” and a name like “Hadi Matar.” Leftists like Rushdie believe in what Vox Day satirically calls magic dirt, that is, the ability of residence on Western soil to transform Third-World folk into First-World folk — in effect, to turn non-Whites into Whites. But the dirt isn’t magic, as Rushdie found out in upstate New York. Or rather, as he didn’t find out. You can see that from the book he wrote about nearly dying at the hands of a New Jersey man called Hadi Matar.

Knife proves that Rushdie doesn’t believe only in magic dirt, but also in magic words. Again, that’s mainstream leftism. Rushdie and other members of the suicide-cult believe that words govern reality. Indeed, Rushdie is not merely logocentric, or centered on words, but logolatric, or worshipful of words. He may claim to be an atheist, but in fact he bows deep and long in the temple of Vayu, God of Wind. Rushdie’s worship of words and wind is part of what makes Knife a bad read. It’s partly a form of self-worship, because Rushdie regards himself as a great writer, a master of words and lord of language. So do leaders of his suicide-cult. That’s why they’ve showered him with honors, decade after decade, and why they paid such fulsome tribute to him after he was nearly murdered by that “New Jersey man.” In Rushdie’s words again, the festival was supposed to be a place “where ideas were debated in an atmosphere of openness, tolerance and freedom.” Instead, it was turned into a place of butchery.

The triumph of Enlightenment values

But Rushdie has neatly turned the tables in Knife. Or so he and his leftist readers will fondly imagine. Part of the book consists of a dialogue he imagines taking place between himself and “the A.,” as he calls Hadi Matar. That abbreviation stands for the “would-be Assassin, the Asinine man who made Assumptions about me, and with whom I had a near-lethal Assignation,” as Rushdie states explicitly (p. 5). It can also stand for “the Asshole,” as Rushdie surely meant his readers to infer. He’s a master of ambiguity, irony and implication, after all. He’s also master in the pages of Knife. He writes this of “the A.”: “He does not really want to talk to me, but as this is my imagination at work, he has no choice.” (p. 136) That’s the magic of words. “The A.” has no choice but to have a “conversation” with Rushdie and be defeated by Rushdie’s eloquent exposition of Enlightenment values. At the end, Rushdie informs his imagined interlocutor that he has been on the wrong side of “a quarrel between those with a sense of humor and those without.” (p. 167)

Take that, Islamists! You have no sense of humor! You should be like Christians and let your religion be mocked, satirized and subverted by leftists like Salman Rushdie. Did Christians try to stab anyone after a homosexual poet called James Kirkup published a poem about a Roman centurion having necrophilic sex with the freshly crucified corpse of Jesus Christ? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stab anyone after a “transgressive artist” called Andres Serrano published a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine? Again no, they didn’t. But Rushdie never mentions those attacks on Christianity or the forbearing Christian response. When Christianity was strong, Christians punished their enemies and critics; now that Christianity is weak, Christians turn the other cheek. Unlike Salman Rushdie, Islamists have no “sense of humor.” And unlike Salman Rushdie, Islamists understand the rules of power. They can see that Christianity in the West is decadent and dying, which is why they have no intention of behaving like Christians now that they are in the West.

Shah Shmah…

And who imported them into the West? Who subsidized them to breed and build mosques and steadily expand their power and influence? Leftists like Salman Rushdie, of course. But he doesn’t discuss immigration in his book. He doesn’t discuss the rape-gangs of Rotherham either. Or the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow in 2016. It would have been instructive for him to do so, but not in a way that assisted the all-important cause of leftism. Like Salman Rushdie, Asad Shah was attacked by an Islamist with a knife for committing blasphemy. Unlike Salman Rushdie, Asad Shah was not surrounded by friends and supporters at the time, so the humorless knifeman got what he wanted: a dead blasphemer.

But noisy defenders of free speech like Salman Rushdie and Kenan Malik, a staunch supporter of Rushdie, have never written about Asad Shah. They’ve refused to explore the fascinating parallels between two knife-attacks separated by the Atlantic and united by Islam. That’s why Asad Shah was the victim of what I call a meteor murder, that is, a murder that flashes throughout the headlines of the mainstream media and then disappears for ever. Meteor murders reveal the truth about Third-World immigration, you see, and leftists like Rushdie and Malik are not interested in the truth. As I’ve described in articles like “Martyr with a Machine Gun” and “Malik’s Moral Compass,” the murder of Asad Shah demonstrated how a long Muslim tradition of censorship-by-murder had been exported from Pakistan to Britain. In other words, when you import Third-World people, you inevitably import Third-World pathologies too. That’s why Rushdie ignored the murder of Asad Shah in Knife, although he did mention the attempted murder of the Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz in 1994 (p. 134). That took place in Egypt, when an Islamist attacked Mahfouz with a knife for “offending Islam.” Egypt is a Muslim country, of course. But why did the same thing later happen to Asad Shah in Britain, which is not a Muslim country, and to Salman Rushdie in America, which is not a Muslim country either?

“The spirit of young Trayvon Martin”

The answer is simple. It’s because the non-Muslim countries of Britain and America have imported ever-increasing numbers of Muslims. There are knife-attacks by “Islamists” all over the earth because Muslims have migrated all over the earth. But Rushdie never points out that obvious fact. Just like the Islamists whom he claims to oppose, he isn’t interested in the truth. No, he’s interested in advancing the cause of his favored ideology. That’s why he ignored the murder of Asad Shah and mentioned the murder of Trayvon Martin. Rushdie and other leftists think it was a murder, anyway:

After the World Voices event, as the audience came out onto Cooper Square beneath the gaze of the statue of Peter Cooper on its plinth, a candlelight vigil in support of Black Lives Matter was taking place. The spirit of young Trayvon Martin, whose murder by George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman’s disgraceful subsequent acquittal, had inspired the movement that became BLM, was also in the air. (p. 27)

That’s a good example both of Rushdie’s leftist love of lies and of Rushdie’s bad writing. The two things go together, in fact. Someone who supports civilization-wrecking thugs like Trayvon Martin will also tend to be a bad writer. And a bad thinker. The ugliness of leftism makes itself apparent in many ways, from the ugliness of leftist punims to the ugliness of leftist prose. But there are exceptions, of course. Richard Dawkins is a leftist, but he has an attractive face and writes attractive prose. That’s why I was able to read The Genetic Book of the Dead in a way I couldn’t read Knife. I got bored and skimmed some of Rushdie’s book. I read all of Dawkins’ book with close attention. And I intend to read it again. Dawkins is talking about fascinating things: genetics, evolution, the dazzling diversity of life on earth. All of his books do that and I still admire Dawkins as a scientist and popularizer of biology. But I no longer admire him as an ideologue. In fact, he and Christopher Hitchens did sterling work in turning me away from leftism. Dawkins is a good writer and Hitchens was a bad writer, but they have three big things in common: arrogance, autism and atheism.

Attractive White scientist Richard Dawkins, inspiring to leftists (photo from Nature)

Ugly Gypsy rapist Ivan Turtak, imported by leftists[1] (photo from Daily Mail)

Like ugly leftist punims and ugly leftist prose, the three things go together. And I can see Dawkins’ autism much better now, reading The Genetic Book of the Dead, than I could reading The Blind Watchmaker in the 1980s. It isn’t just autism and atheism that go together: it’s autism and science. Dawkins is obsessive and dedicated to detail. He likes sorting and systematizing, cataloguing and classifying, and he loves the digitality of DNA. I like all those things too, but Dawkins accompanies them with arrogance and dogmatism, which proved too much for me in the end. Although I’m still unable to believe in God, I don’t want to be an atheist in the style of Dawkins and Hitchens. For one thing, I now see that their atheism is a central part of the leftist suicide-cult. Just as Salman Rushdie claims to love free speech and has spent all his life helping to destroy free speech, so Dawkins claims to hate religion and has spent all his life helping to promote religion. In other words, Rushdie and Dawkins are devout believers in the suicide-cult of leftism, which is replacing the successfully neutered religion of Christianity with decidedly unneutered religion of Islam.

Predatory parallels

How could Dawkins do that, when there are obvious lessons to be drawn from biology about the idiocy of importing alien species? Take the flightless birds of New Zealand, which Dawkins discusses in another good book of his called Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution (2021). They evolved to be flightless because they lived on remote islands, safe from predatory mammals like stoats and cats. So what happens when stoats and cats are introduced to New Zealand? Slaughter, that’s what. And not just of flightless birds like kiwis: New Zealand has lost species of full-flighted birds to introduced predators too.[2] A thousand miles across the ocean, Australia offers more lessons in the harm done by introducing new species to long-established ecosystems. From rabbits to cane-toads, the newcomers have flourished and wrought havoc on native fauna and flora. And leftists long ago learnt those ecological lessons. They would recoil in horror if someone suggested importing a full range of fauna and flora from Pakistan or Somalia or China into Britain or America or France. You should not intermingle ecosystems like that! Delicate balances will be disturbed, ecological webs rent asunder! Native species will be devastated or destroyed!

Imported predators: a stoat and members of a Muslim rape-gang (images from Wikipedia and BBC)

But one species is exempt from the leftist abhorrence of ecological mixing. That species is, of course, Homo sapiens. Leftists believe that unlimited numbers of alien human being can enter new ecosystems of culture and custom without doing any harm at all. The newcomers won’t trigger ecocide. On the contrary, they’ll introduce enrichment. But this bio-transfer is good only when it involves non-White humans migrating into the White West. Non-Whites enrich and enhance, bringing only blessings and benefits to stale pale societies like Britain, America and France. That’s what leftists believe. They’re wrong, of course. There are very obvious parallels between the harm done by introduced animals and the harm done by introduced humans. A biologist like Richard Dawkins should have seen those parallels long ago and begun campaigning against migration from the Third World. Dawkins should also have seen the danger of disturbing the cultural ecosystems of Western society from within. This is one of the clever and illuminating analogies he uses to instruct his readers about biology and genetics:

As for the all-important interactions between genes in influencing phenotype, here’s a better metaphor than the butcher’s map. A large sheet hangs from the ceiling, suspended from hooks by hundreds of strings attached to different places all over the sheet. It may help the analogy to consider the strings as elastic. The strings don’t hang vertically and independently. Instead, they can run diagonally or in any direction, and they interfere with other strings by cross-links rather than necessarily going straight to the sheet itself. The sheet takes on a bumpy shape, because of the interacting tensions in the tangled cat’s-cradle of hundreds of strings. As you’ve guessed, the shape of the sheet represents the phenotype, the body of the animal. The genes are represented by tensions in the strings at the hooks in the ceiling. A mutation is either a tug towards the hook or a release, perhaps even a severing of the string at the hook. And, of course, the point of the parable is that a mutation at any one hook affects the whole balance of tensions across the tangle of strings. Alter the tension at any one hook, and the shape of the whole sheet shifts. (pp. 189-90; Dawkins’ emphases)

Dawkins’ analogy obviously applies not just to phenotypes but also to ecosystems and to societies. Dawkins himself created the idea of cultural genes or memes, which evolve and interact, survive or go extinct. And he wants to drive one set of memes, one memeplex, into extinction. It’s the memeplex for belief in God and religion. But by his own analogy, that would be a reckless and irresponsible thing to do. As he points out: if you alter the tensions in the strings, “the shape of the whole sheet shifts.” And in unpredictable ways that are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial.[3] By attacking Christianity, something that has been central to Western culture for millennia, Dawkins and other atheists were trying to cut a whole set of strings. At the same time, they didn’t object as a whole new set of strings — those for Islam — were attached to the sheet. These staunch supporters of science, fully aware of the complexity and delicacy of biological systems, were quite happy for the sheet of Western society to be brutally tugged and twisted into radically different shapes.

