More Signs That America’s Youth Are Breaking with Israel

/10 Comments/in , /by

For decades, support for Israel functioned as one of Washington’s few unchallenged orthodoxies. That consensus is now cracking, and the fracture line runs straight through the American youth electorate. The latest findings from the Yale Youth Poll confirm that a generational realignment is well underway, one that cuts across party lines and increasingly places Israel at odds with America’s youth.

Conducted by an undergraduate-led research team at Yale University, the poll surveyed registered voters ages 18 to 34 alongside the broader electorate. Its Fall 2025 results show younger Americans abandoning the reflexive pro-Israel posture that once defined U.S.  politics. What replaces it is not a single ideology but a growing skepticism toward Israel’s actions in Gaza, American military aid to Israel, and the political networks that enforce silence on the issue.

The numbers are stark. Younger voters are far more likely than older Americans to hold negative views of Israel and to endorse statements critical of Israel and broader Jewry. Among voters ages 18 to 22, 30 percent agreed that Jews in the United States are more loyal to Israel than to America. 21 percent said it is appropriate to boycott Jewish-American owned businesses to protest the Gaza war. 27 percent agreed that Jews in the United States have too much power. Each figure exceeds the national average by a wide margin.

The poll also exposes widespread uncertainty around elite language policing. Among voters overall, 56 percent said they were not sure whether the phrase “globalize the intifada” is antisemitic. A plurality of 47 percent said calling the situation in Gaza a genocide is not antisemitic.

That credibility gap appears again in how younger voters understand Zionism. While the electorate as a whole most often defined Zionism as Jewish self-determination or the continued existence of Israel, voters ages 18–22 gravitated toward sharply negative definitions. Many described Zionism as maintaining a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine by displacing native Palestinians, creating a state where Jews receive more rights than others, or functioning as a form of racism and apartheid. Roughly one-third of all respondents said they were unfamiliar with the term entirely, underscoring how little resonance elite slogans now carry.

Nowhere is the generational divide clearer than on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. While 46 percent of voters overall supported that position, fewer than 30 percent of voters under 30 agreed. 15 percent of that cohort said Israel should not exist at all. By contrast, 64 percent of respondents aged 65 and older supported Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

Policy preferences follow perception. Nearly two-thirds of voters under 30 favor reducing or ending American military aid to Israel, with 46 percent supporting a total cutoff. The broader electorate remains split, but the direction of change is unmistakable. Younger Americans no longer treat Israel as an untouchable ally.

The Yale findings do not stand alone. They align closely with a growing body of polling that documents the same generational revolt. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll found that while 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of Republicans ages 18 to 34 do. With respect to the Gaza conflict, 52 percent of older Republicans say Israeli actions are justified, compared to just 22 percent of younger Republicans. As Shibley Telhami told Responsible Statecraft, “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking.”

Data summarized by RealClearPolling reinforces the pattern. Among Republicans under 50, unfavorable views of Israel jumped from 35 percent in 2022 to 50 percent in 2025. Older Republicans shifted only marginally. The same University of Maryland data shows that 41 percent of Americans believe Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute genocide or are akin to genocide, including 14 percent of Republicans. 21 percent say the Trump administration’s Israel Palestine policy was too pro-Israel, while 57 percent believe U.S. support has enabled Israeli war crimes.

Even evangelical Republicans are no longer immune. While 69 percent of older evangelicals sympathize more with Israel, that figure drops to 32 percent among younger evangelicals, and only 36 percent believe Israeli actions in Gaza are justified. A September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that just 30 percent of Americans support financial assistance to Israel, a dramatic departure from Washington’s bipartisan habits.

Media consumption helps explain the shift. Younger Republicans rely far less on Fox News and far more on online platforms where Palestinian perspectives circulate freely. Seventy two percent of Republicans who rely on Fox News support Israel. Among those who get their news primarily from social media, support drops to 35 percent.

This grassroots revolt has begun to surface inside Congress, though only at the margins. Two Republicans stand out. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s shift has been abrupt and public. In November 2023 she defended her voting record funding Israel’s Iron Dome. By July 2025 she described Israel’s Gaza campaign as genocide. Writing on X, she stated, “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” Days later, in remarks reported by Anadolu Agency, she asked, “Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?” Her later resignation from Congress does not erase the significance of her break.

Rep. Thomas Massie represents a steadier challenge. The Kentucky libertarian has long opposed Israeli wars and U.S. military aid. In testimony covered by Arab American News, he said, “I don’t want to condone what Israel’s doing. I don’t want to condone the way Netanyahu is waging the campaign against Hamas because I think there are too many civilian casualties.” On X he later wrote, “Nothing can justify the number of casualties inflicted by Israel in Gaza. We should end all US military aid to Israel immediately.”

Since October 7, Massie has not shied away from taking shots at the Israel lobby. He has described how every Republican member of Congress has an “AIPAC babysitter.” As a response to Massie’s strident critics of Jewish influence on American foreign policy, pro-Israel donors have mobilized millions against him, as this author has previously documented. The Republican Jewish Coalition has pledged unlimited spending, according to Jewish Insider.

Taken together, the Yale Youth Poll and its companion surveys point to a transpartisan realignment that Washington can no longer ignore. Young liberals, independents, and conservatives increasingly converge on the same conclusion that Israel’s Gaza campaign and its privileged position in U.S. politics demand scrutiny. This skepticism draws on an older American anti-war tradition, from Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War to Ron Paul’s non-interventionism, but it now resonates with a generation that has grown hostile toward Zionism and organized Jewry’s vice grip on American foreign policy decision-making.

