Missives from Satan: Memoranda of George Soros on his “GeorgeSoros.com” website

March 24, 2025/10 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Josephus Tiberius

One thing few do enough of is the systematic examination of the public statements — especially when solidified in written form — of one’s enemies. Depending on whom you view as your enemy, therefore, a careful examination of such texts as The Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky (real name, Lev Bronstein), Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, plus Hitler’s second book, drafts of which were found by the U.S. Army after World War II, or Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1971) would have been in order.

In today’s world, a Hungarian-Jewish immigrant named George Soros has clearly become an enemy of ordered society — at least, as such a society would be defined by most sane people and, presumably, most readers on this website. For that reason, the humble author of this piece thinks it might be wise to peruse some of the writings of this eminent individual. I was an early reader of George’s first book Alchemy of Finance; however, that was a more or less anodyne description of the irrationality of securities markets with which even the mainstream Charlie Munger would agree. However it is his later works, most of which are set forth on his website, are the ones most relevant to his views on public policy.

I call them “Missives from Satan”. And when one is fighting Satan, it might be wise to read some of his writings. So here goes.

George’s big “shtick”1/ is famously his espousal of an “open society” everywhere, which, if he is to be believed, is the cure for all ills. Whatever. But a clear understanding of what he means by “open society” in fact lays bare his actual goals. Which are anything but open, and prognosticates a “society” in which few sane people would like to live.

Below is Soros’ 1993 sorry attempt to define an “open society”:

Open and Closed Societies:

This brings me to the second part of my conceptual framework. To understand the current situation, I contend that it is very useful to draw a distinction between open and closed societies. The distinction is based on the same philosophical foundations as my theory of history, namely, that participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding. Open society is based on the recognition of this principle and closed society on its denial. In a closed society, there is an authority which is the dispenser of the ultimate truth; open society does not recognize such authority even if it recognizes the rule of law and the sovereignty of the state. The state is not based on a dogma and society is not dominated by the state. The government is elected by the people and it can be changed. Above all, there is respect for minorities and minority opinions. Soros, “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO”, November 1, 1993

Clearly there is a contradiction. What if the “people” that “elects” the government doesn’t like certain or any minorities? This is a problem, because, in addition, in an “open society”, “above all, there is a respect for minorities and minority opinions”! There is an inherent conflict. This is no accident — either for Soros or his intellectual progenitor, Karl Popper. See: “The Idea that Shaped the Modern World: | Soros, Popper & The Open Society” (youtube.com)(sadly, since this time, removed from youtube).

By 2023, ol’ George had apparently determined to avoid this linguistic conflict. In his various ex cathedra missives in these later years, there is no mention of “elections” or “democracy”. The definition he gives of an “open society” is simply that it is a free-market society that elevates minorities, sort of like an international business convention.

So he has dispensed with tiresome ol’ democracy.

But note that his definition of an “open” society as developed over the years is not even “open” as a normal human would define it. In actuality, there is no respect for opinions other than those of the group — presumably a minority — that have grasped control. In the West, sadly, this means that it is a society that has respect for Jewish opinions and those of their shabbos goy allies. Opinions of all others be damned.

Since the people who run the EU, in contrast to their predecessor statesmen, are not very smart or educated, they simply slap on the word “democracy” on the assumption it is synonymous with “open society”. However, it is clear from their actions that they promote not “democracy”, but only George Soros’ view of an open society.

Accordingly, every time the EU uses the word “democracy” we should translate from “EU speak” to “Soros speak” and substitute the words “open society”. Doing so, their statements start to make sense. So they claim that Hungary is not a “democracy”, but really mean it is not an “open society” because it does not worship the views that Soros holds as sacred. But if we then translate one more time from Soros speak to plain English and substitute the words “anti-White society” for “open society”, we finally realize that the EU statements make sense.

So the real claim is “Hungary is not an anti-White society dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.” True. So far.

EU speak: “Poland before Tusk and Hungary under Orban are not democratic.” This is patently ridiculous. The people of those countries elected those governments in open elections.

Translation from EU speak to Soros speak, however, “neither are ‘open societies’”.

Translation from Soros speak to plain English: “neither are anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.” Aha! Now that makes perfect sense! Score one for the European Union.

Of course, the failure of Poland and Hungary to be anti-White societies is why the EU is trying to crucify both those nations. So the full statement would read “Poland before Tusk and Hungary under Orban are not anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism.” True. Can’t argue with that!

More disturbingly, Soros, even in 1993, saw the world in a crisis that demanded international intervention to promote “open societies”, a.k.a, “anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism”, since it seemed in the post-Soviet period that many countries were continuing to be or reverting to non-open, i.e., “non-Anti-White societies dominated by Jewish opinions on immigration and multiculturalism”. Apparently people didn’t like Jews, even back then. So here it is:

The Need for Collective Security

We did not oppose the Soviet Union because it was a closed society, but because it posed a threat to our existence. That threat has now disappeared and it is difficult to justify any kind of intervention—whether it is political, economic or military—on the grounds of national self- interest. It is true that the danger of some kind of nuclear disaster remains, but it concerns the rest of the world at least as much as it concerns us. Therefore, the only basis for action is collective security. And that is where the problem lies. The collapse of the Soviet empire has created a collective security problem of the utmost gravity. Without a new world order, there will be disorder; that much is clear. But who will act as the world’s policeman? That is the question that needs to be answered. Ibid.

What is the “disorder” of which he speaks? And why is it necessarily a threat to anyone? Presumably “disorder” means a number of small nations that want to maintain their homogeneity rather than become cosmopolitan market places characterized by policies such as open immigration, multiculturalism pornography, selling drugs, financialization, and promotion of deviant sexual practices. In order to prevent such “disorder”, something like NATO is needed!

Here is the purported “security” threat that “closed societies” — i.e., democratic, homogeneous nations — pose to NATO:

Closed societies based on nationalist principles constitute a threat to security because they need an enemy, either outside or within. But the threat is very different in character from the one NATO was constructed to confront, and a very different approach is required to combat this threat. It involves the building of democratic states and open societies and embedding them in a structure which precludes certain kinds of behavior. Only in case of failure does the prospect of military intervention arise. The constructive, open society building part of the mission is all the more important because the prospect of NATO members intervening militarily in this troubled part of the world is very remote. Bosnia is ample proof. Ibid.

Note the completely unsupported premise that “closed societies based on nationalistic principles” are “a threat to national security because they need an enemy, either outside or within” — i.e., otherwise homogeneous societies which reject Muslim minorities or Jewish intervention in their morals or life are a security threat that requires NATO intervention! By the rules of logic, the conclusions drawn from this are incorrect, even if valid, because the premise is unproven and in fact contradicted by history. A country’s treatment of minorities is not a threat to NATO. To make it plainer, both the premise and the validity of the conclusion from that premise are wrong. The premise that closed (read “normal”) societies “need an enemy” is not true (in fact, it is when previously homogeneous societies are forced into becoming “open” — i.e., multi-racial/cultural that internal divisions and violence can arise, of against White majorities); thus the key premise to Soros’ syllogism is false. Moreover, the conclusion that if a nation does have an internal enemy (let’s assume for a moment this premise is factually true), it poses a threat to all other nations is not a justified conclusion from the premise — i.e., the reasoning from the premise to the conclusion is invalid. So Soros has concocted a syllogism that is both false and invalid — a neat trick — committing the two cardinal sins of reasoning in one little statement.

The whole Davos / WEF project is based on this extraordinarily weak reasoning.

By creating a crisis where none existed, Soros was (and is) attempting to justify, in effect, a world government. Note, he does not say that the US will necessarily be the one running this new order — only, presumably, a bunch of international organizations and NGO’s like Soros’ own Open Society foundation. This also implies that any chance there is to grab onto another event — whether it be a bad flu season, COVID, climate change (or, paradoxically perhaps if that fails, peak oil) to remove power from states to international bodies that will then use their power not so much against the cited threats, but to enforce further, by another turn of the ratchet, Jewish influence over nations — and everything else.

Viewing the otherwise mindless WEF as effectively driven by Soros’ vision, one can better understand the motives of the WEF: a world run (perhaps indirectly) by Jews and their shabos-goy allies—essentially an international superpower of nasty quangos (quasi-NGOs funded by the government), enforcing certain policies upon every nation on earth (i.e., policies such as enforcing replacement-level immigration, encouragement of homosexuality and transsexuality; prohibition of certain types of historical research related to the holocaust; prohibition of free speech on issues related to diversity).

Note that, apparently, Soros and the WEF (though not the US’s incompetent national security establishment) has concluded that the “closed society is a risk to other nations” argument has not been compelling to anyone outside of the West. So every year, they create another crisis — COVID, climate change, etc.) to permit the international control that Soros (and the WEF) desires, not to fight the “crisis du jour” but to force “open societies” on all of us. But the “new” crises are really just an excuse. The driving goal is exactly the same goal that Soros identified in 1993 — the goal of “open societies” everywhere.

An example of Soros’ current thinking — so insane it would be comical if not for his power — is this, written in anticipation of Ukraine’s much vaunted and, ultimately, failed “counter offensive” in June of 2023:

The countries of the former Soviet empire, eager to assert their independence, can hardly wait for the defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine [presumably, in the counter-offensive, in which, earlier in the article, he predicts Ukrainian victory]. At that point, Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed Russian empire will disintegrate and cease to pose a threat to Europe … and it will allow the world to concentrate on its biggest problem, climate change. Soros, “Updating My Munich Predictions”, March 16, 2023 (emphasis added)

First, the Ukraine war was (until NATO got involved) a localized crisis brought on by NATO’s aggression, not Russia’s. Second, of course, Soros was totally wrong on the military front. His memo was written undoubtedly in chop-licking expectation of a successful Ukrainian offensive. Wiser heads at the same time as Soros’ article was published were instead (correctly) predicting Ukraine’s total defeat in this counter offensive. They were right. Ukraine’s army utilized in that effort was destroyed. Third, once Putin is defeated in the Ukraine he will “cease to pose a threat to Europe”. Ha! First, he was not defeated. Second, even if he had been, Russian history tells us his — and Russia’s — response would not be to create Soros’ anti-White “open society”, but to close further and build the military to such massive levels that such a defeat could never happen again.

And then Soros finishes with his biggest howler: once Russia “ceases to be a threat”, then “the world will be able to focus on its biggest problem: climate change”.

Nothing more needs to be said. Soros should be incarcerated in a mental institution and euthanized.

________________________

1/ Yiddish. Sorry for the “cultural appropriation” folks.

2/ “Holocaust denial” is factual research on thehHolocaust that comes to the wrong conclusion.

3/ In addition to promoting Jewish supremacy, Soros appears as well, not surprisingly, to be a classic limousine liberal. Here is his July 31, 2022 missive:

“We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people. That is an injustice that undermines our democracy.” Soros, “Why I support Reform Prosecutors”, July 31, 2022.George Soros | Why I Support Reform Prosecutors.

This failed point of view — rejected by every serious evolutionary biologist or geneticist in the world — is a classic example of Donald Rumsfeld’s admonition that, when formulating public policy, “Distinguish between problems and facts. A problem is solvable; a fact cannot be “solved”; instead it must be taken into account in formulating public policy.”

The genetically based low IQ and ultra-high testosterone levels among Blacks is the cause of their ultra-high violence — 10-20 times the White level. This, in turn — not racism — is the cause of their high incarceration rates.

This contra-factual assertion is not Soros’ creation. It has been used by Jews for a long time to create massive race trouble in White, Christian societies, and, sadly, it has also been a favorite of leading upper-class White Anglo-Saxon (“WASP”) policy makers. An example is the eminent and aristocratic WASP Cyrus R. Vance. After his service as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson (remember Vietnam?), he led countless fruitless and deceptive commissions authorized by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, pointing out that Blacks went to jail more than Whites (hello!) and of course immediately jumping to the conclusion that the law needed to be changed as necessary in order that the incarceration rates of Blacks equal that of Whites in the NYC metropolitan area. Of course, had Strom Thurmond headed the commission, he might have pointed out that the higher incarceration rate was not a “problem”, but a “fact” with which we had to deal, due to the “fact” of higher Black propensity to crime. The solution of his committee might have been to re-impose segregation laws to protect the rest of us.

Cyrus Vance of course held a lucrative senior partnership of Wall Street law firm — a virtual money-making machine — and was, better yet, married to an heiress of a major industrial fortune. He lived with the heiress in their very own town house in one of the best sections of the upper east side of Manhattan, sending their children to expensive private schools such as Buckley and Groton, thence to Yale — certainly not to what the Vances undoubtedly viewed as the proletarian abyss of the New York City public school system. Oh no. To that system, the children of his domestic servants and lower-paid associates and mailroom boys at his law firm would go.

Sadly, it is the Cyrus Vances of the WASP world who have become a secondary non-Jewish support network for the Soros types. This creates, to say the least, an incredibly powerful coalition against the public interest.

Ties Abroad: The context and causes of Jewish immigration from 1881

March 23, 2025/in Featured Articles, Jewish Influence, Jewish Loyalty/by Horus

In a previous essay I discussed the causes of the Jewish immigration wave that began in 1881 and the role of the existing Jewish population and their supporters in Britain. Here I expand on the situation of Jews in Britain before 1881, their influence on British foreign and domestic policy, the reasons for the mass immigration from 1881 onwards and the initial reactions of the more settled population to the arrival of the new, drawing on the works of Jewish historians.

