The October 7 Shock Is Driving Some Jews to Trump.

/8 Comments/in /by

Just as the upheavals of the 1960s sent led to neoconservatism among a significant number of Jews, the shock of October 7 has once again opened a path rightward—this time toward sitting President Donald Trump.

Bill Ackman, billionaire hedge fund CEO and Harvard alumnus, became the most visible example. Starting November 2023, Ackman became obsessed with campus antisemitism at his alma mater. In an open letter to then-Harvard President Claudine Gay, he wrote: “The situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.” He detailed how “Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted.” Ackman warned that failure to act could jeopardize “important sources of Harvard’s revenues.” Claudine Gay was replaced by a Jewish interim president.

In October 2024, explaining his Trump endorsement, Ackman wrote: “A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support @realDonaldTrump for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats.” He emphasized: “Some have accused me of supporting Trump because doing so will somehow benefit me financially. Fortunately, I do not need any financial benefits as I and my family have well more than we need.”

Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, donated over $100 million to pro-Trump groups in 2024, emerging as Trump’s single largest donor. While the Adelsons had long been Republican megadonors, Miriam’s massive 2024 spending reflected intensified commitment following October 7. At the Israeli Knesset, Trump acknowledged her influence, stating she “loves Israel maybe even more than America.” Her contributions, along with those of other Jewish billionaires such as Jeffrey Yass, Paul Singer, Jan Koum, and the late Bernie Marcus have “pulled public policy on Israel away from the general public’s opinion,” noted Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, a more moderate-presenting pro-Israel lobbying organization.

Marc Rowan, billionaire CEO of Apollo Global Management, emerged after October 7 as a prominent voice pushing universities to address campus antisemitism. He lambasted the University of Pennsylvania’s response, telling CNBC show Squawk Box: “Microaggressions are condemned with extreme moral outrage and yet violence, particularly violence against Jews, antisemitism, seems to have found a place of tolerance on the campus.” Rowan has a history of donating to both parties. For example, he has donated to Democratic senators such as Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harry Reid, and Blanche Lincoln. By late 2024, Rowan was reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for Treasury Secretary.

Political activist Shabbos Kestenbaum personified the Jewish Democratic-to-Trump convert. A Harvard Divinity School graduate and registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders, Jamaal Bowman, and Joe Biden, Kestenbaum announced his Trump endorsement in September 2024. Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition convention, he explained: “I did not support Trump in 2016, I did not support Trump in 2020. Hell, I did not support Trump six months ago. Nobody’s perfect.” However, he stressed, “The Democratic party has taken the Jewish vote and Jewish voters for granted for far too long. I will be supporting, I will be endorsing, I will be voting for President Trump.”

Kestenbaum revealed that after months of attempting to cooperate with the Harris campaign, as well as with the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress, Kestenbaum ultimately concluded that although he hadn’t voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, he would back him in 2024, believing Trump to be the “only realistic and viable option for American Jewry.” He stressed: “The Trump campaign invited me and other college students to sit, front row, as President Trump not only condemned antisemitism but clearly articulated the policies he would implement to combat it. The Harris campaign delivered no such promises.” Despite supporting Trump, Kestenbaum maintained he still backs progressive policies including a $15 minimum wage, reproductive choice, and progressive taxation. He proclaimed, “I did not abandon the Democratic party. The Democratic party abandoned me.”

Polling data reveals modest but measurable rightward movement among Jewish voters post-October 7, though the majority has remained Democratic. Vice President Kamala Harris won 71% of the Jewish vote compared to 26% for Trump, according to the Jewish Electorate Institute. However, Trump’s 32% share according to Fox News exit polling marked “the highest number for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988.” The Republican Jewish Coalition emphasized Trump’s historic gains with Jewish voters: 38% in Arizona, 42% in Nevada, 44% in Florida, 46% in New York, and 41% in Pennsylvania.

The most remarkable shift occurred among Orthodox Jews, who voted for Trump at 74%. This contrasted sharply with Reform Jews (84% for Harris), Conservative Jews (75% for Harris), and non-denominational Jews (70% for Harris).

A 2025 UJA-Federation of New York study found that 22% of Jewish New Yorkers reported becoming more conservative since October 7, compared to 13% who became more liberal, while 65% reported no change. Among those already conservative in 2023, 46% became even more conservative by 2025. Additionally, 49% reported their attachment to Israel had become stronger since October 7, especially among moderates (70%) and conservatives (62%), compared to just 33% of liberals.

In sum, the evidence indicates an emerging trend rather than wholesale realignment, but the direction is unmistakable. What’s unfolding with American Jewry’s rightward shift isn’t a principled conversion but a strategic repositioning. Jewish political activists have mastered the art of maintaining powerful voices across the entire political spectrum, ensuring that no matter which faction gains power, Jewish interests are represented at the highest levels and their racial will to power is realized.

The neoconservatives of the 1960s perfected this playbook. They did not simply defect from the Left; they penetrated the conservative movement, refashioned it, and aligned its priorities with their own communal interests. The consequences were unmistakable. Figures on the Right who once embodied older traditions—skepticism of mass migration, hostility toward compulsory racial integration, and opposition to foreign entanglements—were steadily purged from positions of influence and denied any real livelihood within Conservatism Inc. In their place, a cadre of Jewish neoconservative operatives rose to the helm and steered the movement according to their own ethnic imperatives.

What we are witnessing is not a political anomaly but an attempt at historical recurrence. Just as in the 1960s–1990s, Jewish power brokers are trying to reorganize the Right to their advantage, and at least some in the conservative movement are knuckling under to their influence. There is a pervasive fear among conservatives opposed to this influence that the GOP will revert to its neoconservative trajectory when Trump leaves —although Trump himself has obviously made peace with the pro-Israel pro-intervention activists, many of whom, like Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol deserted him in 2016. How else explain the U.S. joining Israel in bombing Iran? Indeed, the neocons never really left their positions of power in the foreign policy establishment.

The problem for the neocons this time around is that in the pre-internet, pre-podcast 1960s–1980s there were no popular voices representing paleoconservative ideas and the mainstream media was completely locked down with pro-Israel shills and didn’t raise a peep when paleoconservatives were pushed out of positions of power in mainstream conservativism during the Reagan administration. Now there are voices like Tucker Carlson with very large followings who have continued to be part of the mainstream Right despite being called “anti-Semites,” despite their opposition to foreign entanglements (not only in the Middle East but also in Ukraine), despite their open criticism of the Israel Lobby and advocating that pro-Israel organizations be forced to register as foreign agents, despite calling Christian Zionism a “heresy,” and despite their open hostility to figures like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz with their often-declared fealty to Israel despite its ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and its genocide in Gaza.

So this isn’t over. Jewish neocons have been around for a long time and anyone paying attention sees them coming and knows them for what they are: Jewish ethnic activists who see genuine American interests as a distant second to their overriding concern with Jewish interests. Or they are ambitious traitors like Cruz who believe that continuing to support neoconservative ideas on foreign policy is the key to attaining the White House. In other words, a typical sociopathic American politician for whom power is all that matters.