What was once an elite taboo has become a mass attitude. Israeli influence on U.S. politics no longer hides in plain sight. The numbers suggest that Israel’s greatest strategic loss may not be on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the next generation of American voters.

 

July 14, 1555 – Creation of the Rome Ghetto by PAUL IV, Bull Cum nimis absurdum (Since it is absurd)

/7 Comments/in , /by

This is not a creation of Hitler or Goebbels, let alone Mussolini, who was not an anti-Semite and whose first mistress, Margherita Sarfatti, was Jewish. It is a bull published by Pope Paul IV on July 14, 1555, i.e., in the middle of the Renaissance and not in the darkness of the Middle Ages.

This bull does not come out of the blue. There were at least 24 anti-Semitic papal bulls before that of Paul IV and 38 after! To these bulls, it would be appropriate to add the statements of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.

The general position of the Church in the past seems to have been that it was necessary to discriminate against the Jews, to regulate their behavior vis-á-vis Christians, to designate them for opprobrium, but not to physically attack them: this is the doctrine of the “witness people” of Saint Augustine; the Jews must subsist so that everyone can see what happens to a people who do not recognize Christ. The declarations are clearly defensive in nature, aimed at protecting Christians against Jewish behavior.

The object of the bull revolves pretty much around the same discriminatory measures, one could say, of apartheid: wearing special clothes, expulsion or confinement in special quarters, prohibition to exercise certain public functions, prohibition of mixed marriages, encouraging forced conversions and special taxes to fund these conversions, prohibition of the Talmud and Autodafe, cancellation of Christian debts towards Jews, prohibition on Jews from having Christian servants or nannies etc.

The official justification is always the same, the Jewish people are cursed by God since they do not recognize their Son and are condemned to dispersion and wandering. Unofficially, however, a purely racial justification cannot be ruled out, as Pope Gregory I (540 – 604) put forward the doctrine of the Jews as a carnal people, in constrast to the Christian people, who are spiritual; this theme of the ‘carnal people’ could easily lead to the people of the ‘beast’, of the ‘antichrist’ and of ‘the Devil’.

In the Middle Ages, when popes received tribute from delegates of the Jewish-Roman community on the day of their coronation, they traditionally replied: “Legum Probo, sed improbo gentium” (“I approve of the law, but I disapprove of race”). We should also recall the existence in Spain, from 1449 onwards, of certificates of racial purity, in Spanish ‘estatuto de limpieza de sangre’ – ratified by PAUL III. Among the Jesuits, the requirement for this certificate, which had been instituted in 1593, was not lifted until 1946…

Returnig to the bull of Paul IV himself, in addition to confining the Jews in a district of Rome (now a very touristy area!), it imposed the wearing of a yellow pointed hat on men and a yellow headscarf on women. Jews were prohibited from owning real estate or practicing medicine with Christians (as a precaution!). 

  • Lungotevere de’ Cenci (along the Tiber River)

  • Via del Portico d’Ottavia (its lively central street)

  • Teatro Marcello and the nearby Capitol Hill

The neighborhood itself was surrounded by walls, with three doors locked at night. Only one synagogue per city was allowed. The successor of Paul IV, Pius IV extended the system of ghettos to other Italian cities, and the successor of the latter, Pius V, forbade the presence of Jews in his domains outside Rome and Ancona. Pius V is considered the most anti-Semitic Pope. He is canonized and his canonization has not been abrogated…

Here is the translation of Paul IV’s bull establishing the Roman ghetto, Cum nimis absurdum (Because it is so absurd)

Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum

Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See decreed by the Bishop Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who newly learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded our City Rome and a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, their impudence increased so much that they dare not only to live amongst the Christian people, but also in the vicinity of the churches without any difference of dressing, and even that they rent houses in the main streets and squares, buy and hold immovable property, engage maids, nurses and other Christian servants, and commit other and numerous misdeeds with shame and contempt of the Christian name. Considering that the Church of Rome tolerates these very Jews evidence of the true Christian faith and to this end [we declare]: that they, won over by the piety and kindness of the See, should at long last recognize their erroneous ways, and should lose no time in seeing the true light of the Catholic faith, and thus to agree that while they persist in their errors, realizing that they are slaves because of their deeds, whereas Christians have been freed through our Lord God Jesus Christ, and that it is iniquitous for it to appear that the sons of free women serve the sons of maids.

§ 1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with God, to beneficially provide, by this. that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in one and if there is not that capacity in two or three or however many quarters may be enough; they should reside entirely side by side in designated streets and be thoroughly separate from the residences of Christians, by our authority in the City and by that of our representatives in other states, lands and domains noted above, and that there must be only one entrance and exit from this quarter.

§ 2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves.

§ 3. Moreover, so that Jews should be distinguishable everywhere: men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed; and furthermore, they cannot be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate this adversity, either by a chamberlain of the Church, clerics of an Apostolic court, or their superiors, or by legates of the Holy See or their immediate subordinates.

§ 4. Also, they may not have nurses or maids or any other Christian domestic or service by Christian women in wet-nursing or feeding their children.

§ 5. They may not work or have work done on Sundays or on other public feast days declared by the Church.

§ 6. Nor may they incriminate Christians in any way or promulgate false or forged agreements.

§ 7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians.

§ 8. And they cannot use other than Latin or Italian words in short-term account books that they hold with Christians, and, if they should use them, such records would not be binding on Christians.

§ 9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or “cencinariae” (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

§ 10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

§ 11. And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians.