Mea maxima culpa

In other words, those bio-literate atheists were idiots. But Dawkins, for one, has started to glimpse the size of his idiocy. He has said that he’s a “cultural Christian” and that he prefers the sound of church bells to the “aggressive-sounding” Muslim call to prayer. After he expressed that preference, he was immediately accused of Islamophobia. I share the preference and I have to confess my own idiocy. When I accepted Dawkins’ version of atheism, I too looked forward eagerly to the extinction of Christianity. And I too ignored the encroachment of Islam. I wasn’t as bio-literate as Richard Dawkins, but I should have seen the parallels between biology and society, between importing predatory animals and importing predatory ideologies. And I should have asked how much things like science, which I did value, owed to things like Christianity, which I didn’t value at all. Nowadays, I’m still unsure how valuable Christianity is. How valuable true Christianity is, I mean, not the traitorous parody of Christianity that currently does the Devil’s work all over the West. That parody of Christianity should — and will — be driven into extinction, but atheists like Richard Dawkins and Salman Rushdie won’t like what replaces it.

And they won’t like the civil wars that will soon erupt all over the West. Nor will the great ironist Salman Rushdie recognize the irony of those civil wars. His bad books have explored the end of the British Raj, when the strings of Western imperialism were cut and the sheet of Indian society shifted sharply into new shapes. They were shapes of civil war, of inter-communal massacre and ethnic cleansing. The bad writer Salman Rushdie, knowing all that history, has worked all his life to reproduce it in the West. So, in his own way, has the good writer Richard Dawkins. Separated by skin-color, culture and the quality of their writing, they’ve been united by the idiocy and arrogance of their atheism. For a good analysis of where that idiocy and arrogance will soon take the West, I can recommend some new posts by a writer called El Inglés at Gates of Vienna. He’s writing for Whites in Britain, but his words apply to Whites everywhere else:

If you are a British man or woman, with a family, living in or close to a part of Birmingham, or London, or Bradford that is likely to be caught up in communal violence, you deserve to know what might be heading your way. Making a hard decision in advance might allow you to save your family, your wealth, your health, your sanity. The government and its various satellites will always insist everything is under control. Do you trust them?

I do not want British people to end up in this situation. Forewarned is forearmed, and it is in this spirit that I offer the only publicly-available, open-source analysis of this subject matter that is ever likely to be made available to them. And who knows — by openly analysing that which cannot be mentioned in polite circles, this document may yet compel official institutions to quietly model those same unspeakable futures. (“Crown, Crescent, Pitchfork: Part One,” Gates of Vienna, 6th July 2025)

[1]  Ivan Turtak and his two fellow rapists are described as “Slovakian” in newspaper reports, but I think they’re Gypsies.

[2]  But the island has struck back, because New Zealand has exported harmful species of its own, like the New Zealand flatworm and pigmyweed.

[3]  As Dawkins often points out in his books, there are far more ways to damage a functional system like an engine or genotype than to improve it.

Argentina’s “Libertarian” Revolution Was Brought to You by Chabad

/2 Comments/in /by

Behind Argentine President Javier Milei’s “chainsaw economics” stands the quiet power of Eduardo Elsztain, a devout Jewish oligarch with deep ties to Israel and Wall Street.

Eduardo Elsztain whispers to Shabbos Goy Javier Milei

Before his monumental victory against Sergio Massa in November 2023, Milei was an eccentric political analyst who had a flair for controversy and had sharply criticized the Argentine political establishment. Milei made a name for himself by appealing to libertarian principles and even naming his dogs after libertarian intellectual Murray Rothbard.

Before 2023, the idea of Milei becoming president of Argentina would have seemed far-fetched to casual political observers. But when one enters into a Faustian pact with Elsztain and the powerful networks of Argentina’s Jewish elite, even the most unlikely of political ambitions can suddenly materialize.

Elsztain is a prominent Argentine businessman who has been widely recognized as one of South America’s most influential Jewish leaders and business figures. Born on January 26, 1960, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Elsztain has built a vast construction business empire while maintaining deep connections to Jewish communities worldwide and establishing significant ties to Israel.

Elsztain is the chairman and CEO of IRSA (Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima), Argentina’s largest real estate company, which trades on both the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. His grandfather, Isaac Elsztain, a Russian Jewish immigrant who arrived in Argentina in 1917, founded IRSA in 1943.

Beyond real estate, Elsztain controls a massive agricultural empire through the agricultural company Cresud, which operates approximately 850,000 hectares of farmland across Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. He also serves as president of Banco Hipotecario, Argentina’s leading mortgage bank, and has extensive mining interests through Austral Gold Limited.

His business success has been remarkable. According to reports, his rise to prominence began in the 1990s when he received a $10 million investment from billionaire George Soros, which helped transform his grandfather’s struggling company into Argentina’s largest business empire. Contrary to popular mythology that portrays this as a chance encounter, Argentine newspaper La Nación revealed that the meeting with Soros was actually arranged through Elsztain’s contacts within Buenos Aires’s Jewish community who were responsible for opening doors to the powerful businessman.

His ascent, backed by elite networks, did not go unnoticed abroad. Israeli media frequently refer to Elsztain as “South America’s richest Jew.” With respect to his connections to broader Jewry, Elsztain’s relationship with Argentina’s Jewish community runs deep and spans several decades. He is the President of Chabad Argentina and serves as Chairman of the World Jewish Congress Governing Board. His involvement with Jewish institutions began in the late 1970s when his parents participated in Kabbalah classes given by Rabbi Avraham Yosef Polichenco, which led the family to become closer to Chabad.

Chabad—also known as Lubavitch, Habad, or Chabad-Lubavitch—is a major branch of Hasidic Judaism distinguished by its intellectual approach to Jewish mysticism and its expansive global network. The movement’s name, Chabad, is an acronym for the Hebrew words Choḥmah (חָכְמָה, “wisdom”), Binah (בִּינָה, “understanding”), and Da’at (דַּעַת, “knowledge”), and has become a powerful vehicle for Jewish influence in the United States, Russia, and Argentina. Elsztain has been a crucial partner for Chabad activities not only in Argentina but globally, supporting everything from educational programs to social services. Elsztain was a follower of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. In a famous story, when Elsztain asked the Rebbe for advice about investing $15 million in the stock market in 1991, the Rebbe advised him to focus on real estate instead—advice that proved to be extraordinarily prescient and profitable.

Widely recognized as a key donor to the Taglit-Birthright project, which arranges educational trips to Israel for young English-speaking Jews, Elsztain also holds the title of president of Taglit-Birthright Israel in Argentina. That said, Elsztain’s most significant connection to Israel came through his major investment in IDB Holding Corp., one of Israel’s largest conglomerates. Beginning in 2012, he invested over $100 million to rescue the struggling company from Israeli businessman Nochi Dankner.

Through his control of IDB, Elsztain held significant ownership in several major Israeli corporations. These included Cellcom, the country’s largest mobile phone operator, as well as Shufersal (also known as Super-Sol), one of Israel’s leading supermarket chains. Elsztain’s investment in IDB was described as his “first major investment in Israel.” For the Jewish magnate, investing in Israel marked a personal turning point; as he put it, “The best part of my life began when I invested in Israel.”

Despite facing significant challenges and eventually losing control of IDB in 2020, Elsztain maintained his commitment to Israel, saying he invests “for my great-grandchildren” and views Israel as “a wonderful place to invest.”

What’s particularly notable, however, is where Milei and Elsztain’s trajectories converge. Elsztain and Milei first met at the Llao Llao Forum in April 2023, an annual gathering of Argentina’s business elite hosted by Elsztain at his luxury hotel in Bariloche. This meeting of the “Círculo Rojo” (Red Circle) proved to be the starting point of what would become an intimate relationship. Chilean newspaper La Tercera reported that the two formed such a strong bond that the businessman is now considered the president’s closest associate.

Most significantly, Elsztain served as a key spiritual link between Milei and the Jewish community, especially the Orthodox Chabad Lubavitch movement. Multiple sources confirm that Elsztain was the key figure who introduced Milei to the Chabad community. As one source explained to the Argentine digital news website La Política Online: “Eduardo is the key to the Chabad in Argentina.” This connection was facilitated through Rabbi Tzvi Grunblatt, director of Chabad Argentina, who reportedly “connected [Milei] with some big businessmen,” including Elsztain.

Elsztain has continued to offer Milei key platforms to engage with Argentina’s business elite. One notable example was the 2024 Llao Llao Forum, where Elsztain hosted Milei as a featured speaker before an audience of top CEOs.

Elsztain’s political activities have been complicated by his involvement in several high-profile international financial scandals. In the 2016 Panama Papers, he was named as operating offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands and other tax havens during the 1990s. These entities were reportedly used for Venezuelan real estate investments and were managed in partnership with his then-business associate Marcelo Mindlin.

The following year, the 2017 Paradise Papers further exposed Elsztain’s use of offshore structures. These included Latin America Capital Partners II LP in Bermuda, a fund connected to George Soros, as well as Elsztain Realty Partners Master Fund LP and Dolphin Global Fund, the latter based in the Isle of Man and holding $400 million in assets. These offshore dealings also revealed links to Luis Caputo, who served as Finance Minister under President Mauricio Macri and now holds the position of Economy Minister in Javier Milei’s administration.

Behind the libertarian theatrics and economic reform lies a deeper arrangement—one that speaks less to populist revolt and more to elite consolidation. In Javier Milei’s Argentina, it seems certain doors only open if you know the right rabbi.

How the Aryans Broke the Jock-Nerd Stereoype

/5 Comments/in /by

Everybody is familiar with the stereotype, beloved of American coming-of-age movies centred around High Schools, of the Jocks and the Nerds. The Jocks are tall, muscular, testosterone-pumped sportsmen who, though appealing to girls and socially skilled, are not especially intelligent or academic. The Nerds are short, skinny and unattractive to girls but they do very well in school and are extremely intelligent (often more or less explicitly Jewish, as in Addams Family Values[1]). The “cope,” the way in which Nerds are taught to psychologically deal with this situation, is to tell themselves that, one day, the Nerds will be eminent and well-to-do, while the Jocks will most likely be pursuing some low-status job.

A fascinating new study in the journal Twin Research and Human Genetics has provided some evidence for this stereotype, and, indeed, found that European peoples, specifically, have managed to achieve the best of both worlds: the ideal Jock-Nerd balance. Perhaps this helps to explain the manifest extreme success of Europeans in relation to other races. It is particularly intriguing as you might actually expect the “cope” referred to above to be just that and to be empirically inaccurate. It certainly appears to be inaccurate at the individual level.

As I have explored in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, at the individual level intelligence is part of a general Fitness Factor that has been strongly selected for across time, leading to different adaptive traits becoming pleiotropically related. In other words, there was positive selection for genetic physical health, mental health, pro-social behaviour and intelligence, so they became bundled together. Similarly, there was sexual selection, by females, for high-status (and thus intelligent) males, as these betokened adaptiveness and could provide them with resources, and for height, as taller men are more likely to win fights and survive.

This is a serious problem for the Jock-Nerd division and its related “cope.” The literature is telling us that intelligence is positively associated, in males, with height and it is more generally associated with being mentally stable (not a neurotic Nerd), socially-skilled, genetically healthy and physically fit, which would involve being attractive to girls and being good at sport. In fact, university students who are more intelligent are more likely to participate in sport while they are at university. We would expect males of low intelligence, by contrast, to be short, weak, unfit and neurotic.

But, at the group level, there are evolutionary mechanisms via which the stereotype might work. For example, in an unstable yet easy ecology, in which you could be wiped out at any minute, there is no point cooperating with people (as cooperation may never be repaid) and immediate needs are met. Accordingly, intelligence is not selected for. Height and muscularity will aid winning fights in a lethal environment, so they may well be selected for. By contrast, in a stable yet harsh environment, you must cooperate with people in order to survive, and your immediate needs are not met. This would cause intelligence to be strongly selected for and it may even pay to take bio-energetic resources away from height and muscularity and direct them towards growing a larger, thus more intelligent, brain.