 

The Real Story Behind Trump’s Pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández

/6 Comments/in , /by

The story of a man who turned a lifetime of pro-Israel service into the ultimate form of political protection.

The news came in quietly from a federal prison in West Virginia. Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras once sentenced to spend most of the rest of his life behind bars, had walked out of Hazelton penitentiary a free man.

According to an AP report, Hernández had received a presidential pardon from Donald Trump after a conviction that tied him to hundreds of tons of cocaine shipped into the United States. On paper, this was a spectacular reversal of fortune for a man whom federal prosecutors had branded the head of a Central American narco state. In practice, it looked like something else. It looked like a reward for loyalty to the one cause that towers above all others in Washington and in Trump world.

Hernández did not rise overnight. He entered Congress in the late 1990s, representing the rural department of Lempira, and spent more than a decade climbing inside the National Party machine. He then became president of the National Congress and finally president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022. While he projected the image of a tough conservative modernizer at home, another storyline unfolded in U.S. courtrooms.

Federal prosecutors charged him with a vast cocaine conspiracy involving the movement of multi-ton loads into the United States and with the possession of machine guns and other weapons in support of that network. The Justice Department later described his administration as a narco state fueled by millions in cartel bribes. Testimony and media investigations painted an even darker picture. According to Democracy Now, Hernández allegedly used Honduran security forces to protect drug shipments, partnered with major traffickers including the Sinaloa cartel, and used drug money to build his own political power. His brother Tony Hernández ended up with a life sentence in a U.S. prison on similar charges.

Court filings and investigative reports in outlets like CNN repeatedly tied the sitting Honduran president to drug traffickers. U.S. prosecutors said he took payoffs from drug networks as early as 2004. Hernández’s story also intersected with one of Honduras’s most prominent Jewish families. Prosecutors alleged that he received bribe payments and other favors from the Rosenthal family, a powerful clan of Romanian-Jewish origin led by Jaime Rosenthal, whose Grupo Continental controlled Banco Continental, a soccer club, and auto import businesses, as reported by Reuters.

The Rosenthal patriarch, a frequent Liberal Party presidential hopeful of Romanian Jewish extraction, stood near the top of the Honduran economic and political pyramid for decades. For his part, Hernández treated that network as another source of money and influence. A Univision investigation detailed allegations that he used drug money to finance political campaigns. After his arrest, Honduran authorities seized dozens of properties, vehicles, businesses, and other assets linked to his family.

The saga culminated in extradition to the United States in 2022. A New York jury convicted Hernández in March 2024, and a federal judge handed down a 45-year sentence plus supervised release in June of that year. By any normal standard, this was the end of the story. A disgraced former head of state, proven in court to have worked hand in glove with drug traffickers, destined to spend the rest of his days in prison.

However, Hernández did not bet his future on normal standards. For decades, he had invested in a different kind of protection. That protection wore a blue and white flag with a Star of David at the center.

His relationship with Israel began long before he held national office. As a young man in the early 1990s, Hernández traveled to Israel under the auspices of Mashav, the Israeli Agency for International Development Cooperation. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted that he completed a Mashav enrichment course in 1992, at the beginning of his diplomatic career.

Three decades later, at the opening of the Honduran embassy in Jerusalem, Hernández stood before an audience and called that first visit to Israel a “life-changing” experience. He said the trip had shaped his view of security, agriculture, and innovation.

Once he entered the presidential palace, Hernández turned that personal link into state doctrine. In October 2015, he arrived in Jerusalem as head of state and told an audience convened by the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and the World Jewish Congress that “As long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel.” The World Jewish Congress described the event in glowing terms and singled out his declaration that ties between the two countries had never been closer.

This was not idle rhetoric. Hernández set out to reposition Honduras as one of the most reliable pro-Israel governments in Latin America. Honduran and Israeli diplomats had initially signed formal relations in the 1950s, and Honduras had allowed Jewish immigration during the Second World War. Under Hernández, those historical connections became the foundation for a new foreign policy.

He adjusted the Honduran voting record at the United Nations so that his country would abstain from or oppose resolutions deemed hostile to Israeli interests. During the 2017 General Assembly vote that condemned the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem, Honduras was one of only a tiny group of countries that sided with Washington and Israel against the overwhelming majority.

Hernández also opened a diplomatic and trade office in Jerusalem, signaling recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. He then promised to relocate the full Honduran embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, issuing joint statements with Israeli and U.S. officials that set public deadlines for that step. In June 2021, he completed the move. At the inauguration, Hernández proclaimed that he was “here today in the eternal capital of Israel” and vowed to work “against antisemitism, often presented as anti Zionism,” as quoted by Israel Hayom.

Israel rewarded this loyalty with gestures of its own. It agreed to reopen its embassy in Tegucigalpa and provided security cooperation, technical assistance and emergency relief after devastating hurricanes and during the early stages of the COVID era.

Furthermore, Hernández pushed Honduras into the orbit of Christian Zionist networks. The Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, an institution that promotes Christian support for Israel and campaigns against antisemitism and BDS, gave him its Friends of Zion Award in 2019 for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and for his diplomatic support. The Friends of Zion Museum and the Jerusalem Post emphasized that he now shared an honor roll with figures like Donald Trump and other leaders celebrated for their pro-Israel policies.

In the security arena, Hernández took positions that aligned perfectly with Washington and Tel Aviv. His government designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a move welcomed by major American Jewish groups. This decision mirrored similar steps by other U.S.-aligned governments in the region–such as Argentina under Mauricio Macri–and confirmed that Tegucigalpa had no intention of straying from the Judeo-American consensus on Middle East security.

Even when the walls began to close in, Hernández treated Israel as his ultimate safety net. As his legal exposure increased and the prospect of extradition grew more likely, he reportedly turned to Israeli officials to ask for help in delaying or preventing his transfer to U.S. authorities. The Times of Israel reported that plea and underscored Hernández’s assumption that his years of unwavering support had earned him political capital in Jerusalem.

That calculation looked naïve when he arrived in New York in chains. It looks far more rational now that Donald Trump has delivered a pardon.

Trump himself cultivated a brand as perhaps the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S embassy there, backed the annexation of the Golan Heights, and surrounded himself with advisers and donors who made support for Israel a central test of loyalty. The Friends of Zion Museum honored him with the same award it later gave Hernández, presenting both men as partners in a shared historic mission.

So when Trump announced in late 2025 that he would pardon Hernández, it was natural for mainstream outlets to emphasize the legal controversy and the scale of the drug conspiracy. But there is another thread that runs from the Mashav classroom in the early 1990 to the Jerusalem embassy ribbon cutting to the moment the gates opened at Hazelton. That thread is the politics of Zionism in the Americas and the unwritten rule that governs advancement and protection in that world.

Hernández spent his adult life proving that he would stand behind Israel. He did it in the United Nations chamber, in ceremonial torch-lighting invitations, in embassy relocations, in his fights against BDS and in his designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. He did it in speeches where he promised that “as long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel” and in the moment when he described Jerusalem as the “eternal capital of Israel.”