§ 12. And they are to close their [loan] accounts entirely every thirty days; should fewer than thirty days elapse, they shall not be counted as an entire month, but only as the actual number of days, and furthermore, they will terminate the reckoning as of this number of days and not for the term of an entire month. In addition, they are prohibited from selling [goods put up as] collateral, put up as temporary security for their money, unless [such goods were] put up a full eighteen months prior to the day on which such [collateral] would be forfeit; at the expiration of the aforementioned number of months, if Jews have sold a security deposit of this sort, they must sign over all money in excess of the principal of the loan to the owner of the collateral.

§ 13. And the statutes of states, territories and domains wherever they presently live, concerning primacy of Christians, are to be adhered to and followed without exception.

§ 14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime: in Rome, by us or by our clergy, or by others authorized by us, and in the aforementioned states, territories and domains by their respective magistrates, just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place, they would be accused by all Christian people, by us and by our clergy, and could be punished at the discretion of the proper authorities and judges.

§ 15.Not to be confuted by conflicting decrees and apostolic rules, and regardless of any tolerance whatever or special rights and dispensation for these Jews of any Roman Pontiff prior to us and of the aforementioned See or of their legates, or by the courts of the Church of Rome and the clergy of the Apostolic courts, or by other of their officials, no matter their import and form, and with whatever, even with repeated derogations, and with other legally valid sub-clauses, and erasures and other decrees, even those that are “motu proprio” and from “certain knowledge” and have been repeatedly approved and renewed. By this document, even if, instead of their sufficient derogation, concerning them and their entire import, special, specific, expressed and individual, even word for word, moreover, not by means of general, even important passages, mention, or whatever other expression was favored, or whatever exquisite form had to be retained, matters of such import, and, if word for word, with nothing deleted, would be inserted into them in original form in the present document holding that rather than being sufficiently expressed, those things that would stay in effect in full force by this change alone, we specially and expressly derogate, as well as any others contrary to them.

 

Declared at St. Mark’s, Rome, in the one thousand five hundred fifty fifth year of the incarnation of our Lord, one day before the ides of July, in the first year of our Papacy.

The Jewish Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight

/6 Comments/in , /by

Most Americans have never heard of the Mega Group. Yet this quiet consortium of Jewish billionaires has drifted back into public view because of renewed scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein. His name dominates headlines again, and with it a strange supporting cast of oligarchs, intelligence veterans, and philanthropic power brokers.

At the center of this cast of shadowy figures stands Leslie Wexner, one of the most influential patrons of the Zionist project. In 1991, he joined Canadian liquor heir Charles Bronfman to create what they called the Mega Group, also known in some accounts as the Study Group. A profile in the Wall Street Journal from 1998 described it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and Jewishness,” yet even early reporting hinted at something more profound. One overview at Miftah portrayed the Mega Group as an informal but potent club of Jewish American billionaires and entrepreneurs that quickly attracted attention in Jerusalem and Washington alike.

Israeli intelligence sources later described the Mega Group as a vehicle for influence operations in the United States. Analysts pointed to the group’s contacts with the Israeli Mossad, its alignment with the broader Israel lobby, and its habit of operating behind closed doors. What looked like philanthropy on the surface increasingly resembled a private political machine beneath it.

The Architects of a Jewish Network of Oligarchs

The official story holds that Wexner and Charles Bronfman co-founded the Mega Group in 1991 to coordinate large scale Jewish philanthropy. A later sketch of the network placed its origins with about 20 members, almost all billionaires or near billionaires. By 2001. the membership reportedly grew to nearly 50, according to coverage in Executive Intelligence Review and other sources, with annual dues around $30,000 as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

The roster reads like a map of elite Jewish institutional power. Among the central figures were

  • Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret.
  • Charles and Edgar Bronfman, heirs to the Seagram liquor empire and longtime leaders of the World Jewish Congress.
  • Michael Steinhardt, pioneering hedge fund manager described in Hedge Fund Alpha and MicroCapClub as one of Wall Street’s most successful investors.
  • Max Fisher, Detroit oil magnate and Republican powerhouse who advised presidents from Eisenhower through George W Bush on Jewish and Middle Eastern affairs.
  • Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estée Lauder fortune and later president of the World Jewish Congress.
  • Harvey Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate and founding chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, profiled by his own charitable foundation and Pi Lambda Phi.
  • Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corporation, whose son James later led United Jewish Communities.

Various investigations, including an in depth dossier at MintPress News, have argued that this circle functioned as far more than a charity club. In effect, the Mega Group served as a central node in a network where money, media, intelligence, and Zionist lobbying fused into a single oligarchical venture that bypassed the traditional legislative process.

Wexner, Epstein, and the Manhattan Townhouse

Leslie Wexner may be the most important figure in this story, not only because of his corporate empire but because of his unique relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner built his fortune through The Limited beginning in 1963, later expanding to Victoria’s Secret, Bath and Body Works, Abercrombie and Fitch, and other brands under L Brands. His net worth in the early 2020s generally ranged between $4.5 billion and $7 billion dollars, making him one of the richest men in the United States and the longest serving chief executive of a Fortune 500 company.

Then there is Epstein. A former high school math teacher with no college degree somehow became Wexner’s financial manager in the early 1980s. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Wexner granted Epstein control of “all of his money.” Vanity Fair later revealed that Wexner transferred his 51,000 square foot Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, along with a private jet originally belonging to The Limited, a transfer that turned Epstein’s residence into one of the largest private homes in New York City.

Former Victoria’s Secret executives described a strange dynamic. They recalled seeing Wexner defer to Epstein in meetings and one remembered that “Les would put his hand on Epstein’s shoulder.” In his 2019 letter to his own foundation after Epstein’s arrest, Wexner claimed he had been financially manipulated and insisted that he knew nothing of Epstein’s criminal behavior. The explanation only deepened the mystery. Epstein’s fortune reached an estimated $559 million, according to Vanity Fair. Wexner was his only fully documented client. No public record explains how those numbers add up.