This is something like what Italian anthropologist DavidePiffer finds in his Twin Research and Human Genetics study “Polygenic Selection and Environmental Influence on Adult Body Height: Genetic and Living Standard Contributions Across Diverse Populations.” There are genes that relate to your maximum and minimum possible height, with environment explaining where you end up between these two limits. This allows you to calculate polygenic scores for height; the prevalence of “tall alleles” in a population. Piffer, and his colleague the Danish researcher Emil Kirkegaard, analysed 5000 ancient European genomes, some of them dating back 12,000 years.

Bronze Age herders from the Eurasian Steppe (like the Yamnaya; the Indo-Europeans or Aryans) carried genetic variants for height, explaining why their skeletons often measure over 5 foot 8, in a context of poor nutrition. Piffer explains that Europe was first occupied by Western Hunter Gatherers. These people were reasonably tall but they weren’t very intelligent; they were low in polygenic scores for intelligence. They were then joined, and often displaced, by Anatolian farmers, the kinds of people who built Stonehenge. These people were shorter, in terms of genetics, but they were much more intelligent. So, here we see, in a sense, the Jock-Nerd idea: stupid tall people are displaced by clever, short ones. Height and intelligence are following divergent paths. The Anatolian farmers are smarter but they pay for this by being shorter. Indeed, farming – which compels you to plan and think about the future and thus to be more intelligent – seems to cause us to become more intelligent; those who are too stupid to farm are selected out.

Something changed around 3000 years ago when Steppe herders invaded much of Europe. These people were both tall and highly intelligent. In invading Europe, they made the areas where they had the most genetic influence, such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia, both very tall and very intelligent. With their influence, height went back up, after which it would have been selected for alongside intelligence and other markers of fitness.

Aryans, therefore, broke the Jock-Nerd mould, possibly because they were adapted to relative cold, which would militate in favour of heat-preserving larger bodies. They are both intelligent and tall, giving them two means of dominating other groups in the battle of group selection.

[1] from The Culture of Critique, Ch. 1:

A recent, perhaps trivial, example of this type of intellectual ethnic warfare is the popular movie Addams Family Values (released in November 1993), produced by Scott Rudin, directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, and written by Paul Rudnick. The bad guys in the movie are virtually anyone with blond hair (the exception being an overweight child), and the good guys include two Jewish children wearing yarmulkes. (Indeed, having blond hair is viewed as a pathology, so that when the dark-haired Addams baby temporarily becomes blond, there is a family crisis.) The featured Jewish child has dark hair, wears glasses, and is physically frail and nonathletic. He often makes precociously intelligent comments, and he is severely punished by the blond-haired counselors for reading a highly intellectual book. The evil gentile children are the opposite: blond, athletic, and unintellectual. Together with other assorted dark-haired children from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and white gentile children rejected by their peers (for being overweight, etc.), the Jewish boy and the Addams family children lead a very violent movement that succeeds in destroying the blond enemy. The movie is a parable illustrating the general thrust of Jewish intellectual and political activity relating to immigration and multi-culturalism in Western societies (see Ch. 7). It is also consistent with the general thrust of Hollywood movies. SAID (Ch. 2) reviews data indicating Jewish domination of the entertainment industry in the United States. Powers, Rothman and Rothman (1996, 207) characterize television as promoting liberal, cosmopolitan values, and Lichter, Lichter and Rothman  (1994, 251) find that television portrays cultural pluralism in positive terms and as easily achieved apart from the activities of a few ignorant or bigoted miscreants.

James Edwards Interviews Mark Weber

/4 Comments/in /by
What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review. Mr. Weber is a historian, lecturer, and current affairs analyst. He was educated in both the United States and Europe and holds a master’s degree in modern European history. 

* * *

James Edwards: As a result of your three visits to Iran, you are unusually well-informed about that country and its relations with the United States. What do you think is most important for Americans to understand about Iran?

Mark Weber: Iran is a much more complex, important, and fascinating country than the mainstream US media and many American politicians suggest. Fox News and similarly slanted media outlets give an especially distorted, cartoonish portrayal of Iranians and their government.

With a population of some 90 million, Iranians are justifiably proud of their rich and impressive heritage, history, and culture. Iranians are Muslim, but their heritage, culture and ancestry are very different than that of the other Muslim countries of the region. Iranians are not Arabs.

Iranians are a proud people. They remember and deeply resent how foreign powers, especially Britain and the US, for many years humiliated, exploited, and oppressed them. Along with many millions around the world, Iranians are angered and perplexed by America’s record of one-sided support for Israel and its aggression and brutal treatment of non-Jews.

The large Iranian crowds that shout “Death to America,” are venting anger at the US government, not the American people. In fact, and as visitors to the country can readily learn for themselves, Iranians have a remarkably friendly attitude toward Americans.

Edwards: While in Tehran, you delivered a lecture to hundreds of university students and spoke at a conference of government leaders, which the country’s president also addressed. What else can you tell us about Iranian society and government that the US media either omits or distorts?

Weber: Iran is a much more open and “pluralistic” society than, say, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or some other countries in the region. While Iranian elections are certainly not as ‘free” as those in the US, they are not rigged. Iranian elections are real contests of candidates who present different views on important issues. Some recent presidential candidates were elected in spite of disapproval by the religious “establishment.”

Iranians are very aware of what’s going on in the world. Iran is not a “closed” country like North Korea. Many Iranians routinely travel from their country and return home. Each year, hundreds of thousands of tourists visit and travel widely in Iran. As any visitor to the country will easily discover for himself, Iranians are quite open about expressing their views and complaints, including criticisms of the government.

Although the Iranian press is restricted, it’s at least as “free” as that of Ukraine or Saudi Arabia. “Reformist” daily newspapers are often critical of government policies.

Women are a majority of Iran’s university students. Women hold four cabinet-level posts in the current Iranian government.

Contrary to the impression given by some US politicians and much of the media, very few Iranians regard American society as any kind of model. Especially outside of the relatively well-to-do neighborhoods of north Tehran, most Iranians are religiously and socially rather “conservative.” For example, only a tiny minority of Iranians would tolerate the “gay pride” parades that are accepted in the US and western Europe.

It’s true that many Iranians, probably a majority, are unhappy with their government — but not in the way that the US media and American politicians suggest. The main complaint of most Iranians is not about whether women should or should not have to cover their head, but rather about the sluggish economy, inflation, and a lack of good jobs and economic opportunity. Many Iranians blame their economic problems on the country’s aging, dogmatic and inflexible political leadership. A common complaint is that Iran’s religious “establishment” plays an oversized, intrusive and bureaucratized role in the national economy, and thereby stifles innovation and free enterprise.

In recent weeks, the Israeli government and the pro-Israel media in the US have promoted the idea that Iranians are desperately eager for “liberation” and “regime change.” Prime minister Netanyahu has been pushing the son of the Shah who was ousted in a popular uprising in 1979 as the ideal person to head a new government in Tehran. Some US Republicans, including John Bolton and Rudolf Guiliani, have promoted the bizarre MEK cult as an alternative Iranian government. The chance that either of these foreign-based opposition groups will take power in Tehran is just about zero. Neither has any popular support among Iranians. Any new “regime change” government is much more likely to emerge from Iran’s military, and it would almost certainly be less religious and more nationalistic than the current one.

Edwards: What was Israel’s motive in launching its “preemptive” attack against Iran on June 13? Were Israel’s leaders really concerned that Iran would soon acquire nuclear weapons?

Weber: For decades Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed for the destruction of Iran, and indeed of any regime in the Middle East, that does not accept Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

Netanyahu has a long record of skillfully lying to Americans. For more than 30 years, he and other Israeli leaders have been pressuring the US to attack Iran, based on bogus claims that Iran is just one or two or three years away from having nuclear weapons. If Iran had really wanted to build nuclear weapons, it would have done so years ago. Iran is certainly as capable of doing so as Pakistan or North Korea.

Netanyahu has promoted other lies, which America’s pro-Israel media and politicians readily accept. For example, he pressed the US to invade, bomb, and occupy Iraq in early 2003. Shortly before that ill-fated attack, Netanyahu assured members of the US Congress that “if you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

In 2015 Iran and the US concluded the JCPOA agreement whereby Iran accepted years of comprehensive, intrusive international inspections to ensure that it was not developing nuclear weapons. Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China also signed the agreement. US national security experts overwhelmingly endorsed it. Even the former head of Israel’s atomic energy agency, Uzi Eilam, publicly said: “The bottom line is the agreement is good for Israel.”

Netanyahu’s fierce opposition to the agreement was motivated, above all, by fear that it would “normalize” relations between Iran and the US and Europe, which would greatly help Iran’s economy, and boost Iran’s stature and influence in the world.

Anyone who is serious about wanting Iran not to have nuclear weapons should support the revival of the 2015 JCPOA agreement. Even assuming that Iran’s leaders are deceitful and untrustworthy, the JCPOA is much better than no agreement at all.

Pressed by Netanyahu, President Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement in 2018.

Edwards: You were a live guest on my radio program on June 21, just as news broke of the US bombing of Iran. What were your thoughts when you heard the news?

Weber: My first reaction was surprise. Along with millions of other Americans, I had been deceived by President Trump, who had assured the world that he wanted to reach an agreement with Iran about nuclear weapons, and who had warned Israel not to attack Iran while negotiations with Tehran were still ongoing.

I also immediately thought that Trump’s decision to attack was a dangerous gamble. If Iran responded to the US bombing by striking back hard at the US, and thereby expanding the war, Trump would quickly lose public support, even among his loyal “base.” Fortunately, the quickly arranged ceasefire seems to be holding.

Edwards: In less than two weeks, Israel launched a full-scale air attack against Iran, Iran forcefully retaliated with missile strikes against Israel, the US joined with a bombing raid against Iran, and Trump announced a ceasefire that abruptly ended the conflict. How would you explain such an astonishing turn of events over such a short period of time?

Weber: Short answer: Trump’s unpredictable personality and incoherent outlook.

Just before Israel launched its massive June 13 attack against Iran, Trump publicly warned Israel not to strike Iran while negotiations are still ongoing. But after Israel struck, Trump said he approved the attack and acknowledged that he had known about it in advance. On June 17, Trump demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” but now he talks as if he wants to make a “deal” with Tehran. Which is it? Who knows?

Although some consider Trump’s incoherence and unpredictability a virtue, such behavior is dangerous. A harmful consequence of Trump’s record of repeatedly breaking his word, and trashing even formal agreements that he himself had signed, is that no one, not even traditional friends of the US and certainly not Iran, can ever trust him or the US government about anything. The resulting global instability is bad for Americans and the world.

Edwards: What consequences might there be because of President Trump’s unilateral decision to attack another sovereign country?

Weber: The Trump administration has acted in blatant violation of the UN Charter, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even his own public pledges. Leaders of both major US political parties have accepted Trump’s brazen scorn for solemn international agreements. As a result, leaders in Europe, Russia, China and everywhere else in the world cannot trust any pledge or agreement made by an American government.

Trump ordered US bombers to strike Iran without even a pretense of authorization by the US Congress. Some people might think that’s just fine. But that means accepting the principle that a US president, acting solely on his own authority, can plunge the US into war against a country that is not even an immediate threat. Accepting that means that Americans will have no basis on which to object when future US presidents decide, on their own authority, to drag the US into foreign wars.

Edwards: Because the international situation is still uncertain, things could again change drastically by the time this is published. All the same, what do you see as the longer-range consequences of the dramatic events of recent weeks?

Weber: One possible far-reaching consequence is that some regional powers, notably Iran and Turkey, may conclude that because they cannot trust either the US or Israel, they should follow Israel’s example and begin to build — covertly and in violation of international agreements — their own nuclear arsenal.