Jews in Britain before 1881

A mixture of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, amounting to 50–60,000 people, lived in Britain before the inundation from the east began, and they were remarkably free and prosperous compared to their co-religionists elsewhere.¹ Todd Endelman tells us that

“The great mass of Jews, who could hardly aspire to sit in Parliament or hold a naval commission, suffered little from legal inequality. There were no restrictions on the trades they might follow, the goods in which they might trade, the areas in which they might live. Nor were they subject to special taxes, tolls, levies, or extortions. The statute book simply ignored their presence…”.²

Some legal disabilities did apply to Jews in statute but had long been enforced inconsistently. As Geoffrey Alderman describes, “professing Jews were prohibited from voting in British parliamentary elections until 1835”, after which they were on par with native Britons, but before that date “the returning officers who supervised constituency election arrangements had the right to demand the swearing of a Christian oath by all intending voters. … [T]his was not a right they were obliged to exercise,” and some chose not to:

“In May 1830 Sir Robert Wilson told the House of Commons that Jews habitually voted in parliamentary elections in Southwark (south London) because no one bothered to insist that they take the Christian oath. In December 1832 Rabbi Asher Ansell of Liverpool was clearly able to vote in the general election without hindrance.”³

After gaining the right to vote, British Jewry was still eluded by

“…full political emancipation – meaning the right of professing Jews to stand as candidates for, and be elected to, the House of Commons. Jews were not the only religious group to be denied this right. Catholics had only won the right in 1829. Unitarians did not then enjoy the right, nor did atheists.”⁴

Emancipation was achieved largely thanks to the propinquity of wealthy Jews to powerful Britons. The campaign for it, as Endelman says, was “the work of a handful of ambitious, well-connected City men, whose close government contacts allowed them to put the question of Jewish disabilities on the national agenda.”⁵ Common British folk, and presumably the enemies of Jewry, lacked such contacts or campaigned less effectively; the successful demonstrations against the Jew Bill of 1753 were not replicated.

Overrepresentation in politics followed immediately. As Alderman describes,

“Lionel de Rothschild’s ceremonial entry into the House of Commons to take his seat (28 July 1858) was an occasion of great communal rejoicing, but it also brought into the open a worry. … Jews were overrepresented in the social strata from which the political classes were drawn, and there were enough of them with sufficient private wealth to make their candidatures an attractive proposition regardless of their religious backgrounds. So the Jewish presence in the legislature grew with embarrassing speed. … After the general election of 1865 no less than six Jews sat in the Commons; a further two were returned at by-elections during the lifetime of the 1865–8 Parliament.

Compared with the proportion which Jews comprised of the total population of the United Kingdom, they were already ‘overrepresented’ in the Commons, a state of affairs that has persisted ever since.”⁶

The Liberal Party was identified as the vehicle for Jewish interests. By the late 1860s,

“[w]ithout exception all the Jewish MPs at this period were Liberals. The first Jewish Conservative MP, the obscure Nottinghamshire coal-owner Saul Isaac, did not make his appearance at Westminster till 1874. Until then the parliamentary Jewish lobby was a Liberal lobby, one which had, moreover, developed during the decade (1859–68) when the Liberal party had taken on a definite form and substance, under the leadership of, first, Lord John Russell and then Gladstone. The triumphs of Liberalism and Jewish emancipation thus seemed to go hand in hand, as products of the same political ethos. On Saturday, 28 April 1866 there was a remarkable demonstration of this fact, when Russell’s Parliamentary Reform bill passed its second reading in the Commons by a majority of five votes; all six Jewish MPs voted for it, the sabbath notwithstanding.”⁷

Endelman shows that a degree of formal exclusion from the City of London (the financial centre) did not stop Jews trading there.⁸ Certainly long before 1881, Jews like the Rothschild and Mocatta families were prominent in finance, spanning bond and commodity trading to every sort of brokerage. The Rothschilds in particular were uniquely important in enabling states to borrow and, as they worked as an international partnership, their role in financing wars made their approval a factor in deciding which states could afford to fight and when.

No Jewish family, and no other family, was as rich as the Rothschilds, but Jews in general were ascendant in wealth. As Endelman says,

“At the start of the nineteenth century, most Jews in England were immigrants or the children of immigrants—impoverished, poorly educated, dependent on low-status street trades and other forms of petty commerce, popularly identified with crime, violence, and chicanery, widely viewed as disreputable and alien. Over the next three-quarters of a century, the social character of the Jewish community was transformed dramatically. Poverty ceased to be its defining characteristic. On the eve of mass migration from Eastern Europe, the majority of Jews in Britain were middle class. They were native English speakers, bourgeois in their domestic habits and public enthusiasms, full citizens of the British state, their public and personal identities increasingly shaped by the larger culture in which they lived—even if their gentile neighbors viewed them as less than fully English.”⁹

Geoffrey Alderman’s description is similar. In 1883,

“Over half London Jewry [the bulk of British Jewry] was now located within the middle‑classes; in 1850 the proportion had been about a third. Moreover, we know from Jacobs’ painstaking examination of commercial directories and other records that within these middle‑classes the greatest single occupational group was to be found within the financial sector—pre-eminently the Stock Exchange—followed by general merchants (over half the dealers in military stores were Jews) and certain manufacturing sectors (cigars, pipes, slippers and boots, furniture, furs, jewellery and watches, and diamonds). Jews still accounted for only 6% of London’s tailors and only 5% of London Jewry was engaged in the professions—barristers and solicitors, surgeons, dentists and architects.”¹⁰

Jews were well-positioned to influence British policy in favour of their own tribe, and they did so. They were, however, also forced to adapt to the effects of the far larger numbers of Jews entering from 1881, and in some ways were altered by it. Subsequent essays will show that British history over the subsequent century and a half has been characterised by the part-confrontation, part-collaboration of the older, more settled, wealthier Anglo-Jewry and the later incomers from eastern Europe.

Modern Jewish Politics and foreign policy

The burgeoning of the Jewish population even before 1881 resulted in ever-growing pressure on British politicians to divert British policy in favour of Jewish interests. There has never been a body that speaks for all Jews, but several institutions constitute communal leadership with at least the tacit acceptance of a large majority of Jews in Britain. The Board of Deputies of British Jews is the most ‘central’ of these, and as early as 1836, “the Board notified the chancellor of the exchequer that it was the only official channel of communication for the secular and political interests of the Jews.”¹¹

Throughout the nineteenth century, the Board and the leading families that controlled it increasingly concerned themselves with the interests of Jewry worldwide. The historian C. S. Monaco has described their practices as ‘the rise of modern Jewish politics’ and has shown how they set the pattern for the present and the past century.¹² From the 1840s, Jewish interventions in foreign affairs were usually led by Sir Moses Montefiore, the long-standing president of the Board of Deputies, who famously travelled to petition for Jewish interests in several countries.

Moses Montefiore

From 1871, the Board faced competition from the Anglo-Jewish Association. As Alderman describes, “[t]he Association might indeed have become a rival to the Board of Deputies”, and “[a]t first the Board of Deputies held aloof from it. But after its very effective intervention during the Balkan crisis of the late 1870s … the Board came to terms with it, and agreed in 1878 to the formation of a Conjoint Foreign Committee, consisting of seven representatives from the Board and seven from the Association.” The collaboration was productive. Jews thereafter had “an Anglo-Jewish ministry of foreign affairs” whose deliberations “were conducted in secret” and whose “conclusions were reported to neither of its constituent bodies.”¹³ In addition to the “close contacts” that won Jews the right to enter Parliament, the “overrepresentation” that immediately followed and the proclivities of some powerful Britons to put Jewish interests first, the secret “ministry” ensured that Jewish interests worldwide would be represented immediately and insistently in a way that had never applied to the British people or Christians.

It had become advantageous to be an ethnic minority in Britain. While Jews’ assertive internationality was rewarded, no such ministry for the native British would have been suffered to exist, let alone given any audience by the powerful. As Endelman approvingly describes,

“In Victorian Britain, at least before the end of the century, the pressures that caused Jews elsewhere to abandon traditional notions of peoplehood, collective fate, and mutual responsibility were muted. British Jews were free to express their ties to Jews abroad without fear of endangering their own struggle for civil equality and social acceptance. In this sense, the diplomatic activities of Montefiore and the Board of Deputies … testify to the confidence of communal leaders about their own status. It is important to stress this, for the contrary has been argued … Only toward the end of the century, with classical liberalism under attack and nationalism and antisemitism on the rise, did fears [of emancipation being reversed] gain ground and begin to shape communal policy—especially in regard to the newcomers from Eastern Europe.”¹⁴

Earlier in the century, Jews openly tried to steer policy their way. Later they gained reasons to hew closer in their overt conduct to the gentile elite, whose receptiveness to them was already in evidence.

Jewish foreign policy

The first professing Jewish member of Parliament, Lionel de Rothschild, probably the richest man in the world, and others of his family, used their influence in favour of the Ottoman Empire and against Europe, as did their friend and beneficiary Benjamin Disraeli. In 1876,

“Disraeli’s Eastern policy had the warm approval of most British Jews. In the first place Jews had considerable investments in Turkey, and were loath to see them thrown away because of Gladstone’s conscience. Beyond that, British Jews, in common with their co-religionists in Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and America, looked at the situation from the point of view of Balkan Jewry. Turkish rule had allowed these Jews ‘a degree of tolerance far beyond anything conceded by Orthodox Christianity’. A. L. Green, minister of the prestigious Central Synagogue in London’s West End and ‘a Liberal in politics all my life’, instructed the Liberal Daily News ‘The Christian populations of the Turkish provinces have held, and continue with an iron hand to hold, my coreligionists under every form of political and social degradation.’”

As Alderman describes, “With very few exceptions … British Jews did not merely refuse to be associated with Gladstone’s Bulgarian Agitation; they actively opposed it.” Jewish allegiances in Britain were decided by the perceived interests of Jews at the other end of Europe. The Rothschilds became Tory supporters. “The Daily Telegraph (owned by the Jewish Levy-Lawson family) swung its influence behind Disraeli’s policy.” Then a “conference of European and American Jewish organizations” met to discuss “the reopening of the Eastern Question to improve the lot of Balkan Jewry” and soon afterward the Anglo-Jewish Association lobbied the government to amend British foreign policy. That the Ottoman forces had verifiably slaughtered thousands of Bulgarians while the Jewish organisations were merely vaguely presaging crimes against their co-religionists made no difference. “When war broke out between Russia and Turkey the following year, Sir Moses Montefiore made no secret about where his sympathies lay; he contributed £100 to the Turkish Relief Fund.”¹⁵

Alderman complains that “[i]t never occurred to Gladstone to consider the position of Balkan Jews, whom Turkish rule had allowed ‘a degree of tolerance far beyond anything conceded by Orthodox Christianity’.”¹⁶ Why that would occur to Gladstone is unexplained. Were Jewish interests already so sharply divergent from British ones, and on major issues? If so, was it Gladstone’s duty to side against his own people? And were Jewish politicians not loyal to Britain first? Evidently not. Then as now, Jewish politicians, activists, journalists and historians openly sided with their own tribe, wherever located, against the host nation, with scarcely any reproach, and no threat of expulsion.

The Rothschilds’ pre-eminence as financiers of states enabled them to be represented by the two main powers at the Congress of Berlin. As Alderman describes,

“While the Anglo-Jewish Association (later in collaboration with the Board of Deputies) petitioned the British Government on the need to secure the civil and political rights of Jews in newly independent Balkan states, the aged Lionel de Rothschild mobilized the considerable resources of his extended European family, and those of his German-Jewish banking associate Gerson von Bleichröder (Bismarck’s banker and adviser) to influence proceedings at the Congress of Berlin called to resolve the crisis, and of which Bismarck was President. The result was that the western European delegates at Berlin refused to sign a final treaty until Jewish anxieties had been allayed. The Treaty of Berlin, when signed in July 1878, thus contained definite guarantees of civil and political rights for the Jews of Romania, Bulgaria, and the Danubian principalities.

For British Jewry this represented a very considerable victory; it was little wonder that when Disraeli returned in triumph from Berlin, Moses Montefiore (despite his ninety-four years) was the first to greet him at Charing Cross railway station.”¹⁷

“A very considerable victory” it was, over anyone more sympathetic to Christians than to Jews, as in the common folk of Christendom. The Congress of Berlin is spoken of by derivative historians today as a ‘triumph for Disraeli’, and it was, but for Disraeli as a Jew, not as the Prime Minister of Britain. Establishing the paradigm wherein British interests are treated as the automatic inverse of Russian (and Eastern Christian) ones was also a victory for Disraelites that continues to pay dividends today.

The Liberal Party lost Jewish electoral support, funding and candidates:

“[T]he secession of the Rothschilds had turned a great many City Jews into Conservatives, and seems to have acted as a green light to provincial Jewries also to demonstrate their support for Conservatism. This happened at Liverpool in 1876 and three years later at Sheffield, where the Conservative candidate won the support of Jews specifically because of issues of foreign policy.”¹⁸

An Impression of the Congress of Berlin

The loss was fruitless. Disraeli had his way at Berlin anyway, the Conservative Party was accommodating, and Gladstone and the Liberals resisted Jewish demands only to the extent of causing anger, not defeat. As Alderman describes,

“the Bulgarian Agitation had had unpleasant anti-Jewish overtones, in which Disraeli’s own ethnic origins were exploited to the full, particularly by Liberal members of the intelligentsia such as Gladstone’s friend and future biographer, John Morley. Worse still, Gladstone himself had unleashed the full fury of his oratorical powers against Jews and Jewish influence. ‘I deeply deplore’, he told Leopold Gluckstein, author of a pamphlet on The Eastern Question and the Jews, ‘the manner in which, what I may call Judaic sympathies, beyond as well as within the circle of professed Judaism, are now acting on the question of the East.’”¹⁹

Gladstone’s deploration only amounted to a campaigning stance while in opposition. His own conduct of foreign policy, after he became Prime Minister in 1880, is generally agreed to have been aimless and ill-informed. And though, as Alderman notes, Gladstone refused “to become moved by the plight of Russian Jewry, or to get up an ‘agitation’ on its behalf,” it was under his premiership that the westward flood of eastern European Jews began, which led to the Jewish population of Britain quintupling by the First World War. The effects of ‘Judaic sympathies’ were multiplied in intensity by Gladstone’s own passivity toward the composition of the demos.