Trump saw that record and recognized a fellow shabbos goy. He understood that this was not just a corrupt Central American politician but a loyal member of a global pro-Israel camp who had delivered meaningful victories in a region where Israel has long worked to secure dependable allies. In a political universe where servility to world J ewry carries more weight than any anti-corruption sermon, Hernández did not just have a lawyer. He had a patron.

The pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández is therefore more than a quirky case of presidential clemency. It is a message about the real hierarchy of values in U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era. Flooding American streets with cocaine will not necessarily erase your credit if you have spent years moving embassies to Jerusalem, voting the right way at the United Nations, and branding your small Central American country as an extension of Israel’s diplomatic network.

In that world, a man who helped turn his own nation into a narco playground can still find a way out of a 45-year sentence, as long as his record on Zionism is pure and his friendship with the most pro-Zionist president in modern U.S. history remains intact. For Juan Orlando Hernández, that friendship did not simply buy influence. It bought his freedom.

From José Niño Unfiltered on Substack. Definitely worth supporting.

Israeli-tainted Irishman slithers into World Bank job

/6 Comments/in /by

Paschal O’Donohoe with Janet Yellen

Paschal O’Donohoe has been Finance Minister here for eight years, on and off. He has wrecked the place. Now he is moving onto the world stage. God help the world.

“Paschal brings more than twenty years of public service, and knows firsthand how good policies can unleash private capital mobilization, boost growth, and generate jobs,” said World Bank Group President Ajay Banga.

His main “good policy” was the importation of at least a million foreigners in ten years. He did it in the face of sustained widespread protests. We ethnic Irish are only 4 million and there are at least 1.5million foreigners. As Paschal jets off to the U.S., the foreigners are pouring in it at at least 120,000 a year and quite possibly twice that.. The government and every single opposition party supports Paschal’s latest plan (“Future Forty: Ireland’s demographic outlook”) which burbles cheerfully that our aging population needs lots of immigration. They predict a total population of close to eight million by 2065. At the rate they are flooding in, it might be sooner than that. At the same time, politicians reassure us that there is too much immigration and that they are doing things to reduce it. It is pure Doublespeak.

Paschal is the smiling, mild-mannered mastermind of the Great Replacement in the Emerald Isle. They have promoted him as a reward. He is delighted with himself and cannot wait to leave boring old Ireland and strut his stuff in Washington, DC.

Unless we stop him, he will Great Replace the whole world. Even the African will not be immune from Paschal’s enthusiasm. Already in the Ivory Coast and in South Africa, African governments are importing foreign blacks. What madness will Paschal do in Africa?

He boasted on radio that his main achievement was that there were a half million more people working in Ireland than when he started. He is happy with the disastrous and hugely unpopular mass migration.

He smirks that he will get on fine with Trump who is continuing to fund and participate in the World Bank. He knows Trump is on Team Israel, and so is Paschal. Paschal is very much on Team Israel.

Paschal spent six years in Britain working for Proctor and Gamble. Did he make his first Jewish contacts there? The Israelis clearly love him and he loves them. Since 2018 Irish politicians have supported a bill to boycott products from Israel’s occupied territories. Although almost every single politician supports the boycott in principle, they have not managed to pass the law. Even the two years of Gaza massacres could not speed things up.

The Ditch.com reports that in 2019 Paschal took a call from Israeli finance minister Moshe Kahlon. They want him to stop the bill. Don’t worry, he tells them. We’ll slow it down. And he did. They still haven’t passed the bill, six years later.

Paschal denies that “a call of that nature” ever happened. He helpfully added that he would make no further comment.

But he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Perhaps in his new job, some journalist will be brave enough to ask him about that call. They should also ask him if he ever met Epstein. Jeffrey stopped in Ireland three times. The dates fit, so it’s possible.

For context, an Irishman who wished to call the Minister and discuss some matter of concern would be insulted, patronised and openly threatened if he persisted in trying to contact the Minister. Our ever so-sensitive Simon Harris is our new Finance Minister. He recently got the cops to arrest a civilian employee of theirs working in cyber crime. The cyber guy is accused of making threats against Simon who is possibly Jewish. But it seems that he was just posing questions. I wonder what questions they were?

When Paschal was a young man, the Irish government was able to pass a law in 24 hours. It was written, debated, voted and signed by the President in that time. It was brought in to benefit one man: The Irishman with the Anglo-Jewish surname, the fabulously wealthy beef baron Larry Goodman. Larry had sold a couple of hundred million of beef on credit to Saddam Hussein. When the war came, Larry had a cashflow problem. So he made the call and got the government to jump to it and pass a law.

Is it not a remarkable contrast how quickly they passed the Goodman law and how they still cannot pass the Palestine law? No wonder the Israelis closed their Dublin embassy. They don’t need it. The Israeli minister calls the Irish minister in charge and Paddy just does what he is asked to do.

Paschal served the Israelis as Irish Finance minister. He will serve them in the World Bank also.

A Modest proposal to deal with Paschal.

Let’s drive him to a total nervous breakdown. He is half mad already. If he gets lots of in your face anti-migration, anti-Israel sentiment in his circles in Washington, this will have an effect ón him. A cabinet colleague of his, Eoghan Murphy, went mad while in office. On an escape holiday to London, he ended up running through the streets all night in a panic. He attributed his breakdown to critical remarks to his face by members of the general public and the evil nature of his political colleagues. Murphy says he was trying to do something positive for housing, but it was clear that Paschal and Leo Varadkar didn’t care.

Trump is talking tough about deporting the Third World. One growl from Trump, or even Vance and Paschal would scuttle back home. Can US politicians be incentivised to criticise Paschal for the darkie disaster he has inflicted ón Ireland and plans to inflict on the whole world, including Africa? Can Irish Americans call for his deportation because of his treachery to dear old Ireland? Can the anti-Epstein lobby jump on him? After all, he paid the monies for the airport authorities who lost the Epstein flight logs and never investigated it. Can Black politicians attack him? He is going to mess around with tribal dynamics in Mother Africa. Can some decent trad Catholic bishop roast him as a baby killer? He signed the check for every fully funded recreational abortion.

Can the suddenly huge anti-Israel lobby in the US attack him? Would Carlson Tucker do an interview with him and ask him about his support for Israel? Paschal has enabled the Gaza massacres — the quickest route for US-Israeli arms shipments is through Irish skies. Sometimes they even stop and refuel in Shannon. Paschal’s government has strongly condemned the genocide but it has not stopped Israelis flying their weapons through.

Under his rule, Ireland is the second biggest market for Israeli goods — machinery and electronics mostly. (We also export huge amounts of blood and blood products to our Israeli fellow humans, although the Irish Blood Transfusion Board deny this completely. Central Statistics Office numbers aggregate our animal and human blood exports. Strange that they aggregated those numbers…)

As a deliberate distraction media here is full of talk about Israel in the Eurovision song contest and the possibility of switching the name Herzog Park to commemorate instead an innocent Palestinian child killed by the Israelis. Jewish voices, including a chap from Holocaust Awareness Ireland, strongly argued against this name change, claiming that it would mean an erasure of their history.