The most explosive interpretation comes from intelligence veterans and investigative writers who argue that Epstein operated as part of an Israeli sexual blackmail apparatus. Ari Ben Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence operative, told Electronic Intifada and other outlets that Epstein and British Jewish socialite Ghislaine Maxwell worked for Israeli military intelligence and specialized in blackmail. Ben Menashe said he saw Epstein in the office of Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell (well known to have been an Israeli spy) in the 1980s. The Manhattan townhouse that Wexner handed to Epstein reportedly had hidden surveillance cameras, as described by various investigative writers including those at MintPress News.

Former NSA counterintelligence officer John Schindler, writing in the Washington Times and cited in multiple summaries, argued that Epstein operated within a broader Israeli covert action framework. He stressed the link to Wexner and noted that “we know that it was co-founded by Jeffrey Epstein’s billionaire benefactor. The rest remains speculation,” and suggested that Congress or serious investigative reporters could use the Mega Group as a starting point to untangle the entire affair.

Philanthropy as Social Engineering

The Mega Group excelled at using charitable projects to reshape Jewish identity and align diaspora communities with Israeli interests. Nowhere is this clearer than in Birthright Israel, known in Hebrew as Taglit. The program provides free ten-day trips to Israel for Jewish young adults. Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt launched Birthright in 1999. Reports in eJewishPhilanthropy and the Jewish Journal describe how Bronfman and Steinhardt each pledged between $8 and $10 million dollars. 12 additional donors, including Edgar Bronfman and Lynn Schusterman, committed $5 million dollars each over five years. The Israeli government matched this funding, producing an initial pool close to $140 million.

Leonard Saxe of Brandeis University called Birthright “the largest Jewish educational program ever,” as cited in the Jewish Journal. The program aims to strengthen Jewish identity, discourage intermarriage and assimilation, and deepen attachment to Israel. At its core, Birthright is a wide-ranging identity-construction initiative funded by Jewish billionaires, backed by Israel, and designed to activate Jews in America.

The Mega Group also poured money into Hillel International and Jewish education in North America. A 1998 Wall Street Journal piece on the group’s philanthropy detailed how a small cluster of members pledged a combined $1.3 million dollars annually over five years to re-finance Hillel in 1994. Later six members each provided $1.5 million to create the Partnership for Jewish Education, which funded matching grants for Jewish day schools. These moves strengthened a vast network of day schools and campus organizations that promoted a strongly Zionist worldview.

In effect this philanthropic empire did not simply fund religious or cultural work. It helped build an infrastructure that fostered unwavering support for Israel among younger generations of Jews in the United States.

Think Tanks, Conferences, and Political Messaging

The Mega Group’s reach extended deep into Washington. Multiple members sat on the board of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, known as WINEP. This think tank, which grew out of the orbit of AIPAC, has been described by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as part of the core of the Israel lobby in the United States. As outlets like Media Bias Fact Check and Militarist Monitor note, WINEP produces research, trains military officers, and briefs government officials on Middle Eastern policy. As of the late 1990s, WINEP board members included Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Max Fisher, Harvey Meyerhoff, and Michael Steinhardt. (WINEP is now headed by Robert Satloff, referenced previously in two TOO articles, here and here; current Board of Directors are listed here.)

The network’s reach into organized Jewish leadership was equally impressive. Malcolm Hoenlein, who moved in the same circles, served as executive vice chairman and later chief executive of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Conference serves as the de facto public voice of the American Jewish community on international affairs.

In 2003, this already formidable apparatus added professional Republican messaging expertise. The group hired pollster Frank Luntz, famous for his focus group-driven language manuals. Luntz produced extensive guides for Israel advocates, including a document known as the Global Language Dictionary. He told his readers that settlements were Israel’s main public relations problem and urged them to shift the conversation toward “terror, not territory.” The core lesson this guide imparted was blunt, “it is not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear.”

With Luntz’s help the Mega Group and its allied institutions helped lock U.S. discourse into a frame where Israeli security trumped Palestinian rights and where criticism of Israeli policy easily slipped into accusations of extremism or bigotry.

The 1997 Mega Spy Mystery

A separate story about something called Mega exploded in Washington in 1997. The Washington Post revealed that United States signals intelligence had intercepted a phone call between two Israeli intelligence officers. One officer said, “The ambassador wants me to go to Mega to get a copy of this letter,” referring to correspondence from Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Yasir Arafat. His superior replied, “This is not something we use Mega for.”

Investigators in the United States suspected that Mega referred to a high level informant inside the government. Some believed this figure might be connected to the Jonathan Pollard espionage case, possibly the mysterious Mr X who guided Pollard on which documents to request. Israel claimed at first that Mega was just a codeword for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Former NSA counterspy John Schindler later noted that Israeli intelligence officials viewed MEGA as a vehicle for espionage and influence operations in the United States. When the public finally learned that there was a separate entity known as the Mega Group, co-founded by Wexner and Bronfman, speculation about those two stories intensified. No official investigation has fully clarified whether there was any direct link. The timing and overlapping actors have kept the question alive.

Robert Maxwell, PROMIS, and the Surveillance Backdoor

If Epstein and Wexner form one pole of this saga, Robert Maxwell forms another. The British media tycoon and father of Ghislaine Maxwell has long been described as a Mossad asset. Gordon Thomas and other researchers chronicled his activities in works like Robert Maxwell Israel’s Superspy.

Maxwell maintained close business ties to Charles Bronfman, as highlighted by MintPress News. He allegedly helped Israeli intelligence distribute a modified version of the PROMIS software, originally developed by Inslaw for the United States Justice Department as a case management tool that could integrate separate databases and track individuals.