William Gladstone

Reasons for mass migration

Still, it would be misleading to single out Gladstone for condemnation. Jewish immigration on a smaller scale preceded 1881. According to Endelman, “In addition to middle-class immigration from Germany, there was also a small but steady trickle of impoverished Jews from Eastern Europe—contrary to the popular myth that the pogroms of 1881 inaugurated immigration from Poland and Russia.”²⁰ Alderman notes that “The famine in north-east Russia in 1869–70 had brought some migrants to Britain; young Jewish men, seeking to escape service in the Russian army during the war with Turkey in 1875–6, also made their way to England” before ‘the pogroms’.²¹ Before 1881, chain migration was underway: “as Professor Gartner has noted, a high proportion of Jewish immigrants to Britain before the 1870s appear to have been single men, without family responsibilities.’ But by 1875 this pattern had broken down.”²² Simply, as Lloyd Gartner says, “emigration did not begin on account of pogroms and would certainly have attained its massive dimensions even without the official anti-Semitism of the Russian Government.”²³ Endelman’s explanation is worth quoting in full:

“The most fundamental cause of emigration from Eastern Europe was the failure of the Jewish economy to grow as rapidly as the Jewish population. Between 1800 and 1900, the Jewish population of the Russian empire shot from one million to five million persons, exclusive of the one million who emigrated before the end of the century. (The Jews of Galicia, who enjoyed Habsburg tolerance but contributed to the migration current nonetheless, increased from 250,000 to 811,000.) During this same period, tsarist policy toward Jews oscillated between schemes to coerce their russification (through military service or education in state schools, for example) and measures to accomplish the reverse, that is, to isolate them from contact with sections of Russian society considered too weak to resist their alleged depredations—the peasantry, in particular. Measures with the latter goal in mind constricted Jewish economic activity and caused increasing immiseration over the course of the century. As the number of Jews exploded, the government repeatedly imposed limits on their ability to support themselves. With the exception of certain privileged persons, Jews were forbidden to live outside the Pale of Settlement, Russia’s westernmost provinces, and thus were denied access to those cities and regions where industrialization was creating new opportunities. At the same time, the government undertook steps to remove Jews from border regions and the countryside and concentrate them in the Pale’s overcrowded cities. There artisans and petty traders faced mounting competition from each other and, in the case of the former, from factory production as well. General conscription of Jewish males, imposed in 1873, as well as countless arbitrary acts of cruelty, made material immiseration seem even more unbearable.

In this context the pogroms of 1881 and the repressive legislation that followed were more catalyst than cause. Spreading fear and despair throughout Poland and Russia, they convinced the young that they had scant hope for a better future under tsarist rule. They accelerated a decades-old movement, causing migration to assume a momentum and life of its own. Personal exposure or immediate proximity to mob violence was not necessary to set people in motion. The first waves of immigrants to Britain came disproportionately from northern districts in the Pale, which were hardly touched by the pogroms of 1881. In Habsburg Galicia, which remained relatively free of pogroms throughout this period, a higher proportion of Jews migrated than in Russia. Here economic backwardness propelled migration—to Britain, the United States, and the Habsburg capital, Vienna.”²⁴

Susan Tananbaum places more emphasis on Jews’ plight and notes that “pogroms, such as the one in Kishinev in 1903 and elsewhere, and the failure of the 1905 Revolution, provided additional impetus to leave” but agrees that “population increases and poverty had the greatest impact” and says that “[f]or several million Jews, the opportunities of the industrializing West offered their best hope for the future.”²⁵ As Alderman says,

“most emigrants from eastern Europe were not, in the narrow sense, political refugees or, in the narrow sense, the victims of persecution. Most came from Lithuania and White Russia, where there was comparatively little anti-Jewish violence. Of course, the Russian pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II [in 1881], and which were renewed and intensified between 1882 and 1889, and again between 1902 and 1906, turned the trickle of Jewish refugees from Russia that had been observed before 1880 into a flood; restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on Jewish residence, the forcing of Jews off the land while they were prohibited from living in cities, the expulsion of Jews from Moscow in 1891, all made it virtually impossible for most Russian Jews to participate in normal economic life.

In the west, pogroms and persecutions were regarded as the basic causes of Jewish emigration. In truth the picture was much more complex. The overriding reason for Jewish emigration from eastern Europe to England was economic. During the nineteenth century the Jewish population of the Russian Empire increased from one to over six millions. Given the ever more onerous restrictions on Jewish life, this burgeoning population sought better prospects elsewhere. But the towns to which they were drawn could not support them; the flow was driven further west, and, eventually, overseas. Nor did this flow originate only in Russia or Russian Poland. The Jews of Galicia (then part of the Habsburg Empire) were politically emancipated in 1867 and were relatively persecution-free thereafter; but Jews emigrated from Galicia in greater proportion than they did from Russia. From Romania, in 1899–1900, came a stream of fusgayers (walkers), a spontaneous march across Europe by young Jews searching to escape from persecution, famine, and hopelessness.”²⁶

Fusgayers from Romania

Gartner describes the escalation of the migration wave:

“The turn of the century brought a decade of turmoil. In almost consecutive order, East European Jewry underwent the Rumanian ‘exodus’ of 1900, the Kishinev outrage of 1908, the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, the Revolution of 1905, and its trail of pogroms lasting into 1906. Under these hammer blows, the semblance of orderly movement which had been preserved for some ten years vanished. Waves of Rumanian wanderers, fleeing conscripts, pogrom victims, and above all, Jews who simply despaired of improvement in Russia streamed into the British Isles in proportions which bewildered those who tried to organize the flow. An added magnet was the dissolution of the “Atlantic Shipping Ring’ and that price war upon the high seas, the Atlantic Rate War from 1902 to 1904. Previously, English shippers had agreed with Continental firms that they would not sell their cheaper trans-Atlantic tickets to transmigrants. The connivances used by immigrants to outwit the shippers were abandoned and the fare dropped precipitously. Furthermore, a recognizable number of Jews from South Africa sought refuge at the commencement of the Boer War. By 1907, the great waves had spent themselves, and the Aliens Act [of 1905] erected a barrier to uncontrolled torrents.”²⁷

Gartner characterises the easterly flood as “a spontaneous movement of people which flowed unencouraged by outsiders.”²⁸ Yet Jews in America at the time, concerned with limiting immigration as well as helping those who had already immigrated settle, noted that “many of the refugees had been lured by extravagant promises of assistance and ‘glowing accounts of America given them by persons interested in inducing them to emigrate”.²⁹ Many of those who settled in Britain had been in transit to America but found reasons to stop partway. Gartner himself describes how British officials in Odessa “always warned those who are proceeding to England to settle there that England is over crowded with unemployed workmen and that it is most undesirable that people should proceed there… but they invariably insist on going as their friends send them glowing accounts and also money to pay their passage.’”³⁰

Lures

Immigration was also encouraged by and profitable for organised criminals and predators. According to Nelly Las, in large cities in Eastern Europe, “prostitution took place in certain sections known to be controlled by the Jewish underworld, to which the authorities turned a blind eye… In 1908, the American consul in Odessa reported that ‘All the business of prostitution in the city is in the hands of the Jews’.” Amid mass migration, “Jewish criminals … exported prostitution to distant lands.” Some prostitutes chose to move to wealthier countries in the expectation of earning more. Others were trafficked: “To entice their victims, Jewish sex traffickers used newspaper advertisements for jobs, the promise of an immigration certificate, and marriage proposals, all the while taking advantage of the parents’ naiveté and poverty.”³¹ As Tananbaum describes, “immigrants, particularly women, found travel precarious… Dishonest agents overcharged immigrants, promised them a marriage partner at the end of their journey, tricked them into the white slave trade or raped or harassed them en route.”³² Jewish women entering Britain could also be trapped into prostitution on arrival. “In the chaos of landing, the recruiter could too easily entice some friendless bewildered girls to accept hospitality at a place which would turn out to be a brothel”, according to Gartner.³³

Jewish communal leaders were aware that Jews were over-represented in slavery both as victims and as perpetrators. Constance Rothschild co-founded the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women in 1885 to address the “mixture of Jewish traffickers and Jewish victims”.³⁴ The latter were thought unlikely to seek help from Christian organisations. The JPGAW observed that “the girls have been lured from their parents and natural protectors, to be taken for immoral purposes to lands strange to them where a language they cannot understand is spoken.” According to Tananbaum, “[t]he founders soon learned that local prostitution was only a small part of a worldwide sex slave trade involving a number of Jews and extending from Eastern Europe to South America” and that “[w]hile small in total number, Jews made up a significant proportion of white slavers.”³⁵ “The principal ‘contribution’ made by Jews was the supply of girls to the entrepôts of the system in Buenos Aires, Bombay, Constantinople, and elsewhere, fresh from the East European Pale and London also”, according to Gartner. As Las describes, “Jewish sex traffickers were prominent in major transit points from Europe to Latin America, such as Berlin, London, and Hamburg. In the latter, for example, of 402 sex traffickers caught by police in 1912, 271 were Jewish.”³⁶

Numbers of immigrants

The immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe into Britain and America should be thought of less as a great flight of innocents from persecution and more as a great transposition of a large part of the Jewish population and its ways of life into the receiving countries. The larger the Jewish population in the West grew, the easier it was to avoid adapting or assimilating, even if the setting had changed for some from rural to urban, and some old trades were unviable in the West. The years from 1870 to 1914 “witnessed a phenomenal growth” of the Jewish population “both quantitatively and qualitatively” according to Immanuel Jakobovits. Gartner says that the population movement “was of vast proportions”.³⁷ As Alderman describes,

“On the eve of the Russian pogroms the number of Jews living in London was, as we have seen, about 46,000, and in the country as a whole around 60,000. By 1914 these totals had been dwarfed by the arrival of about 150,000 immigrants; most found their way to London. Merely from a demographic viewpoint this amounted to a revolution. [B]etween 1881 and 1900 London Jewry expanded to approximately 135,000 [and] of these, it was estimated in 1899 that roughly 120,000 were living in the East End.”³⁸

Between 250,000 and 300,000 Jews lived in Britain by the time of the Great War. “Merely from a demographic viewpoint this amounted to a revolution”, says Alderman.³⁹ The inflow also had other revolutionary effects. Assimilation was a threat that was successfully headed off, as Jakobovits describes:

“[T]his influx was no doubt responsible for the intensity of the religious and Zionist commitment, the diversity, and indeed the sheer survival of the community as we know it today. Without this enormous transfusion of new blood, very few descendants of those resident in this country in 1870 would now maintain their Jewish identity, let alone sustain a vibrant Jewish community.”⁴⁰

Reaction of settled Jews

The position of the older Jewish population was transformed. Through the Jewish Board of Guardians or ad-hoc relief efforts many aimed to help those who had arrived survive and, as seen, avoid being drawn into criminality or slavery, but did not typically encourage more to come. Although, according to Robert Henriques, the influence of the Board of Deputies “had been largely responsible for the liberal immigration policy which had doubled or trebled the numbers of Anglo-Jewry after 1880”⁴¹ and, as Gartner says, the “leading families like Rothschild, Montefiore, and Mocatta… would have kept the gates of England always open to all”, they “would give no encouragement and as little aid as possible to immigrants”.⁴² A typical view was that the “Jewish community could best protect itself from the charge of fostering immigration by ignoring the immigrant.”⁴³ Aid could be expected to beget the demand for more aid. The Jewish Chronicle observed as early as 1880 that “over ninety per cent of our applicants to our Board of Guardians have been subjects of the Czar, and the larger proportion of our poor are invariably immigrants from Russia or Poland.”⁴⁴ With whatever reluctance, though, aid and other kinds of communal uplift were provided. A typical view at the time was that “[t]hey will drag down, submerge and disgrace our community if we leave them in their present state of neglect”.⁴⁵ Alderman summarises:

“Jews already settled in Britain objected to foreign-born Jews coming to Britain because these foreign Jews drew attention to themselves, and brought political controversy in their wake, so that the public mind became focused upon Jews as foreigners and a cause for concern at the very time at which the established Jewry was trying its hardest to blend itself, chameleon-like, into its non-Jewish environment… Jews became news.”⁴⁶

Blending in became impossible, the more so as newcomers brought new ideas and advanced them with vigour and disregard for any pre-existing consensus. The immigrants, unlike the Rothschilds and the cousinhood, were “Poor (for the most part), Yiddish-speaking, Orthodox, socialist and Zionist”.⁴⁷ As James Appell describes, the immigrants into London also “resented an attitude towards them from their co-religionists which placed low value on the character of the immigrant.”⁴⁸ There was unanimity on two points, though: “[t]he Yiddish press kept a prudent distance from contentious social and economic questions, except the defence of Jews against anti-Semitism and in favour of free immigration to England.”⁴⁹ The newcomers outnumbered the older Jewish population manifold, and today “[t]he vast majority of British Jews are third- or fourth-generation descendants of working-class migrants from eastern Europe”, according to Alderman.⁵⁰ As will be seen in future essays, Britain was altered by the incomers in unprecedented ways. As Alderman says,

“The Jewish immigrants changed the shape of the British polity as surely as they changed the structure of British Jewry: the Jewish experience and the British experience merged and affected each other in a manner far more central than that offered by emancipation itself.”⁵¹

My people were refugees, goy

That ‘mass immigration’ into Britain began in 1997 or later is a myth convenient to those who condone the smaller numbers that came before. First as immigrants themselves, then as advocates, instigators and facilitators, Jews have been inseparably involved with mass migration into white countries. Their own movement through Europe, sometimes marching in columns, prefigured that of Muslims in the decades since the Second World War. Angela Merkel, who proudly opened Germany to the entry of more than a million Africans and Asians per year from 2015, has been lavishly acclaimed by Jewish activists and the state of Israel. Vaguely the advocates of immigration speak as though her importees were all refugees, a tactic that continues to work. Except in Israel, Jewish organisations, including the Board of Deputies, routinely cite the experiences of their ancestors to justify their pro-immigration stance. While British electors and leaders continue to respond cravenly, they will do nothing for their own nation. Repudiating the myths may help revive it.

References

Modern British Jewry, Geoffrey Alderman, 1992, p117

The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000, Todd Endelman, 2002, p73-4

Controversy and Crisis, Geoffrey Alderman, 2008, p274

Geoffrey Alderman in Leeds and its Jewish Community, edited by Derek Fraser, 2019, ch1

Endelman, p106

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p63-4

The Jewish Community in British Politics, Geoffrey Alderman, 1983, p31. The sabbath was to become more withstanding when it came to the controversy over Sunday trading laws, to be covered in a later article.