Paschal portrays himself as a pleasant, good-as-gold,Mommy’s Boy type. Slightly autistic genius — he has collections of various dolls. He is supposedly heterosexual and married with children. It seems the wife and family will stay in Dublin as Paschal goes to Great Replace the world from his Washington DC office.

He is potentially vulnerable to good looking young men or women who have hidden cameras. Get him talking on the subject of mass migration and you could have some dynamite quotes. Mememasters can have great fun with his flabby and ugly face.

The previous World bank MD lasted 37 years. Let us push Paschal out in one.

Beir Bua!

Ganainm publishes at https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/.

Legale Hexerei und Umkehrung der Opferrolle

/in /by

Trotz der lobenswerten Bemühungen von Präsident Donald Trump und Außenminister Marco Rubio, die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit auf die zunehmende Unterdrückung der Meinungsfreiheit in der EU aufmerksam zu machen, sind sowjetische Rechtspraktiken in bestimmten Bereichen der EU-Justiz nach wie vor weit verbreitet. Um es klarzustellen: Der Zweite Weltkrieg ist nie wirklich beendet worden; er befindet sich lediglich in einem verlängerten verbalen Konflikt, der möglicherweise wieder gewalttätige und kriegerische Ausmaße annehmen könnte.

Der jüngste Fall ist der von Martin Pfeiffer, dem ehemaligen österreichischen Redakteur der inzwischen eingestellten Literaturzeitschrift Die Aula, der am 3. Dezember dieses Jahres wegen „erneuter Beteiligung an nationalsozialistischen Aktivitäten“ gemäß Paragraph 3g des Verbotsgesetzes zu vier Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt wurde .

Die Staatsanwaltschaft hatte rund 300 Artikel aus der inzwischen eingestellten Zeitschrift „Aula“ vorgelegt, die unter anderem rassistische Ideologie und Antisemitismus verbreitet haben sollen. Diese Artikel wurden während der teils langwierigen Verhandlungstage einzeln mit der Jury besprochen. Pfeiffer, damals Chefredakteur und gleichzeitig Bezirksabgeordneter der FPÖ in Graz, hat alle Vorwürfe stets zurückgewiesen. Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft ihm vor, in „Aula“ Rassismus, die Lehre von der Herrenrasse und ethnischem Nationalismus, ein biologisch rassistisches Konzept des „Volkes“ sowie nationalsozialistische Rassentheorien verbreitet zu haben.

Die Zeitschrift befasste sich selten mit ideologischen Themen, sondern konzentrierte sich stattdessen auf kulturelle Themen und die Idee des Imperiums – Themen, die eng mit der konservativen Partei Österreichs, der FPÖ, verbunden sind.

Auffällig ist, dass die Gesetze, auf deren Grundlage Pfeiffer angeklagt wurde – insbesondere Paragraph 3g des 1947 erlassenen Verbotsgesetzes – aus der Zeit stammen, als Österreich noch unter der gemeinsamen Besatzung der vier Alliierten stand: Sowjetunion, USA, Großbritannien und Frankreich. Zudem wurde Pfeiffer rückwirkend für Artikel angeklagt, die er zwischen 2005 und 2018 veröffentlicht hatte – in einigen Fällen mehr als fünfzehn Jahre zuvor. Die Justiz in Graz ignorierte dabei sowohl die Verjährungsfrist als auch den Grundsatz „ nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege“ („Kein Verbrechen, keine Strafe ohne vorheriges Gesetz“). Die hochgradig abstrakten, fast unübersetzbaren zusammengesetzten Substantive des deutschen/österreichischen Rechtsjargons – „Wiederbetätigung“, „Volksverhetzung“, usw. – entziehen sich einer präzisen Wiedergabe ins Englische, was ihre Undurchsichtigkeit nur noch verstärkt, wenn man sie aus der Perspektive eines amerikanischen Juristen betrachtet.

Der Fall Pfeiffer zeigt, dass jeder abweichende Autor – ungeachtet seiner politischen Überzeugung oder Nationalität – rückwirkend strafrechtlich verfolgt werden kann, wenn die herrschende Klasse ihn als Störfaktor betrachtet. Diese Taktik der gezielten Verfolgung von „Volksfeinden“ war ein gängiges Instrument der Justiz im gesamten ehemaligen kommunistischen Osteuropa.

Nebenbei bemerkt: Pfeiffers Prozess weist frappierende Ähnlichkeiten mit den zahlreichen Schauprozessen im kommunistischen Jugoslawien auf. 1984 wurde mein verstorbener Vater, ein katholischer Konservativer und ehemaliger Anwalt, wegen „feindlicher Propaganda“ gemäß Artikel 133 des jugoslawischen Strafgesetzbuches („neprijateljska propaganda“, YU-KZ) zu vier Jahren Haft verurteilt. Er hatte anonyme kritische Artikel für die in London erscheinende, zweiwöchentlich erscheinende kroatische Emigrantenzeitschrift „Nova Hrvatska“ verfasst und darin die brutale Unterdrückung begangen zu haben. Deutsche Nationalisten bezeichnen solche denunzianten- NGOs verächtlich als „ Gutmenschen “; ihre französischen Pendants heißen „bien-pensants“ . Im Klartext: Diese sogenannten NGOs stellen die akademische Gedankenpolizei dar.

Am besorgniserregendsten ist jedoch das Klima der angstbedingten Selbstzensur unter europäischen Akademikern. Viele glauben, dass sie ihre Karrieren und Privilegien am besten sichern können, indem sie unpolitisch bleiben, schweigen und keine Wellen schlagen – ein fataler Irrglaube, der von Dissidenten in den ehemaligen kommunistischen Ländern Osteuropas längst widerlegt wurde. Früher oder später wird die Gesinnungspolizei vor ihrer Tür stehen, ungeachtet dessen, wie zurückhaltend sie in ihren früheren politischen Aktivitäten waren.

Im modernen Westen sind Gulags und Erschießungskommandos überflüssig, da raffiniertere Repressionsmethoden weitaus effektiver geworden sind: „Deplatforming“, „Debanking“ oder, noch schlimmer, das, was die Franzosen „ l’inversion accusatoire “ – die „Umkehrung der Anschuldigung“ – nennen. Vereinfacht gesagt bedeutet dies „Umkehrung der Opferrolle“, eine Technik, die einst in der kommunistischen Justiz Osteuropas üblich war: Um die eigenen schweren Verbrechen zu vertuschen, beschuldigt man die Gegenseite noch größerer Verbrechen. Die Dynamik der gegenseitigen Umkehrung der Opferrolle ist heute im Konflikt zwischen der Hamas und der israelischen Armee sichtbar, und viele weitere werden in Kürze folgen.