Iran apparently continues to insist on its right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, a position that Russia publicly supports. That stance may provide a pretext for Israel’s Netanyahu to demand that the US once again attack Iran, if necessary with ground troops and a full-scale invasion, to compel Iran to “surrender.” Israel’s cheerleaders in the US Congress and media would then predictably press Trump to “finish the job.”

The events of recent months and weeks have also encouraged ever more Americans to question the dubious premises on which this country’s decades-long support for Israel have been based. During the past two years, sympathy and support for Israel have fallen sharply in the US and around the world. Even many of Israel’s long-term supporters have been shocked by the brutality of Israel’s Jewish-supremacist government in oppressing Palestinians.

If the ceasefire holds, world attention will return to Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, and the US military, economic and diplomatic support that makes it possible. The events of recent months will also further encourage growing public awareness of the power and influence of the organized Jewish community, which is the basis for America’s crucial, decades-old backing of Israel.

Edwards: How likely are President Trump’s recent decisions on behalf of Israel to erode support among his loyal “base,” and thereby discredit those policies his supporters regard as really important?

Weber: That’s not likely, at least in the short term. Trump supporters, like most Americans, are normally not concerned with US foreign policy. Americans mostly care about policies that directly impact their day-to-day lives. They become unhappy with foreign policy measures only when they result in many American deaths, or when the costs become so exorbitant that they begin to hurt working and middle-class people economically. Fortunately, the dramatic events of recent weeks have not resulted in American deaths.

Edwards: Why does Trump continue to be such an emphatic supporter of Israel? What’s in it for him?

Weber: That’s a good question, for which no one seems to have a satisfactory answer.

Trump must realize that even among his loyal, hard-core “base,” there’s very little support for US involvement in foreign wars, and markedly declining sympathy for Israel. Moreover, and as Trump has repeatedly complained, in spite of giving Israel “everything,” American Jews overwhelmingly still do not like or trust him.

Despite occasional outbursts of impatience with Netanyahu or exasperation with Israel’s leaders, Trump shows no sign of abandoning his ardent support for the Zionist state. At least with regard to the Middle East, Trump is still very much an “Israel First” president.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.


Mark Weber

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. Over the past 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Ernst von Wolzogen, “Principles, and personal experience, of the Jewish Question”1 (1933)

/12 Comments/in , /by
Translated by Alexander JacobErnst von Wolzogen (1855-1934) was an Austrian nobleman who wrote several humorous novels as well as the libretto for Richard Strauss’ second opera, Feuersnot (1901). He was also one of the founders of cabaret in Germany. In the following essay published in 1933, Wolzogen summarises the causes of anti-Semitism as being due to the natural aversion that Aryans feel for Jews, the opposition of Christianity to Judaism, and the commercial appropriation of German culture by the Jews for their profit and mastery over German society. He also recounts the personal distress that he suffered at the hands of the Jewish press and artistic managements of his day. Wolzogen’s personal experiences of the Jews in German artistic circles a century ago indeed possess more than a passing relevance to contemporary Western cultural sociology.

 *   *   *

The former General Superintendent2 Dr. Ketzler called attention in 1930 to quite forgotten late Roman evidence regarding the aversion of the Western world to the Jews. A contemporary of Stilicho,3 the Roman senator Claudius Rutilius Namatianus,4 still a pagan, undertook a coastal voyage in 416 to Galilee in order to ascertain if his landed property there had suffered damage through the invasion of the Gothic troops of Alarich.5 He described this voyage in verse under the title De reditu suo and the manuscript has been preserved in some Roman archive. This Namatianus had leased one of his properties to a Jew. And he describes, partly with moral indignation, partly with malicious scorn, how he was received and treated by this lessee. The orthodox Pharisee did not let him take part in a kosher meal but had a meal cooked really badly specially for him and handed a steep bill to him for this hospitality. Besides this, he raised a loud racket about the improper water usage of the senator and his travel companions. And on the Sabbath he did not deign to do any service for his guest. Namatianus laughs thoroughly at the Jewish god who, after the strenuous work of creation of six days, is himself exhausted and must therefore rest for a day. He traces the cold-heartedness that struck him in all Jews to the senselessly strict prescriptions of the Sabbath holiday. He writes that the Jew treated him and his companions as cattle whereas the ridiculous arrogance and the blind obedience to prescriptions of religious law that had long become senseless appeared to him and the Romans as unworthy of human beings. At the end of his observations he breaks into the complaint,

Oh, if only Judaea had never been subjugated by the wars of Pompeius6 and the military force of Titus!7 Now from out of the broken breeding ground of pestilence creeps the contagion so much more widely and the conquered nation burdens their conquerors.

This groan of Namantianus relates to the fact that already in his time the Jews were felt to be blood-suckers in the dying Roman Empire. They had taken control everywhere of the financial business and brokerage, they constituted a state within the state and transferred their taxes to the secret leaders in Jerusalem more punctually than the state taxes to the Roman financial ministry. The former financial wealth of Rome had flowed mostly into their pockets. And Jerusalem was, along with Alexandria, the biggest stock-exchange of the world of that time. We see therefore from this eloquent document that, already at the time of Alarich, the aversion of the Aryan world to Jewry was the same as that today and had the same reasons. What has appeared recently is only the disastrous influence that they have exercised through the press for some hundred years.

Of course, whether Europe would have been preserved from the Jewish pestilence if Titus had not destroyed Jerusalem and had driven the inhabitants out may justifiably be doubted. The Jews tend even today to maintain that only with the diaspora were they forced to the exclusive occupation with trade and usury because the cruel hard-heartedness of their host nations had denied them the acquisition of land, naturalization in the cities, and equality in mechanical and intellectual activities. But in reality the entire history of Jewry, even that written by themselves, shows that, from the most ancient times, they were only exploiters of the work of others, parasites, vexatious appropriators of foreign cultural works, traders and speculators. Under the late Roman emperors they enjoyed the greatest freedom, indeed even privilege. They had ample opportunity to develop their intellectual gifts in creative activities in the centuries up to the Christianisation under Constantine, if they were inclined to do so. But they preferred the predatory business activities. They had a second favourable opportunity to live freely in mediaeval Spain, especially under the Moorish rule. And there they succeeded in crystallising out of themselves a sort of noble race, the so-called Sephardim. Their scientifically disposed minds showed a special preference for medicine, mathematics, philosophy and, later, also for poetry and music.8 We may gladly grant them the fame that in these fields they have accomplished competent works, in individual cases even outstanding ones, and for some centuries offered to the West perhaps the best doctors. But it would have indeed been a wonder if affluence and peace had not brought forth scholars and artists even in an intellectually active nation of traders. Art and science flourish always in times of peace and affluence. If the original nomad and desert bandit develops, once he becomes sedentary, into traders and usurers and finally, under careful greenhouse cultivation, also brings forth forms alien to their nature such as philosophers and poets that is not more surprising than if the descendants of long series of generations of farmers, soldiers, handicraftsmen and tradesmen in peaceful times also strike out of their mould and begin to engage in arts and sciences. That the Jews in all circumstances, even if their state had not been destroyed, would have spread over the world as traders is due to the fact that to them even today sedentary life is little valued. They indeed gather in a mass where there is a good business to be made and leave the place as soon as they have plundered it. One may just recall the mass immigration of Galician Jews into Vienna at the collapse of the Hapsburg Empire and the mass emigration of the same Jews to Berlin and Paris when the German inflation and the collapse of the French frank offered new shining opportunities to fish in troubled waters. Where there is no business to be made the average Jew will not stay long – nor even the most enthusiastic Zionist in the praised land of their ancestors newly gifted by the grace of England.

The reasons for the aversion of almost all peoples of the entire world against Jewry are of different sorts. Among the Aryan peoples it is based primarily in a blood hostility. The most recent scientific research has indeed demonstrated that the Aryan and Jewish corpuscles repel one another in a polarized way. From this perhaps is the inborn repugnance in all Aryans who are still racially conscious to some degree, which however is not expressed against all members of the Semitic race but only against the specifically Jewish type with a negroid element as is especially frequent among the Ashkenazim, the eastern Jews. This racial instinct can therefore perhaps be fully inactive with regard to such Jews who have already for generations willingly accepted Western intellectual culture and as a result of that have more or less obliterated the external stamp of the Jewish soul.

The aversion to Jewry for religious reasons, which operated in a very essential manner in the Jewish persecutions of the Middle Ages, is today hardly of significance. The Christian churches themselves have indeed taken care to see that the consciousness of the essential difference between the Jewish tribal god Jehova and the creator of Nature and the loving father of all human children taught by Jesus became increasingly weak. The acknowledgement of the Old Testament as ‘Holy Scripture’ even for the Christians, the opinion that Jesus was the Messiah promised by the Israelite prophets finally produced the sheer grotesque belief that we had to see in the Jews the worthy fathers of Christianity. Inwardly we regretted the obduracy not only of the contemporary members of the chosen people who did not wish to be redeemed by their divinely chosen Saviour; we became, and are still, eager Jewish missionaries who believe that we can change the Jewish spirit through baptism and win them over to our character!

This false belief operated totally catastrophically in English Puritanism. The English Puritans returned in sinister enthusiasm to the ‘old covenant’, worshipped Jehova and considered it the highest honour to be the descendants of the two tribes of Israel that had disappeared without a trace that, according to the legend, were cast away on the British Isles. They felt themselves also conveniently obliged to fulfil the command of Jehova which meant they had to ‘devour’ all the nations and exercise loyalty and faith, justice and love of one’s neighbour only with regard to one’s own religious comrades. Only in recent times has the knowledge become the property of all mankind that Jesus the Galilean – whether he was pure Jewish blood or not – stood from the start in his entire thought and feeling in sheerest opposition to Judaism. Indeed, he is, according to a rabbinical legend, the son of a Jewish hairdresser in Jerusalem and a Roman, therefore perhaps Aryan, officer who later became a captain in Capernaum. (This would explain the friendship between Jesus and the house of this captain evidenced by the evangelists.)

The same rabbinical legend emphasizes most strongly that the hatred of the orthodox against the young rabbi Jeshua ben Jusuf, who, during his long sojourn in Egypt, sat at the feet of the Jewish religious philosopher Philo of Alexandria9 and there filled his mind with Platonic ideas, and therefore records that this renegade half-Jew had defiantly set himself beyond the strict prescriptions that strictly forbade the entry of bastards into the inner sanctuary of the Temple. What the raging hatred of the Pharisees conceived against the bold Galilean – who called them the children of the Devil – seems to me to have greater probability than the desperate efforts of our modern wild Aryans who would like make Galileans Gauls and cannot imagine the carpenter’s son from Nazareth other than as blue-eyed and with blond locks. Then necessarily even Gautama Buddha, who raged against the Indian pantheon, must have been a descendant of the Atlanteans! I mean that one can proceed very well without such violent constructions, by simply explaining the personality of Jesus as a good fortune or as a divine act of mercy that granted to the Jewish people a religious genius. It cannot at all appear as a wonder that a race that brought forth so many passionate and even poetically gifted preachers of atonement and prophets finally gave birth to a religious revolutionary.

As such, Jesus had naturally to come to the understanding that the Pharisaic orthodoxy had nothing to do with real religion. Even the knowledge that the pure teaching of Jesus was disastrously falsified by Paul, and especially through his smuggling in of the Jewish concept of sin, has become the common possession of all thinking and perceptive Christians only in recent times. Even if now the most ingenuous church-going Christians hardly hate Jewry because their forefathers killed the Saviour on the cross, all really religious men, no matter if they belong to a church or not, must reject the Yahweh religion for the simple reason that it educates its adherents to the exploitation and destruction of all other nations.