Endelman, p36, 101, 277 (note 36)

Endelman, p79

Controversy, Alderman, p234

Endelman, p106. Endelman adds parenthetically that the Board “continued to make this claim throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although there was no legal basis for it.” For more on the question of the extent to which the Board speaks for Jews, see The Communal Gadfly, Geoffrey Alderman, 2009, p15-28.

See The Rise of Modern Jewish Politics, C.S. Monaco, 2013. Today, similar practices are continued by the likes of the World Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, though Jews’ situation has been transformed since the 1880s.

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p96

Endelman, p123-4

Jewish Community, Alderman, p37-8 and Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p99. See also Alderman, MBJ, p98-9: “[M]ost British Jews supported Disraeli’s Eastern policy.”

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p98-9

ibid., p99-100

ibid., p99-100]

Endelman, p81. See also p128: “Contrary to popular myth, East European immigration did not begin with the pogroms that swept through Bessarabia and Ukraine in 1881.”

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p112. ‘Pogroms’, referring varyingly to organised riots against Jews or to more spontaneous inter-communal violence, had occurred before 1881, but the term ‘the pogroms’ is sometimes used to refer to the violence of 1881-2 and the subsequent mass emigration.

ibid., p82

The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914, Lloyd Gartner, 1973, p41

Endelman, p128-9. See also Gartner, p41. As Gartner says of the population increase, “The economic structure of Jewish life failed to expand with the needs imposed by this unprecedented increase.” See Gartner, p21. “Economic backwardness” was a cause of broader trends in rural-to-urban migration at the same time. According to Gartner, “[b]etween the earlier years of the nineteenth century and 1930 occurred the heaviest voluntary migration of people known in history… 62,000,000 persons… crossed international frontiers in this age of relative ‘free trade’ in human movement… migration, even of such dimensions, was itself partly an aspect of such pervasive nineteenth century trends as industrial development, urban growth, and strivings for personal freedom. Under the heading of migration one may well include tens of millions more who crossed no political boundary, yet traversed an economic frontier by pulling up stakes from a farm or village community and settling in an industrial city within their own country.” Gartner, p270

Jewish Immigrants in London, 1880-1939, Susan Tananbaum, 2014, p22

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p111-2. Columns of African and Asian ‘fusgayers’ marched through Europe in 2015.

Gartner, p46-7

Gartner, p12

Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-2, John Doyle Klier, 2011, p373. In the 1940s, the Jewish-owned Gleaner used similar methods to entice Afro-Caribbeans to move to Britain.

Gartner, p29. He cites the example of a villager seeing the volume of money being sent from Britain to his neighbours and deciding to move too.

White Slavery, Nelly Las, Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, 2021. Jewish Women’s Archive

Tananbaum, p19

Gartner, p183. “In 1910, the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women (JAPGW) called a conference in London to discuss the issue. It was attended by representatives from all over the world and focused on Jewish women from Russia and Romania leaving Europe and becoming involved in prostitution in South America. The editors of Anglo-Jewry were concerned that white slaving was seen as a Jewish issue and that more than just Jews were involved in the trafficking of women. At a Yorkshire level, the Hull Jewish community were sufficiently concerned that they monitored all single Jewish girls who came through the port as lone travellers and checked that they safely reached their destination.” Grizzard in Leeds, edited by Fraser, ch7

Constance Rothschild, Lady Battersea, Linda Gordon Kuzmack and Ellery Gillian Weil, Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, 2021. Jewish Women’s Archive

Tananbaum, p132-3

Las, 2021

Preface by Immanuel Jakobovits to The Jewish Immigrant in England by Gartner, p1, and p45

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p117-8

Controversy, Alderman, p196-7

Jakobovits in Gartner, p1. Endelman concurs with Jakobovits: “[W]ithout this infusion of new blood, the small, increasingly secularized, native-born community, left to itself, would have dwindled into insignificance, as drift, defection, and indifference took their toll.” Endelman p127

Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p353

Gartner, p50-1

ibid., p55-6

ibid., p41]

James Appell in New Directions in Anglo-Jewish History, edited by Geoffrey Alderman, 2010, p31-2

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p120

Alderman in Leeds, edited by Fraser, ch1

Appell in New Directions, edited by Alderman, p31-2

Gartner, p260

Controversy, Alderman, p313

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p102

Savage Wars and Alien Invaders: Powell’s Prophecy and another Guardianista Goose-Step

March 22, 2025/4 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Post-biological, post-material, post-logical. For leftists, the human race became all of those things long ago. Humans are no longer constrained by the laws of biology, the bounds of matter and the strictures of logic. That’s why leftists insist that the brains of all human groups, Blacks and Whites, men and women, are absolutely identical in their capabilities and potential. Yes, it is true that different groups of human have inhabited very different physical or social environments and been subject to very different evolutionary pressures, but so what? The human brain floated free of biology many millennia ago and now exists in an immaterial realm whence it can shape the mere mundanity of matter as it pleases.

“Filled with foreboding”

All that is what leftists think. And here’s how the Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926-95) condemned their insane ideology:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (“Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature,” Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Libertarianism is a heavily Jewish movement that has long collaborated with leftism, actively or inadvertently, but Rothbard cut to the core of leftism in that article. Leftists do indeed believe that “reality” can be “transformed” by “wish or whim.” But what’s going on when reality is recalcitrant and refuses to be transformed? For many decades, leftists have been exercising their wills to transform the lowly position of Blacks in Western societies. But Blacks still excel only at murder, sex-crime and tax-eating, not at math, science and tax-paying. If “the mere exercise of human will” is all that matters, how can this shocking inequality still exist?

For the left, the answer is obvious: because the malevolent will of racists is negating the benevolent will of leftists. That’s why, for the left, it’s so important to crush racism and silence racists. But when I say “for the left,” I mean “for the whole of mainstream politics.” In Britain, the underlying leftism of mainstream politics became completely obvious in 1968, when a storm of hysteria and opprobrium burst on the head of the senior Conservative politician Enoch Powell (1912—98). What was his crime? He had pointed out the obvious future consequences of mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the 20th century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. (Enoch Powell’s speech, 20th April, 1968)

The “Roman” whom Powell was referencing was the great poet Virgil (70-19 B.C.), who wrote these lines in the Aeneid:

Ostia iamque domus patuere ingentia centum
sponte sua, vatisque ferunt responsa per auras:
“O tandem magnis pelagi defuncte periclis!
Sed terrae graviora manent. In regna Lavini
Dardanidae venient; mitte hanc de pectore curam;
sed non et venisse volent. Bella, horrida bella,
et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno.” (Latin text of Book VI of The Aeneid)

Then yawned the hundred gates, and every door,
Self-opening suddenly, revealed the fane,
And through the air the Sibyl’s answer bore:
“O freed from Ocean’s perils, but in vain,
Worse evils yet upon the land remain.
Doubt not; Troy’s sons shall reach Lavinium’s shore,
And rule in Latium; so the Fates ordain.
Yet shall they rue their coming. Woes in store,
Wars, savage wars, I see, and Tiber foam with gore.” (Translation by Edward Fairfax Taylor, 1907)

Powell was profoundly versed in classical literature and had been showered with academic honors before he entered politics. But he didn’t join the treachery he found there, instead remaining loyal to the ordinary Whites who had elected him. In his speech, he was speaking the truth about non-White immigration and expressing the views of the White majority. That’s precisely why Britain’s hostile elite reacted to his words with hysteria and opprobrium. The Times of London, supposedly a bastion of British conservativism and an unsleeping guardian of the national interest, condemned him for making “an evil speech” and said: “This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history.” That is a typically leftist response to the discussion of racial reality. Leftists don’t address facts or logic, but resort immediately to verbal or physical attacks.

Edward Heath (1916-2005), then leader of the so-called Conservative party, also responded in a typically leftist way. He didn’t discuss or debate: he defenestrated. The day after the speech, he threw Powell out of his shadow cabinet. But even as the elite reacted with outrage, the ordinary Whites of Britain reacted with approval. A national poll revealed that 74% of the country agreed with the speech, while only 15% disagreed. The White working-class in particular rallied to Powell’s defence, regarding him as “the first British politician who was actually listening to them.” Dockers and meat-porters in London marched in support of Powell, seeking in vain to influence the political mainstream that supposedly represented them and their interests. Ordinary members of the Conservative party were also overwhelmingly in agreement with Powell. Another senior figure in the party later acknowledged that Powell would have won “by a landslide” if he had stood for leadership of the party and then won “by a national landslide” in a general election.

DINO = Democracy In Name Only

In short, after he made his prophetic speech, Powell became the most popular politician in Britain. And Britain was supposedly a democracy. Powell expressed the views of the majority of voters, but those views were never translated into policy. Why not? The answer is obvious: because in 1968 Britain was a DINO, a Democracy In Name Only. At the time of Powell’s speech, Roy Hattersley (born 1932) was a senior politician in the so-called Labour party, which was founded to champion the White working-class. But it had long since become an enemy of the working-class. Hattersley condemned Powell’s speech with the rest of hostile elite, although he was perfectly well aware that Labour voters overwhelmingly supported what Powell had said. In other words, Hattersley betrayed the ordinary Whites who had elected him and ensured his life of luxury and wealth. He’s openly boasted of his treachery in the Guardian:

Traitors Roy Hattersley and Keir Starmer with their Jewish wives

How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “No, never.”] (“Politics should be guided by principles, not populism,” The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (“Ideology’s our life, Esther,” The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

That was Britain in the 1960s: a DINO, or Democracy In Name Only. In 2025, Britain is more of a DINO than ever. So are America, Germany, France and the rest of the West. Henry Ford famously said that his customers could have their cars in any color they wanted, so long as it was black. Mainstream politicians in the West believe that voters can have any kind of border policy they like, so long as it involves never-ending and ever-increasing migration by non-Whites from the most corrupt, crime-blighted and disease-ridden countries on Earth.

Leftist lies laid bare: Third-World migration is not good for the economy

In other words, mainstream politicians are traitors. Enoch Powell wasn’t a traitor, but a prophet. That is why Britain’s hostile elite reacted with such hysteria and opprobrium to his speech. Powell expressed the popular will and prophesied civil war if the popular will continued to be thwarted. The hostile elite responded loud and clear: they would continue to thwart the popular will and maintain course for civil war. In 1968, although civil war was the obvious destination of ethnically enriched Britain, only a heretic like Powell could say so. In 2025, civil war is much closer and even a respectable academic can say so. This is the biography of a respectable academic at King’s College London (KCL):

Professor David Betz obtained his BA and MA at Carleton University, Ottawa and his PhD at the University of Glasgow. He joined the Department immediately after completing my PhD in 2002. His main research interests are insurgency and counterinsurgency, information warfare and cyberwar, propaganda, also civil-military relations and strategy and especially fortifications both historic and contemporary. He was the academic director of the War Studies Online MA for its first five years. (Professor David J. Betz at KCL)

And this is what Professor Betz has said in an article bluntly entitled “Civil War Comes to the West”:

The major threat to the security and prosperity of the West today emanates not from abroad but from its own dire social instability, structural and economic decline, cultural desiccation and elite incompetence which is leading to civil war. It is vital to understand the causes of this and to anticipate the likely conduct and strategic logic of the violent eruptions of civil conflict which loom on the West’s horizon. […]

Factionalisation is another main concern, but extremely heterogeneous societies are not more prone to civil war than very homogenous ones. This is put down to the high ‘coordination costs’ between communities that exist in the former, which mitigate against the formation of mass movements. The most unstable are moderately homogenous societies, particularly when there is a perceived change in the status of a titular majority, or significant minority, which possesses the wherewithal to revolt on its own. By contrast, in societies comprised of many small minorities ‘divide and conquer’ can be an effective mechanism of controlling a population.

In my view, there is no good reason to fault the main thrust of extant theory on civil war causation as described above. The question, rather, is whether the assumption of the conditions which have traditionally placed Western nations outside the frame of analysis of people concerned with large-scale and persistent eruptions of violent civil discord are still valid.

The evidence strongly suggests that they are not. Indeed, as far back as the end of the Cold War some perceived that the culture which ‘won’ that conflict was itself beginning to fragment and degenerate. In 1991, Arthur Schlesinger argued in The Disuniting of America that the ‘cult of ethnicity’ increasingly endangered the unity of that society. This was prescient. […]

To conclude this section, it can be said that a generation ago all Western countries could still be described as to a large degree cohesive nations, each with a greater or lesser sense of common identity and heritage. By contrast, all now are incohesive political entities, jigsaw puzzles of competing identity-based tribes, living in large part in virtually segregated ‘communities’ competing over diminishing societal resources increasingly obviously and violently. Moreover, their economies are mired in a structural malaise leading, inevitably in the view of several knowledgeable observers to systemic collapse.

The intimacy of civil war, its political intensity, and its fundamentally social quality, plus the acute accessibility to attack on all sides of everyone’s weak points can make them particularly savage and miasmic. The Russian Civil War which followed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 is a particularly good example. It is a form of war in which people suffer raw cruelty and fanaticism not for what they have done but for what they are. […]

Identity politics may be defined as politics in which people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. It is overtly post-national. It is this above all that makes civil conflict in the West not merely likely but practically inevitable, in my view.

The peculiarity of contemporary Western multiculturalism, relative to examples of other heterogenous societies, is threefold. Firstly, it is in the ‘sweet spot’ with respect to theories of civil war causation, specifically the supposed problem of coordination costs is diminished in a situation where White majorities (trending rapidly toward large minority status in some cases) live alongside multiple smaller minorities.

Secondly, thus far what has been practiced is a sort of ‘asymmetric multiculturalism’ in which in-group preference, ethnic pride, and group solidarity — notably in voting — are acceptable for all groups except Whites for whom such things are considered to represent supremacist attitudes that are anathematic to social order. (“Civil War Comes to the West,” Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 1, summer 2023); my emphasis

In 1968 Enoch Powell prophesied civil war and was driven out of mainstream politics. In 2023 David Betz prophesied civil war too but he wasn’t driven out of mainstream academia. Instead of condemning him and wrecking his career, the left preferred to ignore him. His fascinating and insightful article wasn’t reported in leftist strongholds like the New York Times and Guardian. However, the Guardian has echoed Betz in a recent article of its own, although the paper didn’t realize it was doing so. H.P. Lovecraft said that the most merciful thing in the world is the inability of the human mind to correlate its contents. I say that the most risible thing in the world is the inability of leftists to correlate the contents of their own media. The following article is what I call a Guardianista Goose-Step, because it inadvertently and unconsciously supports the ideas of foaming fascists on the far right:

Alien invaders: from voracious snails to Zika-virus mosquitoes, why biologists are worried

While some non-native animals or “aliens” are released intentionally into the wild, others accidentally hitchhike on ships, planes, cars, trains, even ocean plastic. Either way, some will become “invasive alien species” that disrupt the natural balance of ecosystems, threatening native species and habitats, and driving biodiversity loss. In Northern Ireland, researchers at the school of biological sciences at Queen’s University Belfast are investigating the mechanics of these alien invasions in the hope that, by better understanding and predicting them, some of the most dangerous invasions can be limited in the future.