Israeli operatives then allegedly added a secret backdoor to PROMIS and distributed it to foreign governments and sensitive institutions, including nuclear laboratories like Los Alamos, using Maxwell as a salesman. This backdoor allowed covert access to the data of clients who believed they were simply modernizing their information systems. Former intelligence figures, including Ari Ben Menashe, testified that Maxwell brokered deals to sell the enhanced software to Israeli intelligence and other clients.

Maxwell died in 1991 after falling from his yacht under highly suspicious circumstances. Official accounts called it an accident or possible suicide. Many observers suspected a clean-up operation once his role became too visible.

When one places Maxwell’s activities alongside the rise of the Mega Group, the Epstein saga, and Mossad’s documented aggression in the United States, the pattern that appears is less a string of coincidences and more a coherent architecture of covert influence.

Organized Crime and Media Control

Several Mega Group members carried legacies that touched organized crime. Michael Steinhardt’s father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was a mob associate of the Jewish criminal kingpin Meyer Lansky, one of the most powerful figures in twentieth-century organized crime. Accounts of these connections appear in various profiles and analyses of Steinhardt’s life, including critical takes such as the Instagram essay that explores the “Mega Group mafia” idea. The Bronfman empire grew in part through liquor distribution during Prohibition, a sector heavily intertwined with bootlegging networks.

The Mega Group also possessed direct media power thanks to its extensive ties in the English-speaking media world. Wexner served on the board of Hollinger Corporation, which owned the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun Times, and British papers such as the Daily Telegraph. The Bronfmans held a major stake in AOL Time Warner, one of the largest media conglomerates of its day. Ronald Lauder controlled influential outlets in Israel and Eastern Europe.

These holdings did more than shape public opinion. They protected the network itself. Critical coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel remained rare for years, a pattern noted by Electronic Intifada and others who studied how mainstream outlets avoided serious scrutiny of his alleged intelligence connections.

From Philanthropy to Oligarchy

From its founding in 1991 until its last confirmed meeting in 2001 at Edgar Bronfman’s Manhattan mansion, the Mega Group functioned as a private council of oligarchs. At its biannual meetings, wealthy Jewish donors made critical decisions affecting United States policy regarding Israel. Altogether, the group functioned as a de facto informal policymaking body.

After 2001, the Mega Group receded from public view. It may have dissolved. Or, more likely, it may have become even more discreet. What clearly remains is the infrastructure it helped build. Birthright Israel continues to be one of the most successful Jewish educational programs in the world. United Jewish Communities, the umbrella structure created out of earlier federations, still channels billions in annual funds. The World Jewish Congress, now led by Ronald Lauder, remains a major player in global diplomacy.

In the end, the Mega Group’s public footprint may have faded, but the power structures it assembled continue to operate out of sight. The deeper one looks, the less America resembles a self-governing republic and the more it resembles a stage managed by private Jewish networks that answer to no electorate. The greatest mystery is not what the Mega Group once was, but what its successors may now be quietly directing in the shadows.

What Victor Davis Hanson Neglects to Say About Pearl Harbor

/7 Comments/in /by

Once again, historian and conservative pundit Victor Davis Hanson feels the need to play whack-a-mole with World War II revisionism. Whenever it rears its ugly mug in mainstream society—often thanks to a free-thinking guest on Tucker Carlson’s podcast—Hanson dutifully reinforces the official, government-approved account of how the United States entered the war.  According to the narrative, President Franklin Roosevelt abhorred war and reluctantly entered the global conflict only after his hand was forced by the nefarious Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Most recently, Hanson posted a ten-minute video entitled “America Didn’t Provoke Japan—Here’s What Really Led to Pearl Harbor” on his Daily Signal YouTube channel. In it he does not even attempt to refute revisionism; he merely assures his viewers that revisionists are wrong, as if that alone would do the trick. The vast swaths of revisionist evidence he neglects to mention speaks either to his incompetence, dishonesty, or both. He also fails to describe revisionism beyond what he put in his video’s title—that revisionists believe the US provoked Japan, and not the other way around. His efforts are so tired and lame that, in rebuking him like this, I almost feel guilty for beating up on an old man.

Yet I must—despite the fact that I appreciate most of his takes not involving World War II or the Jewish Question. If revisionism needs to go down, then let it go down after a fair fight. Unfortunately, Hanson does not offer one, and thus cannot be allowed to run victory laps after exploiting the ignorance of his audience and telling them that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason.”

[G]iven that we’re in the era of revisionism, especially about World War II, I think it’s wise if we just review what Pearl Harbor was about. Remember, the United States was not at war. The war had broken out in Europe on September 1st, 1939. So all of the last four months of 39, all of 40 and most of 41 . . . the United States had watched the Germans absorb most of Western Europe and the Balkans and had been in Russia. And at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, they were at the gates of Moscow, literally at the first subway station. So it seemed that they would take Russia. Meanwhile, the Japanese had done two things. They had invaded China again a second time in 1937, and they had half of what is now China under Japanese control in addition to . . . what is now South and North Korea.

And remember that the European colonial powers, the Netherlands and France had ceased to exist as independent countries. So their colonial possessions in the Pacific, specifically the bread basket of Asia in the Mekong Delta of Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, were no longer under independent French control. And the Japanese had absorbed them. But more importantly, what is now Indonesia, then called the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch had control of these islands. They were very rich in oil. The Dutch Shell Oil Company had substantial oil wells on there and the Japanese wanted to absorb those. It was that context that they attacked us. We didn’t attack them.