Viele der juristischen und rhetorischen Taktiken, die jüngst gegen Präsident Trump eingesetzt wurden, haben ihre Wurzeln in der multiethnischen Sowjetunion und im ehemaligen kommunistischen Osteuropa. Folglich greifen europäische Staatsanwälte und Medien bereitwillig zu denselben kommunistischen Schimpfwörtern – „Nazi“, „Ustascha“, „Antisemit“, „White Supremacist“, „Rassist“ –, um politische Dissidenten zu entmenschlichen, während sie die Millionen Opfer kommunistischer Regime zwischen 1945 und 1950 fast nie erwähnen. Präsident Trump ist sich dieser juristischen und semantischen Verschiebungen sicherlich bewusst, da er selbst ähnliche juristische Angriffe seiner inneren Gegner erlitten hat . Die langfristigen Folgen dieser juristischen Farce in der EU und den USA sind völlig vorhersehbar: wachsendes gegenseitiges Misstrauen, eskalierende Konflikte zwischen verschiedenen Ethnien und Bevölkerungsgruppen, institutioneller Zusammenbruch und letztlich der Zusammenbruch des Systems.

Anmerkungen:

Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (Wien und Leipzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997), S. 74.

Alain de Benoist, „Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition“, in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), S. 190–205.

 

Der folgende Artikel wurde erstmals in The Occidental Observer, am 6. Dezember, 2025 veröffentlicht. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/12/06/legal-witchcraft-and-victimhood-inversion/

Legal Witchcraft and Victimhood Inversion theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/12/06/leg…

 

 

Legal Witchcraft and Victimhood Inversion

/11 Comments/in , /by

Honoré Daumier (1808–1879), Two Lawyers Conversing

Despite the commendable efforts of President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio to alert the American public to the rising tide of free-speech suppression in the EU, Soviet-style legal practices in certain segments of the EU judiciary remain very much alive and kicking. Let us be clear: The Second World War has never really ended; it has merely entered a prolonged verbal conflict, potentially on track to assume again violent and war-like dimensions.

The latest case is that of Martin Pfeiffer, former Austrian editor of the now defunct literary magazine Die Aula, who was sentenced on December 3 of this year to four years in prison for “re-engagement in National Socialist activities” under Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz).

The prosecution had listed approximately 300 articles from the now-defunct magazine, which allegedly propagated, among other things, racial ideology and antisemitism. These articles were discussed individually with the jury during sometimes lengthy trial days. Pfeiffer, who was editor-in-chief at the time, was also a district politician for the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Graz and has consistently denied all charges. The prosecution alleges that he provided a platform in “Aula” for racism, master race and ethnic nationalism, a biologically racist concept of “the people,” and National Socialist racial theories.

The magazine  rarely dealt with ideological subjects, focusing instead on cultural themes and the idea of empire—topics closely associated with the conservative party in Austria, the FPÖ.

What is striking is that the laws under which Pfeiffer was indicted—particularly Paragraph 3g of the Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz), enacted in 1947—date from the period when Austria was still under the joint occupation of the four Allied powers: the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom, and France. Moreover, Pfeiffer was prosecuted retroactively for articles he had published between 2005 and 2018—in some cases more than fifteen years earlier. The judiciary in the city  of Graz  simply brushed aside both the statute of limitations and the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (“no crime, no punishment without prior law”). The highly abstract, almost untranslatable compound nouns of German/Austrian legal jargon—Wiederbetätigung (“re-engagement”), Volksverhetzung (“incitement to hatred of the people”), etc., defy precise rendering into English, which only adds to their opacity when viewed through the lens of an American lawyer.

Pfeiffer’s case demonstrates that any dissident author—regardless of his political persuasion or nationality—can be subjected to ex post facto prosecution if the ruling class deems him a nuisance. This tactic of selectively targeting “enemies of the people” was a standard tool of the judiciary throughout former communist Eastern Europe.

In passing, it is worth noting that Pfeiffer’s trial bears a striking resemblance to the many show trials of communist Yugoslavia. In 1984, my late father, a Catholic conservative and former attorney, was sentenced to four years in prison for “hostile propaganda” under Article 133 of the Yugoslav Criminal Code (neprijateljska propaganda, YU-KZ). He had written anonymous critical articles for the London-based Croatian émigré bi-weekly Nova Hrvatska, exposing the communist regime’s harsh repression of the Croatian Catholic Church and culture. He was subsequently adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International and championed by U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, Senator Bob Dole, and several other conservative politicians and journalists, among them Pat Buchanan.

There is a far more scarry dimension to the Pfeiffer’s story. After 1945, both the United States and the nations of Europe were compelled to adopt the model of the “proposition nation”—an abstract political community defined not by historical continuity, race or shared culture, but by universalist, immigrant-welcoming, open-entry-for-all principles. The mass influx of non-European migrants into the EU over the past decade was therefore entirely predictable: it was the logical, even deliberate, outcome of the post-war Allied strategy to suppress Europe’s historic interethnic tensions by diluting the cultural and racial homogeneity of its peoples. Likewise, the introduction of the Schengen open-border regime in 1985 (fully implemented in the 1990s) was perfectly in accordance  with the liberal-capitalist dogma of the “free movement of people and capital.”

Germany was particularly affected by these capitalist open-border policies. As the late German legal scholar Günther Maschke observed, “The German people had to adapt to the constitution, instead of the constitution being adapted to the German people.” German constitutionalism, he continued, has become a kind of “civil religion” in which multiculturalism has replaced traditional national identity with a purely legal construct—what Maschke called an imaginary “Basic Law country.” When this is combined with the quasi-sacralized, unquestionable historical narrative of the Holocaust, the result is a birth of a political entity that should be seen as a “secular theocracy.” Within this framework, the only form of patriotism still tolerated in Germany and Austria is Verfassungspatriotismus—constitutional patriotism.(1)

Victimhood Inversion

Today, core elements of the German and Austrian Criminal Code function in some ways reminiscent of former Soviet criminal law. Germany and Austria must demonstrate, daily, that they can meet their “self-re-education tasks” even more rigorously than its post-WWII mentors. Comparable dynamics exist in other EU member states, where semantic drifts have turned the charges of fascism into an all-purpose label of the ultimate cosmic evil.

Despite the phenomenal rise of right-wing parties across the EU, many judicial institutions—both in Europe and in the United States—remain largely staffed by judges and prosecutors from the post-1968 Marxist-inspired “boomer” generation, along with various former left-wing Antifa activists, modern SJWs and virtue-signalers (2). These judges and prosecutors make little effort to conceal their hatred (and fear) of Trump, while also displaying open hostility toward right-wing populist movements and parties such as the growing AfD in Germany or the FPÖ in Austria. In addition, a network of influential and wealthy non-governmental organizations across Europe, such as the CRIF and LICRA in France, the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung in Germany, and the hard-left DÖW in Austria—operate in a manner comparable to U.S. advocacy groups such as the  ADL or the SPLC. Their primary function, very similar to that of the old Soviet people’s commissariats, is to monitor academics, journalists, and public figures suspected of non-liberal ideological transgressions. German nationalists derisively label such snitching NGO outfits Gutmenschen (“do-gooders”); their French counterparts are called bien-pensants. In plain English, these so-called NGOs represent the academic thought police.