Wildlife populations naturally shift their ranges, but human activity accelerates the rate of biological invasions, as Dr Ross Cuthbert, a biologist at Queen’s, explains: “People can travel anywhere on the planet very quickly. We’re moving things farther, faster and at a higher frequency than ever before. We’re connecting lots of regions which historically have never had any ecological connection.” Cuthbert’s research focuses on how to predict the impact of invasive species, which can affect not just the environment, but the economy and people’s health as well.

In terms of damage and management, alien invasive species are already costing countries billions each year and, says Cuthbert, the figure could hit multi-trillion levels. Invasive species can destroy crops, forests and fisheries, causing as much damage as floods and storms. They are also a health issue because they can introduce diseases. The Asian tiger mosquito is spreading north across Europe as the climate changes. It has been detected in Kent — a relatively warm region with busy transport links, including the Channel tunnel. Cuthbert expects this mosquito to be established in the UK in the coming decades: “It’s a vector of dengue, chikungunya, Zika — these mosquitoes are prolific human biters.” (“Alien invaders: from voracious snails to Zika-virus mosquitoes, why biologists are worried,” The Guardian, 24th January 2025)

Alien invaders eat the taxes of Whites (“Slovakia” = Gypsies)

Leftists don’t realize that the same general principles and logic that apply to “alien invaders” in the animal kingdom also apply to Third-World migrants in the West. Just as mosquitoes are prolific biters of humans, so Third-World migrants are prolific predators on Whites. Just as alien animal species wreck ecosystems, so Third-World migrants wreck Western societies. Leftists refuse to understand or accept that. They also refuse to understand the clear implications of stories like this in their own media:

One-year-olds among those raped during Sudan civil war, UN says

Warning: This article contains details of sexual violence that some people may find distressing

Armed men are raping and sexually assaulting children as young as one during Sudan’s civil war, says the UN children’s agency, Unicef. Mass sexual violence has been widely documented as a weapon of war in the country’s nearly two-year conflict. But Unicef’s report is the first detailed account about the impact of rape on young children in Sudan.

A third of the victims were boys, who typically face “unique challenges” in reporting such crimes and seeking the help they need. Unicef says that, although 221 rape cases against children have been officially reported since the start of 2024, the true number is likely to be much higher.

Sudan is a socially conservative country where huge societal stigma stops survivors and their families from speaking out about rape, as does the fear of retribution from armed groups. The Unicef report provides an appalling window into the abuse of children in the country’s civil war.

Perhaps its most shocking revelation is that 16 of the victims were under the age of five years, including four infants. Unicef does not say who is responsible, but other UN investigations have blamed the majority of rapes on the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), saying RSF fighters had a pattern of using sexual violence to terrorise civilians and suppress opposition to their advances.

The RSF, which is fighting this war against its former allies, the Sudanese Armed Forces, has denied any wrongdoing. “The sheer scale of sexual violence we have documented in Sudan is staggering,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the UN’s fact-finding mission when its previous report was published in October.

According to evidence presented by international human rights groups, victims in the RSF’s stronghold of Darfur were often targeted because they were black African rather than Arab, apparently with the aim of driving them out of Sudan. (“One-year-olds among those raped during Sudan civil war, UN says,” BBC News, 4th March 2025)

The Sudan civil war is a war between Blacks and Arabs. As the great Chateau Heartiste often said: “Diversity + Proximity = War.” Non-Whites like those have, of course, been flooding into the West by the million for decades. But the leftists who support the flood from conflict-wracked regions like Sudan refuse to accept that this flood will inevitably produce the horrors now seen in regions like Sudan. Indeed, it has already begun to produce the horrors seen in Sudan. An ethnic enricher named Zakarya Etarghi, “who was born in Sudan,” raped and shattered the skull of a White woman in 2019. The victim said that her experience had been like “something out of a horror film.” Countless other Whites across the West have found their lives turned into horror films thanks to Third-World migration.

Sure-fire recipe for civil war: breaking the social contract

The rape-gangs of Rotherham and the slaughter in Southport are two examples among many. But even as leftists loudly profess concern for the welfare of women and girls, the same leftists support Third-World migration that ensures women and girls suffer more and worse violence. That BBC article about the civil war in Sudan had a prominent notice: “Warning: This article contains details of sexual violence that some people may find distressing.” But the same leftists who are “distressed” by “details of sexual violence” in Sudan are also working tirelessly to increase sexual violence in the West.

This is ironic. It’s also insane. And it’s evil. I’ve said before that leftism is best regarded not as an ideology, but as a criminal conspiracy or a mental illness. The criminal conspiracy is conducted by the leftist elite, while the mental illness flourishes among lumpen-leftists and particularly in leftist groups like Antifa. The evil left and the insane left have sown the wind with ethnic enrichment. The entire West will soon reap the whirlwind of civil war.

Kevin MacDonald i Danmark

March 21, 2025/2 Comments/in Translations: Danish/by Kevin MacDonald

marts 15, 2025Folkets Flamme

Kevin MacDonald i Danmark

ET TILBAGEBLIK PÅ VORT SOMMERMØDE 2024

Lørdag den 17. august 2024 havde Folkets Flamme den store ære at have ingen ringere end den amerikanske professor i evolutionspsykologi Kevin B. MacDonald som hovedtaler ved vort sommermøde i København, hvor både nye og garvede patrioter mødtes for at høre en af verdens absolut førende nationalister tale.

Kevin MacDonald er som nævnt professor i evolutionspsykologi, og han var ind til sin pension, fastansat på California State University, Long Beach. MacDonald har igennem mange år været en meget aktiv forkæmper for vestlige menneskers interesser og vor enestående kultur. Han er redaktør på det fremragende, nationaltorienterede, internetmedie The Occidental Observer. Mediet bringer artikler om et væld af relevante emner, og fælles for dem alle er deres høje kvalitet og velargumenterede ræsonnement. Mediet kan bruges både som en nyhedsside og som et bibliotek for den videbegærlige nationalist.

MacDonald er forfatter til ikke mindre end syv bøger om evolutionsteori og børns udvikling, og han er forfatter eller redaktør af over 30 akademiske artikler udgivet i anerkendte videnskabelige fagtidsskrifter. Han fik sin bachelorgrad (B.A.) fra University of Wisconsin-Madison i 1966 og kandidatgrad (M.S.) i biologi fra University of Connecticut i 1976. I 1981 opnåede han en ph.d-grad (PhD) i biologisk adfærdsvidenskab fra University of Connecticut, hvor hans rådgiver var Benson Ginsburg, en af grundlæggerne af moderne adfærdsgenetik.

MacDonald afsluttede et post-doc stipendium med Ross Parke på psykologiafdelingen på University of Illinois i Urbana-Champaign i 1983. MacDonald og Parkes arbejde dér resulterede i hele tre videnskabelige publikationer. MacDonald kom til Institut for Psykologi ved California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) i 1985 og blev professor i 1995. Han gik på pension i slutningen af 2014.

Kevin MacDonald har således en omfattende videnskabelig portefølje bag sig, og hans faglige kompetencer kan ikke betvivles.

Fra 1994-1998 udgav MacDonald sine tre banebrydende bøger, A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998) og The Culture of Critique (1998), hvor jødedommen for første gang analyseres ud fra et evolutionspsykologisk perspektiv. Der er tale om 3 helt essentielle bøger, som ingen moderne nationalist kan undvære, hvis han vil forstå sin samtid. MacDonald betegner jødedommen som en “evolutionær gruppestrategi”, som han hævder øger jødernes evne til at udkonkurrere ikke-jøder i kampen om ressourcer. Ved en udpræget grad af jødisk etnocentrisme hævder han, at jødedommen fostrer en række markante genetiske træk hos jøder, herunder en over gennemsnittet verbal intelligens og en stærk tendens til kollektivistisk adfærd, der sikrer optimal varetagelse af deres gruppeinteresser, hvor en væsentlig del har været opløsning og nedbrydning af vestlig etnisk og kulturel selvbevidsthed. Dette kommer blandt andet kommer til udtryk i en række indflydelsesrige intellektuelle bevægelser, der har været en nødvendig forudsætning for at nedbryde Vestens etniske og kulturelle sammenhængskraft. MacDonald erkender naturligvis, at ikke alle jøder udviser de træk, han identificerer. Der er tale om generelle adfærdsmønstre.

Studiet af jøder gav MacDonald en dybere forståelse af, hvor vigtige etniske grupper og deres interesser er, og han har derfor viet en stor del af sit liv til at arbejde for sin egen etniske gruppes trivsel og overlevelse. Emnet for MacDonalds tale i Danmark var således den europæiske kulturs og de europæiske folkeslags overlevelse i en verden, der bliver mørkere og mørkere. Du kan se hans tale, med introduktion af cand.mag. Povl H. Riis-Knudsen, her:

Dagen bød også på et stort bogsalg med mange spændende nationalistiske bøger og flere deltagere brugte lejligheden til at forsyne sig med oplysende litteratur. Viden er magt og uden veluddannede nationalister er vores kamp meningsløs. Vi skal i den forbindelse minde folk om, at internettet hurtigt kan blive lukket for os, mens den trykte bog er langt vanskeligere at udrydde.

Patriotisk litteratur med noget for enhver smag!

Til mødet var det også muligt at få taget et billede sammen med vores indbudte gæst, hvilket mange benyttede sig af og fik dermed et minde for livet!

Folkets Flamme takker de mange fremmødte for et godt og lærerigt møde, hvor vi alle fik stof til eftertanke, stiftede nye bekendtskaber, knyttet nye kontakter og fik understreget, at uden etnisk og kulturel selvbevidsthed kan vort folk og vor kultur ikke overleve.

Danmark, altid Danmark!

Se også www.danmarksfrihedsraad.com henvisninger til og artikler af professor Kevin MacDonald her.

marts 4, 2025Danmarks Frihedsraad Om muligheden for en ny elite

March 21, 2025/in Translations: Danish/by Kevin MacDonald

marts 4, 2025 Danmarks Frihedsraad

Om muligheden for en ny elite

9. februar 2025

Introduktion

Endnu en artikel om Amerikas skiftende elite, udviklingen derovre genspejler sig som regel her i Europa og Danmark med 10 års forsinkelse, og det håber vi selvfølgelig også, at det vil gøre i dette tilfælde. Godt nyt fra Amerika er godt nyt for os. Vi hylder også vicepræsident Vances tale i München og håber, at Amerikas nye regering vil lægge maksimalt pres på landsforræderne i Europas regeringer, som med al magt ønsker krig mod Rusland, har knægtet befolkningernes ytringsfrihed og importeret millioner af fjendtlige fremmede. Det kan måske være den håndsrækning til Europas indfødte befolkninger, der får hele EU-maskineriet til at bryde sammen? Det håber vi så sandelig!

Om muligheden for en ny elite

Af professor Kevin MacDonald

Jeg er måske bedst kendt for at dokumentere en fjendtlig, meget indflydelsesrig jødisk elite i USA og egentlig i hele Vesten. Men jeg synes, at tingene er ved at ændre sig i en god retning. Med nogle vigtige undtagelser.

Jøder er steget til tops i det amerikanske samfund i flere etaper. I begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede var de vigtige nok til at komme på Henry Fords radar. Ford bemærkede deres fremtrædende rolle inden for en række områder og deres fjendtlighed over for kristendommen – se min diskussion af Henry Fords The International Jew , der blev udgivet fra 1920 til 1922. Jøder havde også fremtrædende roller i FDR’s administration, men det var først efter Anden Verdenskrig, at de antijødiske holdninger stort set forsvandt, og de kom for alvor ind i mainstream. Jøder ledte derefter 1960’ernes modkulturelle revolution og blev en dominerende elite i 1960’erne, dybt involveret i vedtagelsen af immigrationsloven fra 1965, som i sidste ende ændrede landet radikalt, såvel som borgerrettighedslovgivningen og venstrefløjens generelle opstigning til en dominerende position i amerikansk kultur. Den jødiske opstigen blev ledsaget af tilbagegangen og den endelige formørkelse af det tidligere dominerende WASP-etablissement på østkysten.

De vigtigste kilder til jødisk magt siden 1960’erne har været 1.) deres ejerskab af medier og deres skabelse af medieindhold som forfattere og producenter; 2.) deres rigdom og villighed til at bidrage til politiske sager – finansiering af politiske kandidater og etablering af nonprofitorganisationer og lobbygrupper, der kan påvirke den offentlige politik; 3.) deres dominans af den akademiske kultur, i sidste ende på grund af deres indflydelse på eliteuniversiteter, der siver ned til lavere rangerende universiteter og til sidst K-12-uddannelsessystemet.

Findes denne jødiske magtstruktur stadig? Ja, men der ser ud til at være sket vigtige ændringer.

Medier. Da jeg voksede op (for MEGET lang tid siden), var der tre tv-netværk, som alle var ejet af jøder (CBS, ABC, NBC). Disse netværk er stadig ejet af jøder, og New York Times er stadig jødisk og afspejler det jødiske mainstream-liberale venstrefløjssamfund. Men færre og færre mennesker går op i det.