Hanson then contends that the Japanese had claimed they wanted peace while plotting war. He also implies that the United States had the right to check Japanese expansion because the territories they were conquering did not belong to them. This justified the oil embargo FDR leveled against them because “we had no other mechanism to convince them to get out of China.” This made America the innocent victim on December 7th, 1941.

It’s a nice story from an American viewpoint, but is it true? Revisionists say no. And if Victor Davis Hanson ever wants to convince someone even slightly acquainted with revisionism about the innocence of FDR, he should first mention the main proponents of revisionism and describe their works. These include Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, George Morgenstern, William Henry Chamberlain, Charles Tansill, and others. Then he will need to address the following points (all raised by Barnes in Barnes Against the Blackout, published in 1991 by the Institute of Historical Review), which threaten the accepted narrative about Pearl Harbor:

  1. Did FDR, at his very first cabinet meeting in March 1933, not float the idea of war with Japan as a way to end the Great Depression? (pp. 72, 87)
  2. Did the US not pressure Chiang Kai-shek of China to provoke the Japanese prior to the fighting at the Marco Polo Bridge in July 1937? (p. 89)
  3. Did the Japanese in late 1940 not offer to retreat back to Manchuria if given, in the words of Barnes, “a little time and a face-saving formula” only to have the offer contemptuously rejected by FDR? (p. 85)
  4. Did Secretary of War Henry Stimson not write of the Japanese thirteen days before Pearl Harbor, “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (p. 213)
  5. Did Roosevelt and Winston Churchill not plot America’s “backdoor to war” through Japan when they met in Newfoundland in August 1941? (p. 91)

After this Hanson must address the following points raised by Navy veteran Robert Stinnett in his 1999 work Day of Deceit which all but proves that FDR goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor:

  1. Did the Eight-Point McCollum Memorandum, written in October 1940, not outline the strategy the US employed during the 14-month lead up to the attack? (p. 6-10)
  2. Did US cryptoanalysis not break Japanese codes and reveal that US forces knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it? (pp. 21-23, 226–229)
  3. Was Pacific Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel not kept in the dark regarding this cryptoanalysis? (pp. 66-67, 79-81, 223)
  4. Were there not 129 intercepts of Japanese naval communication between November 15 and December 6, 1941, which busted the myth of Japanese “radio silence” as their ships sailed towards Pearl Harbor? (p. 208-210)

Hanson should keep in mind that these nine points come from a mere two sources and represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Pearl Harbor revisionism. Of course, it would be unreasonable to ask him to debunk it all in one YouTube video, but it would be (and was) equally unreasonable for him to attempt  to debunk it all without the slightest mention of the these or any other revisionist points. Barnes describes this high-handed approach as one of the methods used by the “court historians” of his day to deal with revisionists: they “overlook the decisive evidence which would overthrow their basic thesis.”

I am not arguing that the Japanese were completely blameless or always told the truth or did not commit atrocities. Hanson makes it clear how lethal, cruel, and expansionist the Japanese armed forces were. One can argue that this was reason enough for America’s entry into the war. Despite documenting all the skullduggery surrounding the Pearl Harbor cover-up, Stinnett himself justifies the subterfuge and exonerates FDR and his people for committing it.

This, of course, does not refute revisionism. One can espouse a revisionist view of history and America’s entry into World War II at the same time. It would just require a good deal of study and thought—which Stinnett undoubtedly put in. The problem is that for the vast majority of people (who don’t think and study as much as Stinnett did), supporting America’s entry into the war would be a lot easier if the revisionists were wrong and the court historians were correct. This is where history becomes political. Victor Davis Hanson, despite his conservative bone fides, wants to maintain the founding myth of modern liberalism—that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were the embodiment of evil, and anyone who had truck with them were evil as well. Given the highly disproportionate control Jews have over almost every aspect of Western culture and politics these days, this founding myth must not be challenged, truth be damned. Pearl Harbor revisionism, if left unchecked, has two uncomfortable outcomes for such people: it humanizes the Japanese, and it leads to D-Day revisionism, which could result in humanizing the Nazis and Adolf Hitler as well. And this terrifies the Jews.

To prevent this from happening, Hanson simply sweeps revisionism under the rug and does not dignify it with a counter argument. To those who actually pay attention to him, however, this is hardly convincing. Here is Hanson discussing Pearl Harbor in August of this year, giving his halfhearted approval of revisionism (emphasis mine):

I do know that FDR ordered in May of 1940, Admiral Richardson, the head of the Seventh Fleet, to move the base in San Diego all the way to Pearl Harbor. And he said, “I’m putting my head in a noose. The Seventh Fleet is not able to deter the Japanese Imperial Fleet in the Pacific. If you put me way out in the middle of nowhere in Hawaii, I will not have the infrastructure, the air support that I would have in San Diego.” And he kept complaining and they relieved him. Then Admiral Kimmel took over and he was relieved of command. I think 3 weeks afterwards, he was the fall guy. And out of that came a conspiracy that Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions, putting us out very vulnerable so we would be attacked. There may be some truth to that, but the idea that there’s a big untold story of Pearl Harbor is not true. We pretty much know that Roosevelt wanted to get in the war sooner or later. He felt that Europe would fall and he underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy, but he didn’t plan to have Pearl Harbor attacked.

Hanson’s viewers should ask him the following question: If there is “some truth” to the idea that “Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions,” why is he now claiming that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason?”

Victor Davis Hanson can’t have it both ways.

War and peace

/9 Comments/in /by

This article was originally published in Danish on December 5, 2025.