The present-day liberal Jews declare with great decisiveness, and presumably also through sincere conviction, that in their conscience they no longer feel bound to the Mosaic law and its Talmudic interpretation. That may indeed be believed of them; the cultivated Reform Jew of today has in fact not read the Schulchan Aruch and the Talmud, and perhaps does not even understand Hebrew any longer. But unknown to himself his thought and feeling move even today on the tracks that were laid out to their forefathers. It is still only a few Jews who have lived with our Aryan concept of honour, especially our entire attitude to God and our fellowmen, to such a degree that it has become as natural to them as to us.

We always shake our head in uncomprehending astonishment when even Jews who are intellectually and morally superior Jews and who, as doubtlessly honourable men, enjoy the respect of their host peoples, take into their protection Jewish criminals of the worst sort and confront our justified moral indignation with the accusation of anti-Semitic persecution.

The crudest cases of this sort are indeed still in recent memory so that one does not need to go into them in greater detail. We were told that we should take as a model this unconditional support of blood brothers ‘through thick and thin’. But we are fully incapable of doing that. Our conception of honour and justice forbids us to turn black into white in order to help a racial comrade out of difficulty. And when a criminal of our blood receives his punishment we say with satisfaction that he deserved it. We are just to the point of weakness, for we have, for example, let the Aryan Social Democrat Crispien10 declare in the German parliament that he does not recognize any fatherland that is called Germany without throwing him out of the window! One may evaluate our concept of honour, our conception of noble humanity, our categorical imperative, in whatever way one wishes but it is essentially different from the Jewish conception, in most cases even directly opposed to it.

A third reason – in present-day Germany decidedly the most important – for the rejection of the Jews is their presumption of bringing not only the economy but also the entire cultural affairs of our nation under its sway. Anti-Semitism has simply become a defensive weapon. Ever since press freedom was declared to nr constitutional, the Jewish intelligentsia rushed to the newspaper industry and their money enabled them to establish daily newspapers, weekly and monthly journals and to provide a circulation for these that exceeded by far the circulation figures of the German publications. From that time on, thus for the last two decades of the previous century, the influence of the Jewish spirit has become considerable. The mass of harmless German readers did not notice anything. They believed what was written and allowed themselves to be blinded and dazed by the skilled presentation. They learned to laugh at what they had once respected. They became ever more unsure in their natural instincts. Indeed, they learned even to think, to a certain degree, in a Jewish manner! Only a few Germans had worried thoughts about the fact that increasingly more teaching positions in sciences were occupied by Jewish lecturers, increasingly more stages directed by Jews, the commercial mediation between artists and the public, the publishing houses, the art trade increasingly fell into Jewish hands. The innocent people shrugged their shoulders: ‘Well, why not! They are an intelligent people, they present much to minds occupied with the sciences, excellent musicians, actors, singers, directors, conductors, and even very remarkable poets and brilliant writers. And if they take part in the competition with German gifts only sheer envy could deny them their success.’ The speculation on the inborn German love of justice succeeded brilliantly: Already in 1906 a Dr. [Moritz] Goldstein declared, in a questionnaire in Kunstwart11 that intellectual Jewry felt called to take over the administration of German cultural matters.12 That meant therefore: the tame Germans may write poetry, compose, paint, sculpt, think and invent as much as they want, but insofar as there is a business to be made of their intellectual products the Jew would make it. That is indeed his right for the German does not understand anything about business. And with this decision at least the entire German readership happily gave itself up to the Jewish and Jewish-influenced newspapers.

I may perhaps bring in, for example, my personal experiences in this context. I came from Weimar to Berlin at the beginning of the eighties unsuspectingly, that is, from the incense-filled church of classical tradition and from the magical circle of the living personality of Liszt.12 But hardly had I achieved my first modest successes as a humorous writer and dramatist than I saw myself trapped by the Jewish cultural administrators ruling even at that time. I soon moved in almost exclusively Jewish circles. I was not seldom the sole Gentile in the company of prominent oriental persons. I did not think there was anything bad in that. Only, I thought afterwards that I did not wish in any case to enter into a friendly relationship with any of these many witty and amiable foreign men. Then, in 1901, I unfortunately allowed myself to be tempted to realise in Germany the idea of the small stage, of the artistic music hall, brought by Aryans, the French cabaretists, the Dane Holder Drachmann,13 the Swede Sven Scholander14 and the Germans Bierbaum15 and Wedekind.16 In 1920 I had acquired the necessary distance from the miserable experiences of 1901-1905 to be able to represent them in my memoirs not only truthfully but already with the wistful smile of self-irony. These memoirs appeared under the title ‘How I killed myself’ in Westermann’s monthly journal. But since they lasted until the Überbrettl cabaret period, delegates of the Jewish cultural community demanded of the publisher the immediate stop of further publication and intensified this demand with the threat that in case of refusal to do so all Jewish subscribers would stop subscribing to the monthly journal. The publisher did not allow himself to be intimidated and the monthly journals prosper today more strongly than ever before. But henceforth almost all German stages remained closed to me – and indeed not only those managed by Jews. Naturally also all my other artistic undertakings as well as my books were maliciously criticized or fully ignored by the entire Jewish-influenced press. And why was that? Because I had made clear in the case of the establishment of my own theatres how well Jewry is able to lay their cuckoo eggs in our German nest. The first Jew that I employed in my undertaking soon brought a racial comrade with him and, before I knew it, my secretary and my office assistant were the sole Aryans in the entire undertaking! So long as a large crowd of Jews earned highly from my affairs the Jewish press trumpeted my fame full-throatedly all over the country. The few German artists that I dared to employ, to save face, were thrashed or at best tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders. Before the end of a year my playwrights were no longer called Dehmel,17 Liliencron,18 Bierbaum, Falke,19 Thoma,20 Wedekind but Leipziger, Krakauer, Warschauer and so on. How that could happen, how they paralysed my will and demeaned my name as a signpost for a purely Jewish business, one may read in my memoirs, which later appeared as the first volume of a five-volume edition of selections of my works at Westermann Publishers in Braunschweig. But I had, already before the composition of the memoirs, tried to shape my experiences with the Jewish cultural politics in a literary form, but then left the work lie because I did not find any artistically satisfactory conclusion. Only in 1923 did I take up the manuscript again and attempted to salvage those successful humorous-satirical chapters that dealt with my experiences by appending them to a newly invented story with a political background. That was not a happy idea, for the secret league of the valuable opposition of the German aristocracy against Wilhelm II with allusions to the Eulenburg affair21 (whose real background was at that time still unknown to me) did not agree with the playful cockiness from my cabaret period. The book appeared under the title Sem, der Mitbürger at the Brunnen Publishing House in Berlin. The editor of the Central Verein Zeitung newspaper for defence against anti-Semitism, Fritz Engel, went into a frenzy about that. He referred me urgently to the public prosecutor, and if he were to refuse, to a psychiatrist.

I may interpret this paroxysm as a sure proof of the fact that I had hit the mark with my mockery of the Jewish character, which was nevertheless good-humored and strictly truthful. As is well-known, only Jews may permit themselves to mock Jews. And I had indeed gone too far in representing a prominent Jew as rather dim-witted. Consequently I was punished with death. The German literary historian Soergel22 took over almost word for word Engel’s judgement, without knowing the work, and recorded it forever in his Deutsche Literaturgeschichte.23

Thereafter the boycott screw was tightened even further. The director of a south German city theatre, who had accepted a new play of mine, was quite publicly threatened that the press would ruin him if he dared to perform my play. All booksellers were forbidden to place my books in their windows. And it was even reported to me by an acquaintance that he had asked for a book of mine in a German shop, whereupon the owner sharply winked at him and only when the other customers had left the shop did he confess to him in whispers that he indeed wished to sell him the book but had to request him not to speak of it to anybody else because otherwise his competitor on the same street would certainly report him to the Jews and would ruin his business. When I report these things to respectable Jews they shake their heads in disbelief and assure me that they know nothing of such machinations. Maybe. But one who has any relationship with the Chawrusse24 or the great Cabal, knows about it precisely – no matter whether he dwells in Berlin between Koch Street and Jerusalem Street or in New York or in Jaffa. – It is entirely the same in the case of politics: one must just ask which one of our people our enemies hate the most – it is the men who have understood them most deeply and who are therefore most to be feared. If the street boys shout Hep! Hep!, if wild Teutonicists declare without any hesitation that every man that they dislike is a Jew, and narrow-minded racial fanatics reject completely all Jewish accomplishments, that does not disturb their sleep; but woe to the incautious person who, through his own sharp observation, has recognized the true visage of Jewry and who attempts to use his knowledge to enlighten people!

I think that such a personal experience – and all who have dared to associate with our culture-administering Jews will have similar things to report – illustrates more glaringly the impossible situation than the most detailed observations could. We simply cannot tolerate any longer the presumption of these foreigners, who make up hardly one percent of our population, this violation of our mind. In the meantime, most of the Germans capable of thought have, thank God, perceived how remarkably stupid the phrase was that anti-Semitism is a cultural shame. The young Germany of today, with its new ideals and its fervent capacity for enthusiasm, will certainly proceed beyond this condition of self-defence and move to attack. Only when the Jew will never be a German citizen of Jewish faith but only a foreigner tolerated in a friendly manner would the poison fangs of anti-Semitism be broken, then one can let the guests of a foreign race ply their trades peacefully and utilize their many-sided gifts.

For, if they then misuse their freedom to harm our economy through usury and cut-throat competition or morally undermine our intellectual disposition, then we would know how to make them harmless through expulsion. Those among them who no longer make a good business in the new conditions will soon look for other places of refuge, and that will perhaps include the worst and most dangerous elements among them. With a sifted Jewry there will perhaps be a rather middling income. It is possible that the German Jews will then develop into a better variety, such as the Sephardim once were in Spain, and that then the intellectual Germanisation would succeed more often than hitherto. In any case, the indispensable precondition for the solution of the Jewish Question remains that we stop feeling like besieged people in our own house threatened with starvation and gas poisoning, that we learn once again to exercise our proprietary rights as proud free people.

  1. ‘Grundsätzliches und Persönliches zur Judenfrage’, published in the collection of essays, Das neue Deutschland und die Judenfrage, Lepizig: Rüdiger Verlag, 1933.

  2. A church administrator.

  3. Stilicho (ca.359-408) was a military commander in the Roman army who rose to political prominence in the Western Roman Empire.

  4. Namatianus was a Roman poet of Gallic origin who composed a poem De reditu suo in two books, of which only about seven hundred lines are still extant.

  5. Alarich I (ca.370-411) was the first king of the Visigoths

  6. Pompeius magnus (106-48 B.C.) was a Roman general – and rival of Julius Caesar – who annexed Syria in 64 B.C. and made Judaea a client kingdom shortly after.

  7. Titus Vespianus (39-81) was a Roman Emperor who captured Jerusalem in 70 and destroyed the Second Temple.

  8. Wolzogen is referring to the so-called ‘Golden Age of Jewish culture’ in Muslim Spain in the 10th and 11th centuries.

  9. Philo Judaeus (ca 20 B.C.-50) was a Jewish philosopher in Alexandria who attempted to interpret Judaism in the light of Platonic philosophy.

  10. Arthur Crispien (1875-1946) was a Social Democratic member of parliament.

  11. From Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 8:  Jewish cultural domination was a theme of anti-Semitism, but in 1912 when Zionist author [Moritz] Goldstein made his famous comment that Jews should contemplate the implications of the fact that the German cultural heritage was now largely in Jewish hands, the reaction was self-deception:  The unexpected frankness with which a Jew who eschewed self-delusion thus broke a taboo which otherwise had only been violated by anti-Semites with malicious tendencies, illuminated with lightning clarity the prevailing socio-political tensions. And perhaps more illuminating was the embittered reaction of most of the Jewish participants . . . who repudiated the thesis as such, declared the ventilation of the question to be improper, and tried with all their might to efface the divisions thus exposed. (Scholem 1979, 30)  Goldstein was a Zionist, and his essay was greeted with hostility by liberal Jewish organizations who assailed the “excessive nationalism” and “racial semitism” of the Zionists (see Field 1981, 248). As Field (1981, 248) points out, another aspect of Jewish self-deception revealed by this incident was that these liberal Jewish critics never confronted the central problem raised by Goldstein when he noted that anti-Semites such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were “the best spirits, clever, truth-loving men who, however, as soon as they speak of Jews, fall into a blind, almost rabid hatred.” The credibility of the anti-Semites, not Moritz Goldstein, was the fundamental problem for German Jews.