Most worrisome, however, is the climate of fear-induced self-censorship among European academics. Many believe that by remaining apolitical, silent and not rocking the boat they will best safeguard their careers and perks—a grave illusion long disproven by dissidents in the former communist countries of East Europe.  Sooner or later the thought police will show up on their doorstep regardless of how mute they were in their former political activities.

In the contemporary West, there is no need for gulags or firing squads given that more sophisticated methods of repression have become far more effective: deplatforming, debanking, or even worse, what the French call l’inversion accusatoire—the “reversal of the accusation.” Broadly speaking, this means “victimhood inversion”, a technique once common in the communist judiciary of East Europe: to cover up one’s own mega crimes, one accuses the opposing side of even greater crimes. The dynamic of mutual victimhood inversion is visible today in the conflict between the Hamas and IDF with many more to come shortly.

Many of the legal and rhetorical tactics recently deployed against President Trump were pioneered decades ago in the multi-ethnic Soviet Union and throughout the formerly communist Eastern Europe. Consequently, European prosecutors and media outlets eagerly reach for the same communist shut-up nouns—“Nazi,” “Ustasha,” “antisemite,” “white supremacist,” “racist”—in order to dehumanize political dissenters, while almost never mentioning the millions who perished under communist regimes between 1945 and 1950. President Trump is surely well aware of these legal and semantic shifts having himself endured similar “lawfare” waged and  staged by his domestic enemies. The long-term outcome of this judicial parody in both the EU and the United States is entirely predictable: growing mutual distrust, escalating interracial and interethnic conflict, institutional breakdown, and, ultimately, the collapse of the System.

Notes:

  1. Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (Wien und Leipzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997), p.74.
  2. Alain de Benoist, “Die Methoden der Neuen Inquisition,” in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2001), p. 190–205.

Exploring the Nouvelle Droite

/10 Comments/in , /by

European Apostasy: The Role of Religion in the European New Right
Pawel Bielawski
Arktos, 2025

In 1990 Tom Sunic published Against Democracy and Equality.[1] It was the first book-length study of the European New Right in English, and it generated considerable interest among those on the American Right who had nothing but disdain for the Reagan-Bush conservatism of the time. Since then a wealth of Anglophone literature on the subject has become available. A worthy addition to this bibliography is Europe’s Heretics by Polish academic Pawel Bielawski. The book focuses on the intellectual leader of the New Right Alain de Benoist (b. 1943), with an emphasis on the sociology of religion, though Bielawski prefers phrasing it as the political science of religion. In any case there is not much theology in this study of religion.

Bielawski begins by stating that the Nouvelle Droite (ND) New Right is a metapolitical, not a political movement, and neo-paganism is at its heart. There were predecessor organizations, but the ND’s birth can be dated to January 1968 with the founding of the Research and Study Group of European Civilization (GRECE). De Benoist does not like the term Nouvelle Droite coined by the French media, but common usage has made the label stick, and like it or not, the ND is on the Right. What was new in the European New Right was its focus on cultural and philosophical ideas rather than political activism. When Andrew Breitbart informed the mainstream American Right that politics was downstream from culture, he was relaying what the ND had proposed 35 years earlier. Yet the ND readily concedes that it was adopting “Gramscianism from the right.” Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was an Italian Marxist theoretician who stressed changing cultural norms and values as the route to political power.

As Prof. Sunic noted in the work cited above, the Right has not “successfully infiltrated the cultural level of society in order to introduce another ‘counter ideology’ to the masses.” The Right has had disappointing results trying to turn electoral gains into cultural change. History seems to show a reciprocal relationship between culture and politics, they move side by side, but not in lockstep. One cannot proceed too much ahead of the other. Though they tout deeply flawed doctrines, the Left has proven over the last century to be more agile and innovative than the Right in the cultural sphere.

So de Benoist seeks to change society through ideas, ideology, and culture because “there is no effective action without a well-structured theory.” Yet the ND itself “has undergone fundamental changes over the course of its existence” leading to criticism that it lacks clarity and consistency. One example is de Benoist’s conversion to anti- racism. While he supports the ethnic and cultural integrity of European peoples and opposes further mass migration, he also opposes remigration and accepts the right of Afro-Asian migrants already settled in Europe to preserve their own ethnicities and cultures, and to have a “presence in the public space.”  How can any nationalist acquiesce to the colonization of his homeland by aliens? Well, de Benoist is not a nationalist, he is a regionalist, a federalist, Europe of 100 flags.

As its title and subtitle make clear, the book largely deals with religious issues. The ND has engaged in a harsh and comprehensive critique of Christianity which it believes has “alienated European peoples from their authentic, indigenous spirituality.” Christianity is individualistic, it seeks salvation for the individual soul. It is egalitarian—all are equal before God, and all are made in His image. And it is universal, there is neither Jew nor Greek, so go forth to all nations. In contrast, pre-Christian European religions were communal, hierarchical, and particular to a specific people. According to the ND, the Left, especially the liberal Left, is secularized Christianity.

The Nouvelle Droite would like to see a neo-paganism emerge to replace Christianity, but what would this twenty-first-century version look like? De Benoist is clear about what it would not be. It would not be an attempt to resurrect the old faiths, no worship of Zeus or Odin. It would not be New Age spiritualism with magic runes, etc. It would not even be a revival of existing folk customs and beliefs, even though some of these are authentic remnants of an old faith. Such cultural tenets survive in places like the Baltic States, once the last refuge of pagan Europe. Monsieur de Benoist sees these expressions as embodying peasant culture, part of the Third Order rather than the sacred First Order. More about that below. More telling is de Benoist’s rejection of naturalistic science-based belief systems advocated over the past 150 years by some of our best minds: Monism, German PhD zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919); Beyondism, British-born PhD psychologist Raymond Cattell (1905–1998); Cosmotheism, American PhD physicist William Pierce (1933–2002).[2]

A hint of an outline for the New Right’s neo-paganism comes from Georges Dumézil (1898–1986). Dumézil and his tripartite ideology are mentioned at least nine times in European Apostasy including in the conclusion which states: “Dumézil’s trifunctional structure occupies a symbolic and central place in the Nouvelle Droite system.”  Yet nowhere in the book is Dumézil’s trifunctional model explained.[3] Perhaps Bielawski thought his readers were already familiar with the three functions. Or perhaps he felt he could not do justice to this nuanced topic with a brief digression, but a brief digression is in order.