Hvis valget i 2024 viser noget, så er det, at der er større mistillid til de gamle mainstream-medier end nogensinde før, og at de effektivt er blevet erstattet af alternative medier, især podcasts og sociale medier, blandt store dele af vælgerne, især de unge. Joe Rogan, en tidligere liberal (var alle ikke det?), er blevet mere og mere konservativ, og Tucker Carlson har flyttet grænserne for konservativ tænkning, som f.eks. hans interview med Darryl Cooper, der sætter spørgsmålstegn ved den hellige fortælling om Anden Verdenskrig, og hans interview med Curt Mills, der berører de neokonservative og USA’s katastrofale krige i Mellemøsten. En anden tidligere liberal, Elon Musk, går lystigt til angreb på det fasttømrede, overvejende demokratisk prægede føderale bureaukrati.

For nylig smed Trumps forsvarsminister Pete Hegseth The New York Times, NPR, NBC og Politico ud af deres Pentagon-kontorer for at gøre plads til One America News Network, The New York Post, Breitbart News Network og HuffPo (som ikke havde bedt om at blive repræsenteret). Alle dem, der blev erstattet, er udpræget venstreorienterede, og erstatningerne er konservative, undtagen HuffPo. Ingen af dem kan betragtes som gamle medier.

Thomas Edsall i NYTimes har bemærket, at »Mens både demokrater og republikanere har forladt aviserne i stigende antal, … accelererede faldet blandt republikanerne meget hurtigere, end det gjorde for demokraterne i 2016, det år, hvor Trump første gang stillede op til præsidentvalget.«

Kort sagt: Aviser er en vigtig informationskilde for demokrater, men ikke for republikanere.

Et problem er selvfølgelig, at konservative medier er slavisk pro-israelske, selv om de typisk er imod venstreorienterede indenrigspolitiske tiltag, som det jødiske mainstream-samfund foretrækker, f.eks:

at fremme et højt niveau af lovlig ikke-hvid indvandring, muliggøre ulovlig indvandring og stoppe med at deportere ulovlige indvandrere, fordi de ser dem som fremtidige vælgere for den liberale venstrefløj og udvander de hvide amerikaneres magt;
fremme af såkaldte love om hadefuld tale og andre forsøg på at begrænse ytringsfriheden om racemæssige/etniske spørgsmål, herunder især kritik af Israel;
gå ind for let adgang til abort, transkønnethed, homoseksuelles rettigheder osv.

Jøder stemmer typisk overvældende på Demokraterne og finansierer grundlæggende det demokratiske parti. Ved valget i 2024 stemte de 71-79 procent på Harris og støttede dermed den liberale politik på den yderste venstrefløj, som Harris’ kampagne gik ind for. Selv om der var et vist skift til mere konservative stemmer blandt grupper af jøder, er de stadig på venstrefløjen, når det gælder indenrigspolitiske spørgsmål.

Jødiske neokonservative var længe en fast bestanddel af GOP, men forlod partiet med Trumps fremgang på grund af hans erklærede afsky for udenlandske krige og sandsynligvis på grund af Trumps erklærede syn på indvandring og multikulturalisme. Forudsigeligt nok hoppede de neokonservative uden problemer over til Demokraterne, hvor deres venstreliberale syn på indenrigspolitik passede lige ind. Mens de var i GOP, flyttede de partiet til venstre på sociale spørgsmål, mens de fremmede pro-israelske krige i Mellemøsten og nu Ukraine-krigen mod Rusland. Konservative medier støtter i det store og hele Trump (han »bliver bare ved med at vinde«), og de er derfor et anathema for de fleste jøder.

Pointen er, at selv om konservative medier er besat af pro-Israel, er de imod holdningerne og politikkerne i det jødiske mainstream-liberale venstrefløjssamfund, når det gælder indenrigspolitik. De gamle medier, som er en af de vigtigste magtbaser for det jødiske mainstream-liberale venstrefløjssamfund, ser ud til at være i dødelig tilbagegang.

Fremkomsten af alternative medier er kritisk. Under Elon Musk er X tydeligvis åben for konservative synspunkter, og når jeg går derind, ser jeg kun konservative og endda antijødiske indlæg (f.eks. af @NickJFuentes og Ye, selv om jeg har bemærket, at Ye’s seneste indlæg ser ud til at være blevet fjernet eller begrænset). Jeg vendte for nylig tilbage til X under mit rigtige navn (@realKevinMacDonald), og indtil videre er der ikke sket noget. X er blevet et højreorienteret medie, som tiltrækker unge mennesker og mange andre, der afviser de gamle medier – under optakten til valget var det fantastisk underholdning at se svarene på indlæg fra Harris-kampagnen.

Finansiering af venstrefløjen. Hvad med finansieringen af venstrefløjen? Jødisk økonomisk indflydelse er bestemt stadig til stede, men vi ser fremkomsten af en meget velhavende klasse af ikke-jødiske milliardærer, prototypen er Elon Musk (som efter sigende gav Trumps kampagne over 290 millioner dollars). Velhavende ikke-jøder er således ganske villige og i stand til at finansiere en konkurrencedygtig kampagne som Trumps. I en tidligere artikel citerede jeg en undersøgelse, der viste, at i august 2024 var 21 af de 25 største donorer til Trump ikke jøder – Musk ikke medregnet. Samlet set brugte demokraterne (880 millioner dollars) omkring dobbelt så meget som republikanerne (445 millioner dollars) på præsidentvalget i 2024, hvilket viser, at jøderne fortsat er klar til at finansiere venstrefløjen. Men Trump-kampagnen havde helt sikkert penge nok til at føre en troværdig kampagne og endda vinde på trods af den syndflod af had, der udgik fra de gamle medier.

Jødiske penge er altså ikke nødvendige for at vinde, især ikke hvis verdens rigeste mand er med om bord. Selv hvis Musk gav 300 millioner dollars, er det mindre end 1 procent af hans formue. Musk kunne faktisk finansiere en præsidentkampagne helt selv – 1 milliard dollars ville være mere, end selv Demokraterne brugte på præsidentkampagnen i 2024, men det kunne Musk sagtens have råd til. Som jøderne altid har vidst, er penge magt.

Al denne rigdom, der støtter Trump 2.0, var tydelig ved Trumps indsættelse:

Her var USA’s teknologimagnater, medlemmer af hans hof, i et panteon ved hans anden indsættelsestale, lige over for de tidligere præsidenter og foran Trumps formodede kabinet. Mange medlemmer af Kongressen, den egentlige valgte regering, var henvist til de billigere pladser.

De mænd, der kontrollerer amerikanernes øjne og ofte også følelser, fik de bedste pladser; flere af dem har købt store palæer i Washington for at være tættere på det ovale kontor.

Elon Musk sad bag vicepræsidentens mor og slog ud med armene og gav to tommelfingre op, da Trump sagde, at han ville sætte et amerikansk flag på Mars, hvor Musk gerne vil dø (bare ikke ved nedslaget).

Googles Sundar Pichai var i nærheden af Don Jr. og ved siden af Jeff Bezos og Lauren Sanchez, som var i nærheden af Ivanka og Jared. Shou Zi Chew, TikToks administrerende direktør, sad ved siden af Tulsi Gabbard, Trumps påtænkte direktør for den nationale efterretningstjeneste. Tim Cook fra Apple var tæt på Barron Trump. Sam Altman, lederen af OpenAI, var også med til indvielsen, men – måske på grund af hans juridiske duel med Elon – sad han i et overfyldt lokale sammen med Ron DeSantis, Eric Adams og Conor McGregor.

De fleste af disse tycoons følger sandsynligvis bare med strømmen, men det er en enorm ændring fra indsættelsen i 2017 og tyder på, at de er ganske komfortable med de store forandringer, som Trump er i gang med.

Den akademiske verden. Og så er der universitetet – afgjort den hårdeste nød at knække, fordi ansættelser kontrolleres nøje for at sikre, at nye lærere og administratorer er på venstrefløjen. Akademikere, der går over stregen, kan forvente et helt liv med chikane og fjendtlighed, og hvis de ikke har fastansættelse, vil de helt sikkert blive fyret, uanset hvor god deres undervisning og forskning er.

Som på andre områder steg jøder til vejrs i den akademiske verden efter Anden Verdenskrig og især i 1960’erne. Da de først havde opnået en fremtrædende position, fremmede de udvidelsen af afdelinger, der hovedsageligt bestod af venstreorienterede aktivister, såsom kønsstudier og forskellige afdelinger for etniske studier for sorte, latinoer, asiater, jøder osv. og udvidede dermed det liberale kunstfakultet og skabte en kritisk masse af venstreorienterede aktivister. Denne struktur er stadig på plads.

Siden den israelske krig i Gaza, på Vestbredden, i Libanon og i Syrien har der været mange protester på campus, men det har den jødiske magt sat en hurtig stopper for (se »Massive Decline in Protests from Spring to Fall, 2024«): »Politikkerne spændte fra at forbyde opstilling af telte på campusområdet til at begrænse de tidspunkter og steder, hvor studerende må afholde demonstrationer. Mens eksperter i ytringsfrihed er enige om, at nogle begrænsninger i tid, sted og måde er acceptable, har de stemplet nogle politikændringer som forfatningsstridige.« På UCLA fik pro-israelske bøller lov til at gå amok blandt demonstranterne, mens politiet så til. Ron Unz:

Endnu værre scener udspillede sig på UCLA, hvor en lejr af fredelige demonstranter blev voldsomt angrebet og slået af en flok pro-israelske bøller uden tilknytning til universitetet, men bevæbnet med stænger, køller og fyrværkeri, hvilket resulterede i nogle alvorlige kvæstelser. En professor i historie beskrev sin forargelse over, at politiet i nærheden stod på sidelinjen og ikke gjorde noget, mens UCLA-studerende blev angrebet af udefrakommende og derefter anholdt omkring 200 af de førstnævnte. Ifølge lokale journalister var den voldelige pøbel blevet organiseret og betalt af den pro-israelske milliardær Bill Ackman.

Det er klart, at disse restriktioner ligger langt fra universiteternes reaktioner på BLM-optøjerne.

Som Unz bemærkede,

Jeg vil tro, at de fleste af disse studerende var helt lamslåede over sådanne reaktioner. I årtier havde de og deres forgængere frit protesteret mod en lang række politiske sager uden nogensinde at have mødt bare en flig af en så ondskabsfuld gengældelse, endsige en organiseret kampagne, der hurtigt tvang to af de Ivy League-præsidenter, der havde tilladt deres protester, til at træde tilbage. Nogle af deres studenterorganisationer blev straks forbudt, og demonstranternes fremtidige karrierer blev hårdt truet, men de rædselsvækkende billeder fra Gaza fortsatte med at nå deres smartphones. Som Jonathan Greenblatt fra ADL tidligere havde forklaret i et lækket telefonopkald: »Vi har et stort TikTok-problem.«

Så ja, den jødiske magt i den akademiske verden lever i bedste velgående.

Trump-administrationen slår hårdt ned på den akademiske venstrefløj, men ikke på den jødiske magt på universiteterne, og foreslår at deportere udenlandske studerende og professorer, der er involveret i anti-israelske protester: »Den nye justitsminister, Pam Bondi, har oprettet en taskforce, der skal retsforfølge antisemitiske handlinger, også på universitetscampusser. Præsidentens ordre udpeger sidste års universitetsprotester mod Israels krig i Gaza, som ifølge præsidenten udløste en byge af diskrimination mod jødiske studerende. Ordren er rettet mod internationale studerende, som deltog i disse protester, og som risikerer at blive deporteret.«

Der er også en kampagne for at gøre en ende på DEI på universiteterne. Christopher Rufo, der blev interviewet af den jødiske aktivist og New York Times-klummeskribent Michelle Goldberg, sagde: »’Hvis man har Det Hvide Hus’ fulde vægt, uddannelsesministeriets fulde vægt og en flok højreorienterede advokater, der forsøger at bruge alle de lovbestemte og udøvende beføjelser, de har, til at omforme de videregående uddannelser, tror jeg, det kunne blive en meget smuk ting’. Rufo vil af med DEI på de videregående uddannelser og stoppe den »›voldsomme‹ diskrimination af hvide, jødiske og asiatiske studerende og fakultetsmedlemmer, især gennem D.E.I.-programmer, som har til formål at øge repræsentationen af grupper, der anses for at være underprivilegerede.«

Trumps holdning til udenlandske studenterdemonstranter vil sætte en yderligere stopper for det, der allerede er sket med anti-israelske protester. Men at bekæmpe DEI på universiteterne vil være en kamp op ad bakke mod et akademisk etablissement, der har afsat enorme summer og ansat tusindvis af bureaukrater til at administrere DEI-programmer, og som sandsynligvis vil finde måder at fortsætte det på, selv om det er forbudt ved lov, som de har gjort med positiv særbehandling ved optagelse.

Men af de tre hovedkilder til jødisk magt er akademisk indflydelse den mindst vigtige. Studerende vil bemærke, at DEI-jobs er ved at tørre ud, og at det ikke er en god vej til social og karrieremæssig succes at udtale og efterleve de gamle venstreorienterede politiske klichéer. Især kvinder vil sandsynligvis ændre politiske præferencer, når de ser et skift i statushierarkiet, men mænd vil også ændre deres holdninger, når de forsøger at avancere i det nye hierarki.

* * *

Konklusion: Der er en reel mulighed for, at der opstår en ikke-jødisk elite, som er centreret uden for de traditionelle medier, og som har de økonomiske ressourcer, der skal til for at føre succesfulde politiske kampagner og finansiere kompatible NGO’er. Om det kan udvikle sig til en anti-jødisk elite, er et helt andet spørgsmål – usandsynligt inden for en overskuelig fremtid på grund af de dybe personlige bånd og forretningsforbindelser blandt elitejøder og ikke-jøder. Ikke desto mindre afviger Trump-administrationens indenrigspolitik for det meste dramatisk fra den politik, som det jødiske mainstream-liberale venstrefløjssamfund længe har foretrukket. Vi ser allerede adskillige jødiske organisationer, der protesterer mod enhver afslutning på DEI eller deportationerne.