  12. Liszt was the famous composer and pianist Kunstwart was a German arts periodical that was published from 1887 to 1937.

  13. Holder Drachmann (1846-1908) was a Danish poet and dramatist.

  14. Sven Scholander (1860-1936) was a Swedish musician and sculptor.

  15. Otto Bierbaum (1865-1910) was a journalist and writer whose novel Stilpe inspired Wolzogen to establish the first cabaret, the ‘Überbrettl’, in Berlin in 1901.

  16. Franklin Wedekind (1864-1918) was a German playwright who contributed to the formation of the Communistic ‘epic theatre’ of Erwin Piscator and Bertolt Brecht.

  17. Richard Dehmel (1863-1920) was a German poet whose poems were set to music by numerous composers including Strauss and Schoenberg.

  18. Detlev von Liliencron (1844-1909) was a German poet and novelist.

  19. Gustav Falke (1853-1916) was a German poet based in Hamburg.

  20. Ludwig Thoma (1867-1921) was a German author and publisher whose novels satirise Bavarian rural life.

  21. The Eulenburg affair was a scandal involving Kaiser Wilhelm II’s court. It began when the Jewish journalist Maximilian Harden accused Philip, Prince of Eulenburg, in 1907, of having a homosexual affair with General Kuno von Moltke.

  22. Albert Soergel (1880-1958) was a German literary historian:

  23. Soergel’s literary history, Dichtung und Dichter der Zeit, eine Schilderung der deutschen Literatur der letzten Jahrzehnte, was published in 1911.

  24. A term for the Jewish mafia of Berlin.

Mickey Newbury: A White American Voice

/1 Comment/in /by

This is the third writing of mine in what’s looking as if it might become a series of sorts.  Over the years, people from the past, historical figures, have jumped out to me and I’ve attended to them; they’d be persistently on my mind for a significant amount of time, say three-four days to a week.   I’ve come to notice that with a few exceptions they’ve been Americans and white (both of which I am); there has been a national and racial angle to this activity.

I first wrote about this phenomenon in a writing in late 2022 called “Nine White American Voices.”1 A month or so later, I followed that up with “A Tenth White American Voice.2   In the second one, I put things in context.

Late last year, I wrote a post that provides the backdrop for what’s here: “The American Political System and White Discourse.”3   The thrust of it was the suggestion that a possible underpinning for American white racial advocacy is this country’s political and cultural heritage, with the emphasis on “possible.”  I’m not contending that this frame of reference should be the way American white advocates look at racial concerns; rather, that it is a way.   It happens to be my outlook, but it needn’t be anyone else’s.  Personally, I’ve found white advocacy to be too strident, alpha-male-dominated, European-referenced, collectivist, authoritarian, and fringy-right-wing.   I’ve gone so far as to argue for gay and lesbian involvement in the movement (“The White Racial Movement and Gays”).4

In a recent post called “Nine American White Voices,” 5 I listed nine people I believe deserve consideration in this country’s racial dialogue and debate: philosopher, essayist, and lecturer Ralph Waldo Emerson; novelist and short story writer Ernest Hemingway; Civil War combatant William T. Anderson; film director Sam Peckinpah; poet Emily Dickinson; artist and art educator Robert Henri; U.S. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin6; comic book illustrator Steve Ditko; and country singer Hank Williams.  The post was paragraph-or-so length references to the nine—quotes, descriptions, accounts, lyrics in Williams’ case.

 What I didn’t note in that post and should have, and I’m doing it here, is that I didn’t just pick the nine names out of a hat, as it were.  At some point in the last decade, these nine individuals jumped out at me.  I gave them time and attention.  They had an impact on my thinking and, really, my total being—and that includes Hank Williams’ lyrics to “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry.”  I decided that each of them was a white American voice: I couldn’t envision their expressions coming from a black, Hispanic, Asian, or Jewish person, or from a European.  All nine were inside me, part of the physically-felt internal referent I drew upon when I produced the 59 [now 72] articles I have written for this publication over the last few years.  To understand me and what I have written is to take into account, or at least sense, that someone like comics illustrator Steve Ditko has had a major impact on me and someone like Anthony Ludovici hasn’t.

Here, I’ll cite a tenth white American voice: Samuel Francis Smith.  In 1831 while a student at the Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts, he wrote the lyrics to “America” (“My Country ‘Tis of Thee”) to the melody of “God Save the Queen.”  Doing so, he contrasted the British monarchy with the young American republic.   I remember singing the song in elementary school, and I took its words to heart.  I still take them to heart, including, and I’m not religious, the references to God.

My country ’tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty
Of thee I sing
Land where my fathers died
Land of the pilgrim’s pride
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring

My native country, thee
Land of the noble free
Thy name I love
I love thy rocks and rills
Thy woods and templed hills
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above

 Let music swell the breeze
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom’s song
Let mortal tongues awake
Let all that breathe partake
Let rocks their silence break
The sound prolong

Our Father God to Thee
Author of liberty
To Thee I sing
My country ’tis of Thee
Sweet land of liberty
For all eternity
Let freedom ring

All to say, I identify with and care about all white people, but I am first and foremost a white American who loves my country and what it stands for.

I’ll add to that quote that I’ve felt a personal connection with and gratitude toward all these individuals: in some important way, they’ve helped me make sense of my life, made me feel better about myself, given me direction.

Mickey Newbury (1940–2002) was an American singer/songwriter.  This week, I watched YouTubes of him singing, read articles about him and a biography of him by Joe Zeimer, Mickey Newbury: Crystal and Stone,7 and I found myself thinking about him and what he brings up for me a lot, every day.  This writing, then, is about Mickey Newbury in the same way the first two “American voices” writings were about the people mentioned in them.

Mickey Newbury

Mickey Newbury was born in Houston, Texas, lived his peak productive years in Nashville, Tennessee, and died in Springfield, Oregon, where he had moved with his wife (her home territory) and son.   I suppose most people know little if anything about him.   I didn’t even know he existed until a few years ago when by chance I came across that he wrote–or better, compiled—the song “American Trilogy,” which was best known as a big moment in Elvis’ concert performances.   Newbury’s inclusion of “Dixie,” which is viewed as a Southern anthem, in “American Trilogy” was controversial at the time.

I learned this week that Mickey was indeed a major figure in American music.  His albums weren’t big sellers, but they were critically acclaimed as artful, true, and poetic.  Listening to YouTubes this week, I was taken by his beautiful, ethereal tenor voice.  He was phenomenally successful as a songwriter, with over 1,500 versions of his songs recorded by the likes of Johnny Cash, Kenny Rogers, Willie Nelson, John Denver, and Joan Baez.  In 1980, he was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, the youngest person ever to receive that honor at that time.  His influence was marked: Merle Haggard, George Jones, and Waylon Jennings made records that sounded much like Mickey’s.  He was very highly respected: Kris Kristofferson said “I learned more about songwriting from him than any other writer.  He was my hero and still is.”

Reading the Zeimer biography this week, my personal connections with Mickey hit me.

We were born a week apart in 1940.  We grew up in the same time period: the Cold War, Korea, Eisenhower, the civil rights movement, the Beatles.  Pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease, took him almost a quarter of a century ago and I’m still here hanging on.  It could have been me with the breathing tube I saw in pictures of Mickey near the end.  It’s all the luck of the draw.  The challenge for all of us, no matter what is going on, is to appreciate the incredible gift of life while we still have it.

We look very much alike; in the two videos I’ll end this writing with, both from when Mickey was around 30, the physical similarity between the two of us at that age is striking.  I think about how we looked affected our lives.

We’re from similar ethnic and racial backgrounds.  At around 20, Mickey was in the Air Force stationed in England and according to his biographer became proud of his English heritage.   My mother was an English immigrant and my father, who grew up in rural Georgia, was of Welsh background.  It took me a lot longer than Mickey, well into my 50s, but I have become conscious and proud of my own ethnic heritage—as well as my racial and Southern roots, loyalties I sense Mickey shared with me.  Neither of us were encouraged to be proud of ourselves and our own in that way (people of our kind still aren’t), but we both managed to get there anyway.

We both had low-income upbringings.  Mickey’s father drove a truck, rebuilt water heaters, and did plumbing work; my father was a barber.  But nevertheless we both made it.  The American dream is for real no matter who you are if you play by one rule: show up and work really hard at something you can do well.

We both took in from our worlds that college wasn’t for the likes of us and joined the armed services right out of high school; with me, it was the army.  It was in the army that I learned a job at the Ford plant wasn’t my only future.  I remember an older, college-educated draftee, I was 17, telling me “You could be a dentist.”  Me?  I wish I could thank him for saying that.  He’s probably dead.

We both went to cowboy movies growing up, Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, and watched Roy’s TV show.  We took seriously Roy’s “rider’s rules,” his standards for how to conduct your life he’s send printed on a card if you wrote him, which I did.  Among the rules, be courteous and polite, obey your parents, study hard in school, protect the weak and help them, be kind to animals and protect them, and respect our flag and our country.8 As I read them again this week after all these years, it hit me how much I still hold to Roy’s ideals.

We both had/have very bad backs and decided to avoid the drugs prescribed to ease the pain out a concern that they would cloud our minds.  Both of us placed great value in our minds and using it to do our very best in whatever we most believed in accomplishing.  My encounter with Mickey this week inspired me to keep that going and even better in whatever time I have left.

Attending to Mickey Newbury and what it brought up was a suitable activity for me—for its associations, memories, insights, and conclusions, and for the good feelings it gave me.   It matters greatly what President Trump is doing about Israel and Iran and Putin and Zelenskyy in Ukraine and what Tucker Carlson and the others doing the talking at the moment think about it, it really does.  But the truth of it, Mickey Newbury took precedence for me this week over the Trump drama and I’m fine with that.  I invite you to find your own Mickey Newbury, if you know what I mean.  It will matter, it really will.

I’ll end this with the lyrics of a couple of Mickey’s songs that stand out for me, each followed by a video of him singing it.  The first is “She Even Woke Me Up” and the second is “American Trilogy.”  “American Trilogy” is made up of three American Civil War-era songs.

She Even Woke Me Up

Well, morning’s come and Lord, my mind is aching
The sunshine standing quietly at my door
Just like the dawn my heart is silently breaking
And with my tears it goes tumbling to the floor

Once again the old town will be talking
Yes Lord, I’ve seen the pity that’s in their eyes
‘Cause they could never understand
It’s her sorrow, it’s not a man
No matter what they say, I know she tried

Baby’s packed her soft things and she’s left me
I just know she didn’t mean to make me cry
It’s not her heart, Lord, it’s her mind
She didn’t mean to be unkind
Why she even woke me up to say goodbye

American Trilogy

Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton
Old things they are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away Dixieland

Oh, I wish I was in Dixie, away, away
In Dixieland I take my stand to live and die in Dixie
‘Cause Dixieland, that’s where I was born
Early Lord one frosty morning
Look away, look away, look away Dixieland

Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
His truth is marching on

So hush little baby
Don’t you cry
You know your daddy’s bound to die
But all my trials, Lord, will soon be over

Endnotes

  1. Robert S, Griffin, “Nine White American Voices,” The Occidental Observer, posted January 24, 2022.
  2. Robert S. Griffin, “A Tenth White American Voice,” The Occidental Observer, posted January 14, 2023.
  3. Robert S, Griffin, “The American Political System and White Racial Discourse,” The Occidental Observer, posted December 13, 2022.
  4. Robert S. Griffin, The White Racial Movement and Gays, The Occidental Observer, posted June 26, 2018.
  5. “Nine American Voices,” op. cit.
  6. Since then, I wrote at length about Rankin: “A Commentary on the Life of Jeannette Rankin,” The Occidental Observer, posted on June 22, 2024. It was also was posted in The Unz Review that same day,
  7. Second edition, AuthorHouse, 2015.
  8. https://www.cowboyway.com/RoyRogers.htm

Notre Peuple ou l’Amérique – la Race ou le Drapeau? Voir au-delà de Trump

/in /by

Allocution de Mark Weber le 31 mai 2025, lors d’un colloque organisé et animé par James Edwards à Greenville, en Caroline du Sud.