In the 1930s Dumézil, a renowned French philologist and anthropologist, hypothesized that from Asia to Éire all ancient Indo-European societies organized themselves into three orders or functions: the sacred, the martial, and the material.  The first order was characterized by divinity and sovereignty, and included priests, sages, wise men, and lawgivers. The second order were warriors, knights, sentinels, and guardians of the people. The third order, which included most of society, were the people, the folk, and the community. There is a question as to how open these orders were: rigid castes or fluid classes? There might also have been an element of the “ages of man.” In this arrangement all men were born into the third order, the sphere of the economy and domesticity, of production and reproduction. Men of the third order were husbands and fathers. The third order was also at times associated with happiness and material wellbeing—jovial burghers and prosperous peasants. The second order is associated with youth, often seen as comprising young, unmarried men, bands of brothers, and is also linked to tumult, violence, berserkers, etc. The first order can be seen as the elders, associated with order, stability, and maturity.  A reoccurring theme within the first and second orders was the resurrection of heroes, palingenesis, and heroic rebirth. Leaders such as King Arthur and Emperor Barbarossa are not dead, but only dormant or sleeping and will awake in a time of crisis to save their people. There were also tales of ghost armies, fallen warriors who rise to fight again. The Reconstruction Klan was imaged as Confederate war dead summoned to save the South.

Dumézil research created some controversy. In 1939 he published Mythes et dieux des Germains in which he noted some continuity between ancient Germanic myths and aspects of National Socialism Germany. Most scholars saw the book as an objective study. But decades later, Jewish Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg, writing in the journal Annales, accused Dumézil of “Nazi sympathies” based in part on the 1939 book. There might also have been an element of guilt by association. Dumézil was a personal friend and intellectual collaborator with Otto Höfler a member of the research organization SS Ahnenrbe. The Austrian Höfler was a respected academic not to be confused with fellow Austrian Karl Wiligut, SS RuSHA. Wiligut, a retired army officer and purported authority on ancient Germanic culture, turned out to be a fraud and an embarrassment to Himmler. The salient point is that although Dumézil was interested in the new Germany of the 1930s he was no national socialist. He was a French conservative nationalist with monarchist leanings.

All of the above is of some interest, but how Dumézil’s tripartite model would translate to twenty-first-century societies is open to different interpretations. It is definitely hierarchical and it values wisdom and courage over happiness and material comfort. Such an ideology is a tough sell to today’s Western populations. Yet the ND asserts: “The only way for Europe to regain its spiritual strength and overcome the present civilisational-spiritual crisis is to rediscover the pagan Indo-European roots of European culture.”

As mentioned there are seeming contradictions in the Nouvelle Droite. It laments the lack of collective identity in the West, yet rules out racialism and nationalism as sources for that identity. At present these are the only two ideologies with the potential strength to displace the globalist neo-liberal order. The ND sets up straw-men arguments to dismiss racial realities while claiming “that the very idea of internally homogeneous nation-states is an anachronism from the 19th century.” But the heterogeneous US is not to be emulated either.

Second only to his animosity towards Christianity is de Benoist’s antipathy towards American culture—political, social, and economic. For the ND, the U.S. is “an anti-Europe.” From the beginning “America took shape in opposition to Europe.” While there is much to criticize about contemporary America, these characterizations of our origins are not entirely accurate. The very name America comes from the European the explorer and chronicler Amerigo Vespucci. The seventeenth-century English colonists did not “go native,” but called their region New England, and strove to establish the old country’s social and economic system in a new land.[4] History and geography determined that America was never going to be a replica of Europe, but DNA determined that it would be Europe’s offspring. It appears that de Benoist’s negative assessment of America has clouded his judgment. He would rather see a mosque built in his town than a McDonalds. A fast-food joint is easily replaced, while a mosque once established might require violence to remove. To counter the pernicious American hegemony, the ND proposes Europe ally with Russia and the Third World. Russia’s neighbors, including Bielawski’s Poland, know that it is best to keep Russia at arm’s length rather than receive a bear hug. And are closer ties to the Third World a good idea?

Regarding Islam, de Benoist has relatively little to say. Doesn’t Islam possess many of the same characteristics—foreign origin, monotheistic, universal, and potentially totalitarian faith—that he finds objectionable about Christianity? But Islam opposes US hegemony, so it gets a partial pass. Bielawski turns to Guillaume Faye (1949–2019) for commentary on Islam. Next to de Benoist, Faye is the most widely known figure in the French New Right. He had an off again on again relationship with GRECE. He was a race realist. Though cognizant of America’s negative influence on Europe, he didn’t share de Benoist’s anti-Americanism. And he saw Islam as an existential threat to the West.   Faye characterized Third World migration as an “anthropological disfiguring” and “a demographic and ethno-cultural tragedy.”

The book does not deal with the Jewish question other than to point to Judaism as the source of the much maligned Christianity. The term “Judeo-Christianity” is often used to highlight the latter’s foreignness.

Bielawski identifies some sources that provided ideas and inspiration to the ND. Many of them are German: philosophers Nietzsche and Heidegger; conservative revolutionaries Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, and Carl Schmitt, along with the Italian Julius Evola. For more recent influence,s Bielawski states: “Third Positionism and Nouvelle Droite come very close to each other in terms of doctrine.” But the Third Position has taken several iterations so it is difficult to precisely define it. Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory is also mentioned, however Dugin’s support for the fratricidal Russo-Ukrainian War may have lessened his prestige and influence.  In perhaps another inconsistency, some see the ND embracing sociobiology and human ethology, yet the movement also appears to reject the role of human biodiversity on cultural development.

European Apostasy can serve as either as an excellent primer to the Nouvelle Droite, or as an interesting synthesis for those with more background. The useful bibliography even references a few Americans such as James C. Russell (The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, 1994) and Michael O’Meara (New Culture, New Right, 2013).

It is easy to criticize the Nouvelle Droite for its ambiguities and contradictions, and to question how culturally influential they have actually been. But they are correct on the very broad issues. The West is in a spiritual crisis. Revolutionary change, a culture revolution, is required. The extreme alienation felt by many can be, in large measure, attributed to a lack of firm collective identities—family, community, church, and nation. As usual it is easier to identify problems than to solve them.

How applicable is the French New Right ideology to the American situation? Should we be informed about the ND, rather than informed by it? Christianity is so embedded within the American Right that it is likely to remain a strong influence for the foreseeable future. Considering the religious conflicts our people have had in the past, true religious toleration is needed, with the caveat that no religion should be permitted to further a socially destructive creed. The ND’s anti-Americanism, while understandable, is not helpful. It would be better to accentuate our similarities rather than our differences. Looking to the future, it is likely that Europeans and European Americans will stand or fall together.

[1] Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right: (Peter Lang, 1990).

[2] For more on this topic see: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered” The Occidental Quarterly 15, no. 2(Summer 2015): 81–96.

[3] See: C. Scott Littleton, The New Comparative Mythology: An Anthropological Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumézil (University of California Press, 1982).

For a beautifully written description of the three orders in medieval France see: Georges Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, tr. Arthur Goldhammer (University of Chicago Press, 1980). Duby was a member of the Annales School whose interest in mentalities complements Dumézil’s research.

[4] Herbert Baxter Adams, probably the foremost American historian of the late nineteenth century and founding member of the American Historical Association, noted the cultural continuities between the English colonies and ancient Germanic communities in The Germanic Origins of the New England Town (Johns Hopkins University, 1882).