War is one of the fundamental conditions of humanity, and it was originally a factor of selection. The best were those who survived. However, war has developed into mass extermination, where it is often the best who are killed. During the Thirty Years’ War, what is now Germany lost more than 25% of its population. In World War I, the British lost so many capable people that it became difficult to continue administering India – in 1947, the “Crown Jewel” had to be abandoned. World War II cost so many lives that no one can put a credible figure on it. At least 27 million Soviet citizens, 2 million Germans alone during the post-war expulsion – the number of soldiers killed in German units amounts to at least 5.5 million. Added to this are British, French, Japanese, American, and other soldiers, bombing victims, especially in Germany, but also in England, victims of the siege of Leningrad (at least 1.5 million), the German policy of starvation towards Russian prisoners of war (and civilians), the partisan war in Russia, the starvation and random shootings of German or Russian prisoners of war by the Americans, the attempts to exterminate the Jews of Europe, the victims of the bombing of Tokyo, not to mention the victims of the atomic bombs. A total of 70 million in all theatres of war – and that is probably an understatement. And the vast majority of those killed were Europeans of the highest quality – at least 100 million in total in the last century – 100 million who did not have children and grandchildren, etc.

Demographically, Europe cannot afford any more wars – especially not today, when any war is almost certain to develop into a global nuclear war that will destroy all life in Europe – and on the entire planet.

Wars have almost always been a question of power, influence, and enrichment – even if they have sometimes been disguised as religious wars and crusades. With the advent of ideologies, these took the place of religion as the purpose of war. The Soviet Union, for example, had world revolution on its agenda, but it was well aware that this could not be achieved through war, but only perhaps through influence. The Soviet Union’s wars were either directly about defense or security.

With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, the desire to unite one people in one state became a new reason for warfare. A good example is the Schleswig Wars.1 Unreasonable border demarcations after World War I were the immediate trigger for World War II. When the borders were revised after this war, the indigenous population was expelled – which is a crime against humanity. However, Germany was on its knees and could do nothing. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the indigenous populations of the individual Soviet republics were once again ignored. The borders were completely arbitrary and took no account of the nationality of the populations, but were instead an expression of the divide-and-rule principle. This was the trigger for the Ukraine conflict, the problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between Georgia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia – to which Adjara may eventually be added – and for the problems in the Fergana Valley, which have triggered several local conflicts and are a plague on trade and mobility between Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. I often talk to people who regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union—not for political reasons, but for practical ones. In some places, life has become unnecessarily difficult.

With the possible exception of the Soviet Union, foreign policy has traditionally always been interest-based. Individual countries have looked at which policies benefit them. In Germany, the government swears upon taking office to defend Germany’s interests and avert harm from the fatherland. In connection with the Ukraine conflict, this basis for foreign policy seems to have been replaced by a “value-based” foreign policy that takes no account of the interests of the countries involved. However, it is difficult to see what values are being defended. There is talk of Ukraine’s sovereignty and its inviolable borders, but no principled position is taken on what constitutes a country. Is it a random area on the map – or is it a population that feels a connection to a particular area and shares a history, language and culture? It should be obvious that it is a population that constitutes a country. At least, that seems to have been Turkey’s motivation for invading Cyprus and dividing the island, just as it was allegedly the partly Albanian population that defined the “nation” of Kosovo and prompted the US to change the borders in Europe again and install the American protectorate of the same name. Indeed, the entire dissolution of Yugoslavia naturally led to several border changes, which were not even adjusted according to the wishes of the population. This led to the creation of the bastard state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is in fact also a NATO-controlled protectorate that no one really wanted and which has little future. So it is perfectly possible to change borders in Europe and detach areas at will – as long as it is the US doing it.

When Mette Frederiksen defends the war on “moral” grounds and talks about “European values” and the inviolability of borders, she therefore seems to be on very thin ice. At the start of hostilities, more than half of the population of Ukraine spoke Russian as their mother tongue, and in the five oblasts that have joined Russia through referendums, the population is Russian. These were administratively transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1922 and 1954, respectively, without the populations being consulted. At least four other oblasts probably have a Russian majority – the two definitely do. However, the only reasonable way to determine Ukraine’s borders would be through referendums in the individual oblasts – as the Russians have already done in five oblasts. Nevertheless, there will of course still be minorities, and these must naturally be treated in accordance with “European values,” which give minorities the right to education and worship in their own languages and to use their own languages in all contexts. Added to this, of course, is the freedom to produce television programs and publish publications in their own languages. These values are self-evident – even if not all Western countries are good at complying with them. France, for example, violates the rights of linguistic minorities on a daily basis – without any consequences. The conflict should not have been difficult to resolve, had it not been for the fact that the US carried out a coup in Ukraine and the new government changed Ukraine’s constitution, depriving the majority of the population of their linguistic and cultural rights. What Mette Frederiksen supports is a thoroughly corrupt system of oppression without political freedom and without elections, which we would protest against and impose sanctions on anywhere else.

Ukraine has become a pawn in a geopolitical game in which the US insists on determining the world order according to its own ideas. Ever since the Cold War, the US has been working purposefully to encircle Russia. Would the US have accepted such encirclement? No, we know from the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, that it would not. The US has around 800 military bases spread across the globe – why? It is an expression of a failed state’s desperate attempt to cling to world power. But Russia will no longer tolerate it. Four times in the last 300 years, Russia has been attacked through what is now Ukraine – and it will not risk a fifth time.