En haut, Paris 2013, énorme manifestation anti mariage homo; en fait, première manifestation des chrétiens blancs en Occident.

En bas, trois ans plus tard, la vague MAGA-Trump, également très typée blanche

Notre hôte nous a réunis ce week-end, non pas seulement pour dresser un constat d’échec ou d’en pointer du doigt les responsables, mais pour mettre l’accent « sur la manière dont il serait concrètement possible de s’engouffrer rapidement dans les brèches ouvertes par la réélection de Donald Trump » et « d’exploiter le changement du climat politique qui en a résulté ». Ceci commence par une évaluation lucide et sans fard de la carrière de Trump, de sa présidence, et de la vague MAGA dont il aura été à l’origine.

L’irrésistible ascension de Donald Trump aura été avant tout l’expression d’un profond mécontentement, d’un malaise grandissant au sein de la population blanche devant ce que leur pays était en train de devenir. Comme une caisse de résonance, le Make American Great Again a permis de faire éclater une rage latente qui couvait principalement parmi les Blancs de la classe moyenne et ouvrière, délaissés et rabaissés par une élite politique qui avait fini par les faire se sentir comme des étrangers dans leur propre pays.

Le succès de Trump c’est la somme de toutes ces désillusions, de toutes ces frustrations devant l’échec chaque jour plus manifeste des partis et des dirigeants au pouvoir depuis la guerre, c’est le soulèvement contre tous ceux qui les ont appuyés dans les mass médias, à Hollywood, dans les entreprises, dans les écoles et à l’université. Son accession à la Maison Blanche, c’est à la fois un symptôme et un accélérateur de l’effondrement de la mainmise de la gauche libertarienne sur la démocratie, le rejet de l’idéologie qui la sous-tend et qui a prévalu dans notre pays et dans tout l’Occident depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

C’est le mérite de Trump que d’avoir renversé la table. Il a poussé les Américains à voir en face des réalités que ceux au pouvoir auraient préféré qu’ils continuent d’ignorer, à reprendre à bras le corps des questions comme le droit du sol ou les politiques de discrimination positive si pénalisante pour eux —  autant de sujets que la classe politique considérait comme définitivement réglés, fermés aux débats.

Mais tout en reconnaissant les mérites du mouvement MAGA-Trump, l’élan qu’il a donné, force nous est aussi de relever les limites de ce que peut faire la nouvelle administration.

Il y a à la base même du mouvement MAGA-Trump, une énorme erreur d’appréciation : si l’Amérique n’est plus un grand pays, ce serait la faute de quelques traîtres. Pour refaire de l’Amérique un grand pays, nul besoin d’une nouvelle révolution – d’une contre-révolution, il faut et il suffit de jeter par-dessus bord les malfaisants. Le mouvement pèche par sa limitation intrinsèque, il apparaît comme un simple mouvement protestataire (de droite), ses partisans se contentant de pointer du doigt des coupables dont il s’agirait de couper l’influence néfaste en les évinçant du pouvoir.

À la rigueur on songe aussi à exclure quelques livres des bibliothèques publiques dont on pense qu’ils ne devraient pas être lus par les Américains, ceux par exemple qui s’épanchent en repentance anti Blancs ou qui font la promotion du triptyque infernal Diversité – Égalité – Inclusion, le problème, c’est qu’on ne leur propose rien d’autre à lire à la place.

Tout se passe comme si le mouvement était dépourvu de sa propre Weltanshauung, qu’il n’avait rien à offrir pour combler le vide que laisserait derrière elle l’idéologie qui a prévalu toutes ces quatre-vingts dernières années et qui nous a inexorablement conduit là où nous en sommes aujourd’hui. Il s’avère que le mouvement n’a pas d’autre vision pour le futur que celle assez vague d’un retour à une grandeur perdue.

Que de fois n’avons-nous entendu de la bouche des Républicains et des analystes de leur bord que la déchéance des villes américaines, la lente et inexorable descente dans l’enfer de la criminalité, de l’insécurité et de la paupérisation de Detroit, de Philadelphie, de Baltimore etc. sont uniquement dues au fait que leur maire était Démocrate? Est-ce qu’ils croient, est-ce que quiconque croit vraiment de telles inepties?

Et en plus, c’est pour se faire plus Démocrate que les Démocrates, en disant que « ce sont eux les vrais racistes »,  que « nous devrions tous nous considérer comme simplement des êtres humains et des Américains » — et que notre but ultime est, ou devrait être, celui d’une Amérique non racisée, d’une Amérique aveugle à la couleur.

Ils poussent le bouchon jusqu’à dénoncer l’idéologie identitaire comme clivante et raciste – ce qui, au demeurant, ne manque pas d’un certain toupet étant donné que par ailleurs, ils ne ratent pas une occasion de faire des promesses électorales spécifiquement adressées à des groupes identitaires tels que les Noirs, les Hispaniques ou les Juifs.

C’est ainsi par exemple que lors de la campagne de 2020, Trump s’était fendu d’un «Plan Platine» par lequel il promettait de faire de «Juneteenth» un jour férié : Juneteenth, c’est la contraction des mots June (juin) et nineteenth (dix-neuf), le 19 juin 1865 étant la date à laquelle au Texas le général unioniste Gordon Granger a signé l’ordre d’émancipation des esclaves Noirs. Le plan prévoyait en outre une série de mesures visant à «accroître l’accès au capital des communautés noires de 500 milliards de dollars», «assurant de ce fait la création de 500 000 PME noires ». Au grand dam de Trump qui revendiquera la paternité de l’idée, c’est Biden qui rendra le 19 juin férié. Durant les élections de 2024, les deux camps ont fait assaut de spots publicitaires pour courtiser la communauté juive.

En faveur de la communauté blanche : rien, rien si ce n’est le rejet des politiques anti Blancs et des perspectives dans lesquelles celles-ci s’inscrivent. On feint d’ignorer le poids du facteur racial, on fait comme si l’Amérique était si exceptionnelle que le pays était affranchi des réalités biologiques et historiques, des contraintes même de la vie.

Mais ceux à qui l’avenir du pays tient à cœur savent qu’ils ne peuvent se permettre de faire l’impasse sur ces sujets. Tous les efforts et les sacrifices consentis le seraient en vain s’ils nous n’abordions pas avec toute la lucidité voulue les grands défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés. Toute considération sur ce qui peut et doit être fait doit obligatoirement prendre en compte la mesure de l’énorme changement racial et culturel subi par notre pays ces quatre-vingts dernières années. Pour le dire de façon abrupte, le diagnostic MAGA-Trump est complètement à côté de la plaque.

Au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, 90% de la population américaine était d’origine européenne. Les Blancs étaient même en majorité dans n’importe quelle grande ville du pays. Aujourd’hui, seule une petite poignée de villes est encore à majorité blanche. Comme tous ici en sommes bien conscients, la population est, ou ne tardera pas à être, à majorité non blanche. Les MAGA à casquette rouge pensent, ou du moins espèrent, que malgré tout, Trump parviendra à restaurer l’unité si indispensable au pays et à le remettre sur le chemin d’une grandeur passée.

Certains dans l’assistance sont assez âgés pour se rappeler le vent d’espérance qui soufflait auprès de millions d’Américains Blancs avec la candidature de Ronald Reagan, cet autre Républicain qui en 1980 déjà proposait de rendre à l’Amérique sa grandeur : « Let’s Make America Great Again ». Et pourtant, lui aussi déjà, lors de son discours d’investiture à la convention républicaine, parlait d’accueillir les Haïtiens parce que l’Amérique est cette terre de providence pour tous ceux qui aspirent à la liberté dans le monde. «Pouvons-nous douter, disait-il, que seule la Providence a pu placer ici cette terre, cette îlot de liberté, comme un refuge pour toutes ces personnes dans le monde qui attendent de pouvoir respirer librement: les Juifs et les chrétiens persécutés derrière le rideau de fer, les boat people d’Asie du Sud-Est, de Cuba et d’Haïti, les victimes de la sécheresse et de la famine en Afrique, les combattants de la liberté d’Afghanistan, et nos propres compatriotes retenus dans une cruelle captivité » [FG : = Crise des otages américains de l’ambassade en Iran du 4 novembre 1979 au 20 janvier 1981].

Je me souviens de la liesse de ces millions de Blancs lorsque Reagan a été élu, de leur fierté pendant les huit années où il était à la Maison Blanche — regonflant le moral des troupes à bloc avec une rhétorique patriotique inspirée sur la grandeur et l’exceptionnalisme américains. Comme Trump, Ronald Reagan a ignoré la race — et, sans surprise, la dé-européanisation démographique et culturelle du pays s’est poursuivie pendant les années Reagan à marche forcée.

Il ne faut pas se laisser emporter par l’ivresse des victoires chaque fois qu’un patriote qui a promis une grande Amérique arrive à la Maison Blanche. Ce qui importe, c’est qu’il y ait derrière une politique déterminée en faveur de notre peuple, solidement ancrée dans une vision du monde cohérente et réaliste.

Durant la dernière campagne, de nombreux électeurs MAGA ont entretenu l’espoir, à la perspective d’un deuxième mandat de Trump, qu’un ou deux, voire dix millions d’immigrants illégaux seraient expulsés. La plupart espèrent encore aujourd’hui que des politiques résolues et des mesures radicales de la nouvelle administration pourraient d’une manière ou d’une autre permettre de restaurer l’Amérique d’autrefois. Mais la triste vérité, c’est que même si toute l’immigration illégale devait cesser demain et que chaque immigrant illégal soit expulsé ou quitte le pays, la tiers-mondialisation raciale des États-Unis — la dé-européanisation du pays — se poursuivrait, même si à un rythme plus lent.

Dans son discours inaugural de janvier, Trump a réitéré des remerciements qu’il avait déjà exprimés lors de la soirée électorale de novembre, pour le soutien qu’il avait reçu des « Afro-Américains, des Hispano-Américains, [et]  et des Asiato-Américains». Il n’a fait aucune mention du soutien beaucoup plus important, en fait décisif, qu’il avait reçu des Américano-Américains. Cette omission est tout sauf fortuite.

Parler trop ostensiblement des électeurs Blancs, d’un héritage blanc, d’une histoire blanche de l’Amérique pourrait bien, en la rendant trop évidente, rompre le charme d’une illusion que beaucoup trop de Blancs ont tendance à chérir, celle, délétère, qui consiste à croire que l’Amérique est par essence blanche, que cette essence est inaltérable, peu importe les importations raciales noires, hispaniques, asiatiques jaunes ou marrons etc. Ces ajouts ne sont que des excroissances périphériques transitoires qui disparaîtront d’elles-mêmes comme elles sont venues et qu’on peut se permettre d’ignorer.

Jusqu’au milieu du vingtième siècle, presque tous les Américains comprenaient et reconnaissaient le poids primordial de la race. Aujourd’hui, ce n’est plus vrai. Cela fait plus de 80 ans que les Américains blancs sont soumis à une campagne intense et systématique de conditionnement social qui promeut une représentation fallacieuse de la vie et de l’histoire par tous les moyens: télévision, Hollywood, journaux et les magazines, salles de classe des écoles et des universités, le tout arrosé de platitudes rassurantes mais toxiques ânonnées par des politiciens serviles. Cette campagne hautement organisée a réussi à persuader la plupart des Blancs — y compris les MAGA-Trump — que l’importation raciale n’a pas ou ne devrait pas avoir d’importance.