Selvom den nuværende situation er under forandring, er det meget muligt, at den nye elite, der er beskrevet her, i fremtiden kan blive langt mere end en mulighed. Denne nye elite vil måske indse, at jødisk støtte og jødisk magt i amerikansk politik ikke er, hvad den har været, og at der ikke er noget reelt behov for at støtte den politik, som det jødiske mainstream-samfund går ind for. Det kan faktisk allerede være sket – med den vigtige undtagelse af pro-israelske holdninger, som også appellerer til nogle dele af den republikanske base (f.eks. de konservatives og evangelikales knæfald for Israel). Nogle dele af denne nye elite er måske godt klar over den rolle, jøder har spillet i opbygningen af den multikulturelle katastrofe, som USA er blevet – en holdning, der var almindelig på den amerikanske højrefløj i årtier, i hvert fald indtil de neokonservative skubbede de traditionelle konservative ud under Reagan-administrationen (her s. 16 og 26), og William Buckley rensede den konservative bevægelse for kritikere af jødisk indflydelse. Og de er måske godt klar over, at den slaviske støtte, som USA har givet Israel, har været enormt dyr i form af liv og penge, uden at den egentlig har tjent amerikanske interesser.

Musk er et godt eksempel. Fra en artikel fra 1. november 2024:

Musk er i stigende grad ude af kurs i sine tweets: »Skaden var sket,« bemærkede [holocaust-aktivisten] Deborah Lipstadt om et Musk-indlæg på X. «Støtten til Great Replacement-teorien var meget skadelig.« Lipstadt tilføjede, at hun misbilligede, hvad hun så som ethvert forsøg på at »mildne« Musks tidligere tweet, uden at kritisere ADL’s leder Jonathan Greenblatt direkte. »Man kan forsøge at afbøde, men når man først har åbnet puden, er det som at jage fjerene,« sagde hun.

Musk svarede en bruger, som skrev: »Jødiske samfund har fremmet præcis den form for dialektisk had mod hvide, som de hævder at ville have folk til at holde op med at bruge mod dem. Jeg er dybt uinteresseret i at give den mindste s- nu om vestlige jødiske befolkninger, der kommer til den foruroligende erkendelse, at de horder af minoriteter [de] støtter, der oversvømmer deres land, ikke ligefrem kan lide dem for meget.«

Musk svarede: »Du har sagt den egentlige sandhed.«

Greenblatt sluttede sig til et højlydt kor, der fordømte indlægget. Andre jødiske grupper, herunder American Jewish Committee, fordømte det skarpt. Senere i samme tråd gik Musk til angreb på selve ADL og sagde, at gruppen »de facto fremmer antihvid racisme«. Han undskyldte for meget af dette og aflagde de obligatoriske besøg i Auschwitz og Israel, men det er svært at tro, at han nu afviser disse ideer.

Som altid er jeg optimist. Jeg tror, at mange af personerne på højrefløjen er meget bevidste om de skadelige virkninger af jødisk magt og indflydelse på det tidligere så dominerende hvide Amerika. Og som jeg bemærkede, »er det svært at tro, at [Musk] nu afviser disse ideer.«

Og det er svært at tro, at jøder er i stand til at fastholde deres position som forbilleder for tolerance og dyd i lyset af Israels handlinger i Gaza og den støtte, disse handlinger har fået fra det amerikansk-jødiske samfund.

Vi kan tage vores land tilbage.

Kilde: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/02/09/on-the-possibility-of-a-new-elite/ udgivet d. 9. februar.

(Det første billede i denne artikel er AI-genereret)

What race(s) are Ukrainians? — From tall timbers to the Pontic steppe

March 21, 2025/9 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tom Zaja

A recent talking point on the lips of several figures of the right (Steve Bannon, JD Vance, Tucker Carlson) is that the war in Ukraine is a fratricidal conflict between two Slavic peoples, and that the United States should play no part in it. Though I don’t know if such rhetoric is politically incorrect apathy or a progressive indictment of Western meddling, it’s not too far a stretch to still consider these neighbors Brothers in Arms. Their common trench is the Ukrainian landmass, as it has been for centuries, so to what extent these people are brothers ultimately depends on whether we’re talking poetry, politics or paleogenetics.

The early history of the Slavs is about as murky as the forests, swamps and marshes that the ancient writers ascribe to their abode. This homeland was situated at the intersection of modern Belarus, Poland and Western Ukraine, meaning that most of Ukraine and Russia were inhabited by other races. In spite of being a very populous nation for the time, they were remarkably homogeneous — being described by contemporary sources to the level of skin hue and eye color.

Byzantine historian Procopius, writing in the year 542, described them as “neither very fair or blond, nor do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color.”i Six centuries later, Saxon chronicler Helmold described them in similar terms: “These men have blue eyes, ruddy faces, and long hair.”ii Even with regards to body shape they were rather uniform, being tall and strong according to Procopius’s account, while emperor Maurice was so enchanted by stories of the Slavs that he invited a delegation, and, upon being amazed by their “height and mighty stature” he sent them onward to other parts of the Empire. Such descriptions don’t quite correspond to modern Slavic incarnations like Volodymyr Zelensky or Vladimir Putin — rather it is the American president who’s a closer match, along with his son and First Lurch Barron Trump.

Some of the sources on early Slavs refer to a people known as the Venedi, considered by most modern scholars to be synonymous with the Slavs on account of similar characteristics and the lexical conservation (as an infix) within names such like Slovenia or the archaic Sklavonia. Indeed, the Germans have traditionally referred to neighboring Slavs as Wends, although the name may go all the way back to proto-Indo-Europeans. The ancient region of Veneto in Northern Italy, bordering Slovenia, spoke a language probably medial to Celtic and Italic. Its capital city, Venice, is pronounced in the local dialect almost exactly like the city of Vinnytsia in Western Ukraine. Between the ancient scribes Tacitus, Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder, the Venedi were being located at both the Adriatic Sea and the Baltic Sea (then called the Venedic Gulf) — thus it is possible that the Balts were the original Venedi, and that Latvian is ultimately cognate with Latin.

Concerning the general demeanor of the early Slavs, some tentative conclusions can be drawn. Their social structure was more individualist than collectivist. They practiced exogamy, much like other circumpolar-descended societies. They were neither sedentary nor fully nomadic, frequently changing their abode since they engaged in farming, beekeeping and craftsmanship, but also hunting and herding. They were so de-centralized that they were not governed by a ruler, but, as Procopius describes: “from ancient times [they] have lived in [militaristic] democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people.”iii This is consistent with modern Slavic languages, which lack endemic words beyond the rank of chief — titles like king, queen, prince, viceroy, earl or baron all have foreign etymologies.

Such natural egalitarian scruples and the complete lack of stratification seems to have been a natural adaptation to that part of Europe, so much so that the ancient Dorians of the Danubian Basin may have evolved in similar conditions before going on to invade Pelasgic Greece, founding the militaristic city-states of Sparta, Athens and Corinth, and eventually creating civil democracy. The author of the sixth century work Strategikon makes it clear that so long as the Slavs did not unite under a single ruler, they would not be a threat, adding: “the Sklaveni and Antes were both independent, absolutely refused to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land.”iv Succeeding history would not be favorable to Slavic proto-libertarian absolutism, since it is well known from whence Western languages derived their word for slave. The early Slavs would be turning in their grave if it wasn’t for the fact that they practiced cremation.

The early signs of Slavic hardheadedness, albeit within a high-trust environment, were documented in accounts of their primeval culture. Thieves were either strangled or exiled, while those guilty of fornication were executed with no grounds for appeal. According to the Strategikon: “Their women are more sensitive than any others in the world. When, for example, their husband dies, many look upon it as their own death and freely smother themselves, not wanting to continue their lives as widows.”v All in all, the Slavs were probably more pragmatic than the exaggerated stereotypes attributed to them by sixth-century Roman military manuals.

The fondness that the Slavs had for agrarian productivity, trade and isolationism (conflict avoidance) is likely what led to the expansion of the Slavic realm. This involved the integration of various peoples who were disillusioned by the collapse of the great political organizations on the fringes of the Roman Empire.vi Nevertheless, this instance of Slavicization involved people who were genetically if not linguistically similar, since for millennia Eastern Europe was overwhelmingly populated by highly related Indo-Europeans — foremostly Celts, Germanics and Scythians.

Even after Germanics came to dominate Scandinavia and Western Europe, groups like the Gepids, Getae and Ostrogoths held large swathes of territory in the East. The prime stretch of real estate between the Dniester and Don Rivers (modern Ukraine) was ensconced by the Goths for centuries, hence the semantic linkage to the Danish ethnonym. The connection of the Swedes to Kievan Rus and the Volga River Vikings is well known, but it’s worth revisiting a famous account by tenth-century Arab diplomat Ibn Fadlan of those Rus he encountered: “I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy…“vii Thus the Vikings seemed to be of the same genetic stock as the original Slavs, albeit with distinct cultural practices like extensive tattooing, liberal fornication and selling their own into slavery. There was evidently some bilateral cultural exchange, since the modern Swedish language has several words of Slavic origin, typically to do with goods: kvarg (cheese), lök (onion), räka (shrimp), torg (market), humle (hops); but also male names like Sven/Svante and the personal pronoun Jag. Some adjective suffixes in the Scandinavian languages are strikingly different from German, for example words like þýska, svenska, norsk, dansk… — standard Slavic grammar that is common not only in Slavic surnames but in cities like Donetsk, Lugansk and Petrovsk.

Regarding the other great racial contingent in Eastern Europe throughout antiquity, the Scythians, these were largely nomadic nations who spoke Iranic languages. The more prominent among them included the Sarmati, Alani, Roxolani, Budini and Massagetae — the latter of which seem to have been Goths by origin (Getae). In spite of modern analogues, Iranic speakers north of the Caucuses did not share the sort of phenotype of an ayatollah or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; rather they were similar if not fairer than the Slavs.

Herodotus described the Budini as being “mightily blue-eyed and ruddy” with long manes of “bright red hair.”viii Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the Alani that nearly all were “of great stature and beauty, their hair generally blond.”ix Bishop Gregory of Nyssa described the Scythians as fair-skinned and blond-haired, while Greek physician Galen attributed reddish hair to Sarmatians, Illyrians and most northern peoples. According to Herodotus, even the Iranic speakers south of the Caucasus, namely the Persians of the fifth century BC, were hardly distinguishable from Greeks in phenotype.x This was to change, though they did preserve their languages whereas their kin north of the Caucasus were almost entirely assimilated — Slavic identity being the greatest contributor. Very few words of this extinct language are known, although one key word that was discovered in an old Hungarian document was don/dan, meaning water, hence the origin of Ukraine’s river names, and, indirectly, the Danes.

So while the Slavs focused on farming and mercantile activities, the Scythians were either too warlike for their own good, or were simply outcompeted as stubborn nomads in a changing landscape. There was only so many times that they could circle the wagons to survive rather than prosper. Similarly, the Germanic presence in Eastern Europe waned on account of too much warfare, often with each other, or through emigration and assimilation with those more numerous (Slavs) or war-hardened (Asiatics).

On the question of what happened to the distinctive ruddiness of the Slavs, and to a lesser extent the Scandinavians, a Polish academic has argued that the uniform phenotype of the Slavs began to change in the thirteenth century, due to “ongoing micro evolutionary processes, migration, epidemics, wars and widespread colonization.”xi It is significant that the Roman and Arab sources originally insisted on the word ruddy, instead of tawny or olive, which they would have been familiar with in the Mediterranean region. Authentic ruddiness lives on in only a small minority of whites, e.g. folks like Tucker Carlson, whose Swedish ancestors would not have been permitted to migrate to the United States if Benjamin Franklin had his way. As for the Slavs, finally developing social stratification and a nobility led to the same evolutionary pressures as with all status-based cultures. But in addition to sexual selection for pallidness operating in one direction, Slavs experience admixture with swarthy phenotypes operating in the other.

Perhaps the first authentically oriental nation to bypass the unformidable Ural Mountains that guarded Europe were the Huns. They were either Turkic, Mongolic or Tungusic, as can be deduced from Roman historian Jordanes’s depiction of an ancient tale of White flight: “Like a whirlwind of nations they swept across the great swamp and at once fell upon [those] who bordered on that part of Skithia [Scythia]… They made their foes flee in horror because their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than eyes.”xii

In the space of a couple generations, the Huns amassed huge tracts of territory and many subject nations, culminating in the empire of Attila. The Scourge of God, as he was dubbed, accrued about 70 wives, including the Gothic beauty Ildico, who would fatefully be his last. Since the Slavs in this time were still reposed in their arboreal and estuary retreats, they largely escaped Hunnic depredation; however, they would eventually absorb the descendants of those who were. The Huns were defeated and disappeared from maps in the fifth century, however some fled back to the Pontic steppe (Ukraine) and rebranded or joined forces with other Asian arrivals like the Avars, Bolgars, Hunuguri and Sabiri.

The Avars never had an iconic leader like Attila, however in some respects their impact was more enduring. From their base on the Great Hungarian plain, they incrementally conquered all those in their periphery, leveraging their military advantage against those perhaps more interested in peaceful agrarianism. They pitted various kings and tribes against each other, backing the right factions and acquiring the right subjects at the right time. It was during the Avar period that the role of some Slavs began to change, whether consensual or not remains disputed. The chronicler Fredegar recalled that under Avar suzerainty the Slavs did the bulk of the fighting for little reward, paid tributes, and suffered much mistreatment, including sexual exploitation of Slavic women for whom even the mixed progeny came to hate, leading to a rebellion.xiii On the other hand, archeological evidence from the seventh century points to a mixed Slavic-Avar material culture, suggesting a peaceful and harmonious relationship between the Avar aristocracy and Slavic peasants, with potential upward mobility for Slavs.xiv The Byzantines certainly didn’t view the Slavs as helpless subordinates, as John of Ephesus writes:

…the invasion of an accursed people, called Sklavonians, who overran the whole of Greece … and all Thrace … devastated and burnt … reduced the people to slavery … and settled in it by main force … and even to this day, being the year 895 [584 AD] … live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear … and they have grown rich in gold and silver, and herds of horses … and have learnt to fight better than the Romans, though at first they were but rude savages, who did not venture to shew themselves outside the woods and the coverts of the trees; and as for arms, they did not even know what they were, with the exception of two or three javelins or darts.”