The West is trying to portray the current conflict as a showdown between “the good” and “the evil” – between ‘democracy’ and “dictatorship” – but this is a primitive division of the world, quite apart from the fact that Russia is not a dictatorship and that America and its vassals are not democracies. The US is a kleptocracy, where a number of oligarchs and interest groups pay politicians to promote certain causes. The most prominent are the Israel lobby, the arms lobby, and the pharmaceutical lobby – but there are, of course, others. While Putin enjoys the support of 80% of the population, Trump has to settle for half that, Starmer for 18%, Macron for 11-16% (depending on who is measuring), and Merz is historically unpopular. After a relatively short time in power, his popularity is below 25% and falling. Elections are rigged, in Germany through vote counting fraud (as in Denmark), in Moldova by de facto preventing opponents from casting their votes, in Romania by excluding unwanted candidates, in Germany by attempting to ban opposition parties, and in many other places by using so-called NGOs to pour huge sums of money into election campaigns and support certain candidates from outside. This can be seen, for example, in Georgia and Armenia, and attempts have been made in both Belarus and Russia. Any talk of “democracy” is a lie and a fraud. Within the EU, 85% of all legislation is implemented by bureaucrats who have never been elected by anyone. “No one above and no one beside the national parliament” has become an empty phrase.

Everyone has their fingers deep in the honey pot. Corruption in Ukraine is well known, but the US is at least as corrupt, and Denmark cannot claim to be free of it either – but we have decided that we do not have corruption, so we do not investigate it. But it is very telling that washed-up politicians can always find well-paid sinecures in the business world…. My guess is that all Western politicians are profiting handsomely from this war, in which the Ukrainians are merely pawns. Ukraine is no longer demographically viable, but that does not concern Mette Frederiksen and the other gang members at home and abroad. It is not their children who are dying – the fighting is not taking place in their living rooms, and it is not they who are lacking electricity, water, and heat – it is the Ukrainians, and they are not being asked if they want to go to war. As mentioned, there have been no elections in Ukraine for ages. Zelensky was elected on a peace platform. Ukraine is now a dictatorship – effectively run by a gang of gangsters who only have their own bank accounts in mind. Zelensky’s family is not in Ukraine. His wife and children are in England, his parents are in Israel – together with members of the government who have fled as a result of corruption charges.

All this talk about Ukraine defending our freedom is obviously nonsense. What on earth would Russia want with us? We have absolutely nothing that Russia needs – or wants. We only have economic and demographic problems, foreign hordes ravaging our streets, gender confusion, and pride parades. We have no raw materials, soon no industry – and a level of education that can only provoke laughter in Russia. We are not worth a drop of Russian blood! Unfortunately!

Countries that oppress large Russian minorities – i.e. Estonia, Latvia and, to a lesser extent, Lithuania – should, however, come to their senses and give these minorities back their rights. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will share the fate of Ukraine. NATO will not be able to save them; indeed, NATO will hardly survive Ukraine’s fall, and the same fate may well befall the EU. At least, that is to be hoped.

Our politicians seem to be basing their views on Francis Fukuyama’s thesis that the victory of “democracy” over communism marks the end of history, since, in Fukuyama’s opinion, “democracy” is the highest step on the ladder of historical development. Let us just note that “democracy” has only been around for about 150 years and that it is a dangerous path that will lead to the downfall of culture and humanity if it is not stopped. This does not mean that we should have a dictatorship in the classical sense, but that we must ensure that it is not the majority that decides, but the best and most highly educated of the nation. What eighteen-year-old schoolgirls think is completely irrelevant. If we are to follow Fukuyama’s and Mette Frederiksen’s line of thinking, we are back in the days of the Crusades, when power struggles were camouflaged as noble battles for the victory of good and truth. But they remain power struggles.

The US claims to be “the exceptional nation” – “the shining light on the hill.” In reality, the US is the world’s anus, from which all filth and evil emanates. After World War II, the US was the only significant country that had not suffered significant damage during the war. Its economy was intact, and it was able to take advantage of this by investing in the war-torn countries. The Soviet bloc wisely rejected this form of economic colonization. The US became the world’s policeman, respecting no form of law but only narrow American interests. Over the past 80 years, the US has thus played the role of world ruler with the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to intervene militarily at will without asking anyone – not even the UN or NATO for that matter. During this period, the US has left a trail of blood across the globe. It is time for the US to realize that those days are now over. Both Russia and China want a seat at the table. Peace cannot be achieved through military force, but only through mutual respect and mutual negotiations. This requires knowledge and understanding of other nations’ interests and security. As long as empty-headed fools like Mette Frederiksen, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Kaja Kallas (a particularly malignant and ignorant specimen of homo erectus), and Ursula von der Leyen are directing European foreign policy, peace is impossible. Alliances caused World War I (which no one really wanted), and alliances and interference in other countries’ affairs will cause World War III. Europe’s insane and incompetent so-called leaders want World War III to cover up their incompetence, and as already mentioned, it will at least lay waste to Europe—perhaps the whole world.

Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

Translated with the help of AI

Note

  1. A summary of the Schleswig Wars – made with Grok
    The “Schleswig Wars” refer to two connected 19th-century conflicts over the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.1. First war (1848–51): Danish nationalists vs. German nationalists + Prussia. Denmark barely kept the duchies because the Great Powers forced Prussia to back off.

    2. Second war (1864): Bismarck used the issue as a pretext to humiliate Denmark and later Austria. Denmark lost the duchies forever.

    The wars were a classic 19th-century clash of rising nationalism (Danish vs. German) combined with dynastic succession complications and great-power politics (especially Bismarck’s masterful manipulation). The modern border between Denmark and Germany (fixed in a 1920 plebiscite after World War I) still roughly follows the linguistic/ethnic line from the 1860s. ↩︎

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

/9 Comments/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blood, sweat and fears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass the sick bucket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhetoric, Persuasion, and the Holocaust

/10 Comments/in /by

Contending With the Holocaust as a Tool of Extortion and Manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

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

Notes

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

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

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

4

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

5

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

 

6

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

7

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