Toujours dans son discours inaugural de janvier, Donald Trump promettait que « L’Amérique serait bientôt plus grande, plus forte et plus exceptionnelle que jamais.» Son administration, disait-il, «ramènera l’espoir, la prospérité, la sécurité et la paix pour les citoyens de toutes races, religions, couleurs et croyances». Il a promis non seulement que « nous ferions baisser les prix », mais aussi que «le rêve américain serait bientôt de retour, plus vivant que jamais». Si Trump a raison dans sa vision de l’avenir, cela signifierait alors que  nous —  ceux pour qui la race n’est pas simplement une construction sociale — avions tort.

Il est possible d’ignorer la réalité — mais il n’est pas possible d’ignorer les conséquences de l’ignorance de la réalité. Ce que cela signifie, c’est que les conséquences réelles de ce que les États-Unis sont devenus — racialement, culturellement et socialement—imposent des limites insurmontables aux objectifs que l’administration Trump peut durablement atteindre. Dans les dix ans, et très vraisemblablement avant la fin de cette deuxième mandature, il sera devenu évident, même pour ses partisans les plus convaincus, que la vision MAGA d’un « nouvel âge d’or » pour l’Amérique est délirante.

Dans les années qui viennent, les réalités démographiques achèveront de dissiper ce qui reste des espoirs de restauration de grandeur, de briser la vision puérile qui leur servait de socle et selon laquelle les réalités de la biologie, de l’histoire et de la vie peuvent être passées outre. Les conséquences de ce processus entraîneront aussi inévitablement un changement d’attitude des Blancs sur eux-mêmes et leur pays, même chez les jeunes qui n’ont aucun souvenir de l’époque où les États-Unis étaient encore une nation blanche.

À mesure que les Blancs deviendront la portion congrue de la population des États-Unis, notre peuple se verra contraint de reconnaître sa perte d’influence et de statut, d’assumer le destin d’une minorité déclinante dans un pays qui était autrefois le sien. Ce n’est qu’alors qu’il commencera à s’organiser sérieusement pour défendre ses droits et ses intérêts.

Un changement radical d’attitude se profile chez les Blancs. L’Histoire offre des exemples de ces prises de conscience brusques qui font suite à une longue période de latence. Lorsque les conditions sont réunies et que les attentes sont là, cela peut aller très vite.

L’histoire de notre propre pays en fournit un exemple édifiant. Lors du Congrès continental qui réunissait en 1774 les représentants des 13 colonies, les participants se considéraient toujours comme fidèles à la Grande-Bretagne et à son roi. Leur identité était toujours, avant tout, celle de sujets britanniques. À ce moment-là, George Washington — un des délégués  — se montrait « très satisfait» de ce que l’indépendance n’était «envisagé par personne de sensé dans toute l’Amérique du Nord ». Même encore en juillet 1775, c’est-à-dire après les affrontements entre miliciens coloniaux et soldats britanniques à Lexington et Concord dans le Massachusetts, ainsi qu’à Bunker Hill près de Boston, le Congrès continental continuait de dénier « tout dessein de séparation d’avec le Grand-Empire britannique et d’établissement d’États indépendants».

Mais sous la surface, les attitudes sur l’identité nationale changeaient. À l’été 1776, ce qui était jugé impensable un an auparavant devenait désormais acceptable – au moins aux yeux d’une minorité résolue. En juillet 1776, les délégués du Congrès continental ratifiaient la Déclaration d’indépendance, proclamant du même coup une identité nouvelle pour le peuple des 13 anciennes colonies. Ce n’est qu’après cinq années de souffrances et de privations d’une lutte âpre et sans merci, qui semblait souvent désespérée, et dans laquelle le soutien d’un pays étranger s’est avéré décisif, que la puissance militaire britannique a été brisée, assurant ainsi l’avenir de la nouvelle république.

Encore plus significatif pour notre sujet d’aujourd’hui, tous ceux qui ont signé la Déclaration d’indépendance en 1776, ou qui ont débattu et signé la Constitution des États-Unis de 1787, considéraient à l’unanimité le nouveau pays comme une république populaire blanche. Cette nouvelle identité s’est imposée rapidement parce qu’elle correspondait aux nouveaux équilibres, et parce qu’elle répondait aux attentes sous-jacentes et jusque-là non exprimées.

Malgré des décennies de propagande égalitariste et de conditionnement social à outrance, les Blancs dans leur ensemble ont conservé intact un sens instinctif de leur « Blanchité ». Ils commencent à se rendre compte, confusément, qu’il ne peut pas y avoir  d’avenir stable et fécond pour leurs enfants et petits-enfants dans une société du tiers monde. Cette conscience, encore incertaine, se manifeste dans leur comportement, on voit qu’ils préfèrent vivre et s’affilier avec leurs semblables. Même ceux qui prétendent aimer la « diversité » délaissent les quartiers trop mélangés.

Cependant, la plupart des Américains blancs d’aujourd’hui se déclarent fidèles aux États-Unis et espèrent que cette entité, de plus en plus diverse et antagoniste, peut encore être maintenue. Pour la plupart de nos gens, un avenir sans les États-Unis est tout simplement inimaginable. C’est bien sûr compréhensible: toute la majeure partie des quelque 250 années d’existence des États-Unis est une saga sans équivalent dans l’histoire, que ce soit en termes de prospérité, d’innovation, d’expansion, d’hégémonie et de succès.

Pour des raisons déjà mentionnées, seule une minorité de Blancs se montrent aujourd’hui plus préoccupés par l’avenir de notre race que par celui des États-Unis. Dans leur majorité, les Blancs n’osent pas encore afficher ouvertement leur héritage et leur identité, à s’affranchir de la mauvaise conscience qu’on leur a inoculée. En conséquence, pas une seule personnalité publique ouvertement pro-occidentale, décomplexée, ne détient actuellement de mandat électif — du moins au niveau fédéral.

Dans notre réflexion sur ce qui peut ou doit être fait, nous devons évidemment prendre en considération les sentiments et attitudes réels des électeurs blancs. Leurs hésitations sur ce que cela signifie encore d’être «américain», leurs ambivalences sur la race et l’identité, imposent des limites aux candidats pro-blancs. Dans un avenir prévisible, ces candidats doivent faire attention à la façon dont ils s’expriment, en veillant à ne pas effaroucher les  électeurs qui ont peur d’être taxés de « racisme », mais sans être timorés au point de trahir nos intérêts. L’expérience du mouvement MAGA-Trump aura au moins eu le mérite de montrer que des millions de Blancs sont prêts à voter pour des candidats qui rejettent ouvertement les politiques égalitaristes, défendant ainsi, au moins par défaut, les intérêts de la communauté blanche.

À mesure que les tendances du demi-siècle écoulé se poursuivront, que leurs conséquences s’inscriront de plus en plus visiblement dans le paysage démographique américain, les Blancs seront de plus en plus nombreux disposés à entrer dans une logique identitaire, à soutenir les candidats de leur propre communauté qui, non seulement exposeront au grand jour la duperie et l’hypocrisie de tous ces politiciens, enseignants, ténors des médias et dirigeants d’entreprise qui nous submergent de DEI, « d’action positive » et autres pratiques du même genre, mais qui en outre expliqueront en quoi de telles politiques, et les perspectives qu’il y a derrière, nuisent fondamentalement aux intérêts et à l’avenir des Blancs.

Dans leur campagne, les candidats devront être à la fois convaincants et raisonnables, faire preuve d’un sens de la justice et de l’équité. De tels candidats seront d’autant plus efficaces qu’ils s’adresseront aux électeurs, non seulement avec des messages négatifs sur leurs adversaires, mais aussi en présentant une image positive de notre peuple, avec des messages qui rendent l’espoir d’un avenir meilleur pour nos enfants. Il leur faudra faire preuve de pragmatisme sans pour autant jamais perdre de vue les principes, se garder d’un idéalisme naïf sans verser dans le cynisme. Ce n’est pas facile à faire. Cela nécessite de la patience, de la maîtrise de soi et du discernement — des vertus qui ne s’acquiert en principe qu’avec l’expérience et l’âge.

En cette période de mutations et de défi, notre tâche la plus urgente doit être d’éveiller les consciences assoupies – ou anesthésiées, de réveiller la confiance en soi et la force latente de notre peuple. En tout premier lieu, nous ne devons pas gaspiller notre énergie à tenter de sauver les États-Unis, devenus les Cultures-Unies ou les Races-Unies. Nos espoirs et nos efforts doivent se focaliser sur le bien-être et l’avenir de notre peuple. Dans cette lutte, il n’y aura pas de victoire facile. En fait, la bataille promet de devenir plus intense une fois que le MAGA fera partie de l’histoire et que Trump sera parti.

Heureusement, il y a déjà des raisons d’espérer.

Sur le front intellectuel, nous sommes déjà en train de prendre le dessus – même si ce n’est pas encore évident dans les médias. Nos adversaires les plus redoutables dans cette bataille pour les idées ne sont pas les néo-marxistes ou les doux utopistes, mais plutôt les chantres néo-conservateurs et néo-libéraux de l’ordre démocratique-capitaliste en vigueur. Bien qu’ils défendent un système encore puissamment retranché, ils sont aux abois parce que cet ordre est de plus en plus manifestement défaillant.

Ils se prétendent «démocrates» mais ils suppriment le peuple et interdisent les partis qui le défendent au motif qu’ils ne  seraient pas « vraiment démocratiques ». Ces champions de la « liberté d’expression » et de la « tolérance » interdisent les livres, sites web et podcasts qu’ils considèrent comme offensants ou haineux, et, en définitive, ce qu’ils appellent une atteinte à la liberté d’expression, c’est lorsqu’ils n’ont plus le monopole de la parole. Ils dénoncent l’ethno-nationalisme en Hongrie et en Pologne, mais le défendent en Israël. Leurs slogans, arguments et idées sont répétitifs et lassants. Pas étonnant qu’ils soient de plus en plus considérés — surtout par les jeunes — comme hypocrites et rasoirs.

Dans cette lutte, le travail important qui a été fait pour jeter les bases d’une victoire finale est déjà très encourageant. Il est particulièrement réconfortant de voir que de plus en plus de jeunes militants, éditorialistes, écrivains et organisateurs blancs capables, intelligents et sachant s’exprimer prennent le relais. Chaque année qui passe, ces jeunes — dans notre pays et à l’étranger — sortent des vidéos toujours plus nombreuses et de meilleure qualité, des podcasts, des sites web, des essais et des livres.

Dans cette grande lutte existentielle que nous impose notre temps, notre principe directeur ne doit pas être le mépris ou la haine des autres, mais l’amour de nos proches, une fidélité à notre héritage, une dévotion constante à la destinée de notre propre peuple, le souci d’apporter un avenir à nos descendants.

Francis Goumain Adaptation française

Mark Weber, directeur de l’Institute for Historical Review, est historien, conférencier et analyste des crises contemporaines. M. Weber a fait ses études aux États-Unis et en Europe et est titulaire d’une maîtrise en histoire européenne moderne.

 

Source

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/06/26/our-people-or-america-looking-beyond-trump/

https://counter-currents.com/2025/06/our-people-or-america-looking-beyond-trump/

https://www.amren.com/news/2025/06/our-people-or-america/

https://www.unz.com/article/our-people-or-america-looking-beyond-trump/

À titre d’exemple d’auteur jeune qui prend le relais, voici un exemple Français :

Laurent Obertone,

Et voici la présentation de son dernier ouvrage:

Guerre: Un combat dont vous êtes enfin le héros

« Du combat, seuls les lâches s’écartent. » Homère