Jeffrey Epstein’s Secret War Against Iran

/8 Comments/in /by

Inside the emails that reveal Epstein’s covert crusade against Iran.

On the morning of August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. The infamous JEwish financier and convicted sex offender was transported in cardiac arrest to New York Downtown Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 6:39 a.m. He was 66 years old. The circumstances of his death remain hotly contested to this day.

But while the world has fixated on Epstein’s crimes against young women and his web of powerful connections, another dimension of his life remained largely unexplored until recently. Leaked emails released by the Handala hacking group (an Iranian-linked collective) and documents from the U.S. House Oversight Committee in November 2025 have revealed something extraordinary.

Jeffrey Epstein was not merely a socialite predator. He was a shadow diplomat, a backroom operator, and a relentless advocate for military confrontation with Iran.

At the center of Epstein’s geopolitical machinations stood Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister and decorated military commander. The relationship between these two men defies easy categorization. Between 2013 and 2016, the pair engaged in what Drop Site News described as “intimate, oftentimes daily correspondence” spanning political strategy, business dealings, and their shared obsession with neutralizing the Iranian threat.

The leaked emails paint a portrait of Epstein as a tireless asset of world Jewry — and are highly compatible with the idea that he was a Mossad agent. Here was a man who could summon Larry Summers for dinner briefings on Middle Eastern geopolitics, who traded messages with Noam Chomsky about the Iran nuclear deal, and who maintained a direct line to one of Israel’s most powerful former leaders. Epstein moved through the corridors of power with the ease of a man who understood that in Washington and Tel Aviv, access is everything.

In February 2013, Epstein emailed Summers seven articles about Middle Eastern geopolitics to prepare for a briefing. The top article was a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that Iranian leadership was fundamentally unserious about nuclear negotiations and merely buying time to develop weapons. The subject line referenced “prep for dinner, israel pres briefing,” an apparent allusion to then-Israeli President Shimon Peres, who was a longtime friend of Summers and who allegedly introduced Barak to Epstein in the first place.

Epstein’s position on Iran was crystalline in its clarity. He despised the diplomatic approach. He mocked those who believed Tehran could be reasoned with. And he pushed, again and again, for the United States to take kinetic action against Iran.

In August 2013, when Bashar al-Assad’s forces were accused by Western governments of unleashing chemical weapons on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, Epstein saw an opportunity. He immediately emailed Barak, urging him to write an op-ed connecting Syria to the larger Iranian question. “I would use the opportunity to compare it with Iran,” Epstein wrote, his characteristic misspellings intact. “The solutions become more compelx with time not less.”

Then came the revelation of his true ambitions. “Hopefully someone suggests getting authorization now for Iran,” he wrote to Barak. “The congress woudl do it.”

Epstein had developed a pet phrase for critiquing American foreign policy, one he returned to obsessively. “Wait until it’s too late.” He told Barak that he saw this as the defining failure of Western statecraft. “I really like the Wait until its too Late, to be your critiqe of the communities foreign policy…”

When the Obama administration achieved what it considered its signature foreign policy triumph in April 2015, reaching an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, Epstein and Barak were united in their contempt.

Barak penned an op-ed for TIME magazine titled “Iran Has Escaped a Noose.” In it, he argued that only crushing sanctions and credible military threats could restrain Tehran—standing in sharp contrast to the Obama administration’s more diplomatic approach.. He proposed a “surgical strike” on Iranian nuclear facilities that would set the Islamic Republic “five years backward” and deter future violations.

Epstein received this article and discussed it approvingly with Barak. The two men had found common cause in their conviction that American diplomacy was naive at best and dangerous at worst.

The intellectual game-playing extended further. Barak sent Epstein videos of Bill Clinton discussing North Korea’s 1994 nuclear deal, titled “Bill Clinton on Virtues of North Korean Nuclear Deal – History Repeats Itself.” The implication was clear. Just as North Korea had exploited diplomatic agreements to eventually develop nuclear weapons, so too would Iran.

Even with Donald Trump in the White House — a president who ultimately abandoned the Iran nuclear deal — Epstein remained unsatisfied. His correspondence with Steve Bannon from 2018 to 2019 reveals mounting paranoia that Washington might soften toward Tehran.

When Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won re-election in May 2017, Epstein lamented the result. “I told you this would happen,” he wrote to Bannon. “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.”

In one exchange, Bannon mentioned he was “all over Iran.” Epstein replied with what may be his most memorable assessment: “They are very very bad guys. Patient smart spread Shia.”

July 2018 provided a momentary high. When Trump made global headlines with an all-caps threat against Iran’s president, Epstein was giddy. He messaged Bannon, “Trump threatened Iran ;)”

But the following night, when Trump said the U.S. was “ready to make a real deal” with Tehran, Epstein’s excitement collapsed into contempt. He called it “nuts.”

Epstein’s obsession with Iran fed into a larger framework of fears, especially regarding China’s expanding footprint on the world stage.

In September 2018, he told Bannon that French contacts believed China was adopting a global “imperialistic strategy.” As proof, Epstein cited China’s growing presence in Iran, Venezuela, and Djibouti. For Epstein, Iran was not a standalone threat but a key node in China’s broader geopolitical ambitions.

Understanding Epstein’s unyielding hostility toward Iran requires a closer look at his underlying worldview and entrenched loyalties. A man of Jewish extraction, he consistently directed his wealth toward prominent Jewish institutions and pro-Israel causes.

Tax filings show he gave $500,000 to the Ramaz School, an elite Orthodox Jewish institution in Manhattan. He contributed $50,000 to the UJA-Federation in 2017. His foundation donated $25,000 to Friends of the IDF in 2005. Alongside Leslie Wexner, he bankrolled a new building for Harvard Hillel.

These were not casual donations. They reflected a sustained investment in institutions aligned with Israeli security and Jewish communal life. With Iran threatening Israel through Hezbollah, Hamas, and constant rhetorical aggression, Epstein’s hawkishness becomes more comprehensible. To him, confronting Iran was not only geopolitics — it was ideology and identity.

The Iranian government itself entered the conversation after the revelations of Epstein’s email correspondence. On November 3, 2025, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei commented that the leaked emails revealed “the moral decay of Iran’s enemies.” He added: “A man guilty of human trafficking symbolizes the corruption of those who lecture others on human rights.”

The irony is stark. The man who wanted the U.S. to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities was himself a sexual predator. His geopolitical scheming — his cultivation of prime ministers, intellectuals, and presidential advisors — unfolded alongside his exploitation of the vulnerable.

Jeffrey Epstein wanted to shape the Middle East. He pushed relentlessly for war with Iran. He moved in the shadows of statecraft, influencing elites from Manhattan to Tel Aviv. And although he died before facing complete accountability for his crimes, the emails he left behind expose a man whose ambitions stretched far beyond depravity.

Epstein may be gone, but the shadow he cast over U.S. foreign policy is still very much alive in a Trump administration that is actively pursuing a radical Zionist agenda that would make the neocons of yesteryear blush.