John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part III, Book 6

Thus, under the tutelage of the Avars, the Slavs became conquerors on a large scale, with some contemporary accounts even omitting mention of the Avars by name. At any rate, the large populations of the Slavs must at some point correspond to culpability in conquering. By 602 AD the Romans had essentially given up; the Danube Frontier becoming an open border and likely leading to more Slavs settling territories from the Adriatic Sea to the Black Sea — giving birth to the South Slavic polities. In the next few hundred years the Avars would eventually be assimilated by the Hungarians,xv Croatsxvi and Franksxvii (Austrians and Slovenes).

By the tenth century, it was known to Slavs and distant foreigners alike that the Slavs were no longer a homogeneous race. Arab traveler Masudi wrote that “…the Walitaba [Volhynians] are the original, pure-blooded Slavs, the most highly honored and take precedence over all the other branches of the race.”xviii Volhynia is a region in northwest Ukraine that corresponds to the hypothesized Slavic homeland. However, even this Slavic heartland was soon to be pressed upon by an effective backlog of Altaic nations piling up on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. These include the Khazars, whose empire covered most of Ukraine and lasted four centuries, the Magyars, the Pechenegs, and the Cumans, whose empire stretched from Serbia to the Urals. However, after weathering almost a millennium of Turks and company blowing in from the East, the worst was still to come in the form of the Mongols.

The Mongols were the ultimate masters of cavalry, archery, psychological warfare, and leveraging their numbers. They had already massacred countless Indo-Europeans in Central Asia, endemic to that region as they were. The city of Herat was considered by Rumi to be the Pearl of the Khorasan, but to the Mongols it was merely a city deserving punishment for having resisted Mongol rule and so all 2.4 million residents were beheaded, according to one contemporary testimony. Similar fates befell Merv and Neyshabur. Upon reaching Europe in the thirteenth century, they had many Altaic nations under their yoke, and so the continent would be introduced to the Tatars, Uyghurs, Manchurians and others. Both Kiev and Moscow fell, thus the flaxen-haired remnants of the Scythians and Goths were conquered by the Golden Horde. Slavs bore the brunt of the Mongol onslaught.

A famous remark attributed to Hulagu Khan (the grandson of Genghis Khan) was the promise that Mongol horses would wash their hooves in the “final sea” — likely referring to the Atlantic.xix They may well have delivered on that prophecy had the petty formality of Ogedei Khan’s death not required them to return home and elect a new leader. Ironically, it would be the Slavs who would go on to achieve Hulagu’s prophecy in reverse, as the Russian Empire eventually reached the frozen shores of the Bering and yonder. This historical parable reminds me somewhat of a joke that cropped up three years ago in response to the special military operation, in which Russia’s tourism board launched the new slogan: Come visit Russia before Russia visits you.

The Eurasian landmass — gifted in size as it is and blandished further by the Mercator projection — has kept certain secrets regarding the nature of migrations and conquests. The vast Eurasian steppe linking Pannonia and Manchuria became a de facto highway for roving horsemen, with free fuel available most of the year. Why exactly this Route 66 of raping and pillaging was only traversed in one direction is a matter largely ignored by anthropologists. Retired Oxford archeologist Barry Cunliffe implicates a transcontinental weather gradient as being the cajoling entropy. More perplexing still is the fact that the first people to domesticate the horse were the Indo-Europeans north of the Caucuses, roughly 4,200 years ago. At least from this perspective, Eurasia enjoyed a grace period of a couple millennia before large hordes began wreaking havoc over long distances. Whites may have been ahead of the curve, but they were ultimately outdone by the slope.

This essay has focused on the history and ethnography of Eastern Europe from antiquity to the Middle Ages in order to provide a solid framework for exploring contemporary Slavic identity. For those addled by excessive names, dates and territories mentioned, I would recommend the new online 3D map resource timemap.org, which efficiently conveys the richness and dynamism of the Old World in particular. The added third dimension is time, and seamless scrolling is possible in different modes. It was thanks to this resource that I noticed that the current frontline in Ukraine almost perfectly matches the borders of several khaganates over a period of six non-consecutive centuries. In my next piece, I intend to reprise my role not only as border sentinel but as a neutral observer of Russo-Ukrainian affairs and human geography from a modern perspective.

1. Procopius. (550s). History of Wars vii, 14
2. Helmold. (1120). Chronica Slavorum
3. Procopius. (550s). History of Wars vii, 22–30
4. Curta, Florin. (2001). The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower
Danube Region, c. 500–700 (pp. 71, 320, 321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
5. Maurice. (500s). Strategikon ix, 4
6. Kobyliński, Zbigniew. (2005). The Slavs. The New Cambridge Medieval History,
524–544
7. Jones, Gwyn. (1973). A History of the Vikings. Oxford University Press
8. Herodotus. (400s BC). Inquiries Book, 4
9. Marcellinus, Ammianus. (300s). Res Gestae XXXI, 2-21
10. Herodotus. (400s BC). Histories Book, 7
11. Stanaszek, Łukasz Maurycy. (2001). Fenotyp dawnych Słowian (VI–X w.). Światowit, 3
(44)/Fasc.B, 205-212
12. Jordanes. (500s). Getica, 126-127
13. Fredegar. (600s). Chron. iv, 48
14. Kobyliński, Zbigniew. (2005). The Slavs (p. 537). The New Cambridge Medieval History,
524–544
15. Fine, John Van Antwerp Jr. (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from
the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press
16. Porphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio, 30
17. Schutz, Herbert. (2004). The Carolingians in Central Europe, Their History, Arts, and
Architecture: A Cultural History of Central Europe, 750–900 (p. 61). Brill
18. Masudi, Abd al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn (943). The Meadows of Gold and Mines of
Precious Gems
19. Juvayni, Ala Ad Din Ata Malik. (1200s). The History of The World Conqueror

The Jonathan Bowden: The Messiah, the Chosen One?

March 21, 2025/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Edward Dutton

“Execute, burn, kill the heretic!” In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, this is the reaction of one of Brian’s zealous followers to a hermit, whose vow of silence was broken by Brian landing on his foot, dissenting from the view that Brian is “the Messiah, the chosen one.” When religions of this kind, based around the worship of an individual, begin then we normally refer to them as “cults” or, less pejoratively, as “New Religious Movements.” It is telling that the John Cleese character who condemns the hermit earlier informs Brian, who declares that he is not the Messiah, that, “I say you are, Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.” This man is the archetypal “seeker” — he is searching for someone to follow, for somebody who will provide his life with eternal meaning — and, as I will show, there is a specific kind of psychology associated with being a “seeker.”

Now, you might be asking why I am writing about this in a nationalist webzine. How can New Religious Movements, let alone a minor character in The Life of Brian, possibly be relevant? Well, having gone off on a tangent, allow me, like Jonathan Bowden, to bring everything back to the key point: Jonathan Bowden himself. I recently published his biography — Shaman of the New Right: The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden. In this book, I directly stated that, for some people on the right, Bowden has become imbued with something of the holy. Well, I have now become a heretic for writing a biography rather than a hagiography.

I actually pre-empted this reaction in the book. Bowden’s good friend Adrian Davies, whom I interviewed about Bowden on The Jolly Heretic in 2022, was as shocked as I was when someone in the live stream accused him of creating a “Bowden hit piece” simply for recounting his own experiences of his friend. Davies and I later discussed how there was clearly, “The Bowden of History and Bowden of Faith.” When I interviewed former British National Party chairman Nick Griffin — he knew Bowden well because he appointed him the party’s Cultural Officer — Griffin warned me off writing the biography at all, informing me that a truthful account of Bowden’s life would subtract from the mystery that is so attractive to his followers, would inevitably upset these people and, anyway, they are the kind to become upset because Bowden “sold impossible dreams to people . . . and is popular among Incels.” Incels have been shown to be high in mental instability and Dark Triad traits, such as psychopathy and Narcissism; hence their being unattractive to girls.

With these remarks, Griffin was extremely prescient. Many of Bowden’s friends, including the sole beneficiary of his will, asked me to write the biography. I thought I would be attacked as blasphemer for so-doing and this is precisely what has happened. It began last week with an Amazon review of the book, which has since disappeared for some reason, but of which I kept a screen shot. “Ian Thompson” described the book as “Nonsensical” and continued:

Did the author even talk to Bowden’s best friend and beneficiary of his Will [sic.]. Did he even look at his Last Will & Testament [sic.]. Thought not. How you write a biography on a man you never met, never spoke to his family or close friends is beyond understand [sic.]. Just a money making exercise in self promotion on the author’s part [sic.]. Far too expensive, don’t waste your money. I haven’t. I knew the man, one of the few who was invited into his home, so won’t read the book [sic.]. One more thing. If Jonathan created a myth around him, he had a very good reason.

This is obviously a reflection of extreme emotion, leading to impulsivity and a lack of logical thinking: Can we not write Plato’s biography because we haven’t met him? Had “Ian Thompson” read the book, he would know that I did interview Bowden’s beneficiary (Michael Woodbridge), I did obtain his will, and I did speak to his close friends, including one who was invited into his home. Mysteriously, the same reviewer then completely changed his review — presumably because he read a summary of the book somewhere; he was not a “verified purchase” — and altered his method of attack. Alas, I did not keep a screen shot and he seems to have deleted it, but, in essence, he declared “shame” on all those who were prepared to be interviewed; they weren’t Bowden’s true friends and that the book is “a character assassination of a good man.”

When I remarked on the first review on Twitter, someone called “Julius” exclaimed, “You piss on the graves of better men in order to get attention from left wing media. You should die of shame” while the “Traditional Britain Group” remarked that, “Yes, when Gregory a TBG VP made some relatively mild criticisms in an interview a year back, based upon his personal recollections a bunch of groupies here became both spiteful and hysterical. I blocked them all. They obviously operate under a very simplistic and comic book view of human nature.” They were referring to Gregory Lauder-Frost, whom I interviewed for the biography and who knew Bowden.

Beneath my interview about the book on the podcast “History Sessions,” someone called “Jackdoe4632” declared, “Perhaps Jonathan gave his reasons to his genuine friends (not Renouf or Woodbridge who crave attention and notoriety). His loyal friends, those whom he trusted and have not betrayed him in death, are keeping his confidences and protecting his memory. . . . The people you spoke to were merely acquaintances.” So, the sole beneficiary of Bowden’s will and Lady Renouf, to whom Bowden fled when he went mad and thought people were trying to kill him, were “merely acquaintances,” but this internet anon was Bowden’s true best friend?

On the podcast “Scrumpmonkey,” where I was interviewed about the book, I was attacked with fallacious arguments continuously by a troll called “Jo-os3vp” who, in particular, asserted that: “Bowden would have hated this disrespectful and exploitative ‘biography’ with a passion. I don’t expect its zero-empathy author to understand that. Some people can’t just listen to a man’s words, they are more interested in deconstructing his character and digging up dirt on his private life.” The implication seems to be that Bowden is so holy that an accurate biography simply shouldn’t be written at all. As with Incels, studies indicate that trolls are high in sadism and psychopathy: The “empathy” remark is clear projection, as was much else.

As a person who is interested, as I hope my readers are, in finding out the truth about how Bowden became an oratorical genius, I find this attitude beyond comprehension. But it makes sense if we look into the psychology behind New Religious Movements, which crosses over with aspects of the extreme “far right.” As I explore in Shaman of the Radical Right, such people are, on average, highly mentally unstable. They experience negative feelings very strongly, including low self-esteem, predicting periods of religious or political fervour.

To deal with this, they sometimes latch on to charismatics who seem to make their cold world feel warm again. These charismatics become an extension of themselves; a central component to their identity: “Bowden is brilliant and I am brilliant because I follow him.” When people are stressed they instinctively think in a black-and-white fashion; they lose nuance and either love or hate. They also create a kind of false self, via this method, where they suppress their negative feelings and see themselves as superior to the herd: they are purer, more intelligent and more moral.

If you criticise Bowden in any way, then you are attacking them; you are taking away that which allows them to suppress their intense negative feelings, and you are confronting them with the black-and-white, low-intelligence manner in which they think. They have been gulled by Bowden, in a sense. Hence you are creating Narcissistic injury and cognitive dissonance. This leads to negative feelings which must be dealt with by attacking the messenger.

It may also be, if Nick Griffin is right, that some of Bowden’s followers identify with Bowden, even if only unconsciously, because he’s rather like them. I don’t mean in the sense that Bowden was an amazingly talented and highly intelligent charismatic, but that he was evidently unsuccessful in many aspects of his life: never had a job, was a university drop out, never really had a serious relationship, didn’t have any money and told lots of lies. Some of his followers may realise that this is true of them — which is incongruous with their false self — but may cope with that by telling themselves: “At least I’m super-red-pilled.”

In being confronted with the truth about Bowden, they are being confronted with the truth about themselves, and this is most unpalatable to mentally unstable types who cope by developing Narcissistic traits. Bowden understood that geniuses are “like specials needs but the other way round” and will inherently be flawed in “normal” aspects of life, as Bowden knew he was. But unlike with Bowden, there is no “genius” dimension to these people, so all they can do is bitterly attack the messenger in order to try to claw back a modicum of self-worth by experiencing the power that you may feel when you are unpleasant to someone.

But unpleasant as they may be, they are fascinating. It is cliché, in right-wing circle, to talk of the posthumous “Cult of Jonathan Bowden” and the very word “cult” has long been employed beyond the religious realm, as in Monty Python having a “cult following.” But with some of the people I have encountered of late, we are able to watch a far more literal “personality cult” develop in real time; a “Bowden of Faith” is coming together before our eyes.

Missives from Satan: Memoranda of George Soros on his “GeorgeSoros.com” website

Ties Abroad: The context and causes of Jewish immigration from 1881

Savage Wars and Alien Invaders: Powell’s Prophecy and another Guardianista Goose-Step

Kevin MacDonald i Danmark

FOLKETS FLAMME

Vi brænder for Danmark!

Kevin MacDonald i Danmark

marts 4, 2025Danmarks Frihedsraad Om muligheden for en ny elite

Om muligheden for en ny elite

Introduktion

Om muligheden for en ny elite

What race(s) are Ukrainians? — From tall timbers to the Pontic steppe

The Jonathan Bowden: The Messiah, the Chosen One?

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Kevin MacDonald i Danmark

Del dette:

Om muligheden for en ny elite

Introduktion

Om muligheden for en ny elite

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Also available at Barnes & Noble