LYDIA BRIMELOW ON THOSE SPLC INDICTMENTS: There’s Never Just One Cockroach

/3 Comments/in , /by

Discovery is going to be delicious.

Lydia Brimelow, former publisher of VDARE.com

PeterBrimelow.com is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It is hard to say how I learned this news—I think my husband Peter was the first person to tell me—because I got a large number of texts and email messages from my friends and supporters almost immediately. This also happens any time the New York State Attorney General Letitia James is in hot water. It’s nice to be remembered.

It’s not what I hoped to be remembered for, but I’ll be reading every word

Quoting from the DOJ Press Release:

“Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism,” said Acting United States Attorney Kevin Davidson. “As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose. That kind of deception undermines public trust and social cohesion.”

I would argue the SPLC’s very existence undermines public trust and social cohesion. I posted to social media:

 

A twitter user with the deeply charming name CatsWithoutBorders was right to correct me:

The chart pictured above was displayed in the office of Mark Potok, SPLC Editor in Chief of the Intelligence Report, tracking the end of white majorities in the US and Europe. It wasn’t all for money. It was also for hatred of white people. Greed and genocidal ideation are not mutually exclusive. For 25 years, VDARE.com fought against the SPLC and that chart they found so inspirational.

The fashionable reaction among online patriots has been to post their battle scars from the SPLC. VDARE.com has too many to count—but it’s an interesting phenomenon because it highlights just how greedy the SPLC became. Being named as an agent of hate by the SPLC was so common, it practically became a credential on the right—if you weren’t named you weren’t serious.

Every new pin on the SPLC’s Hate Map ginned up fears and opened wallets among the paranoid leftists. And yet it wasn’t enough! The SPLC ginned up hysteria about racism as a fundraising tool. It was extremely effective—so effective in fact, that the demand for racism outstripped the supply. Like an undertaker drumming up business, the SPLC ludicrously labeled Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Majiid Nawaz and other clearly mainstream people as extremists.

According to the DOJ, the SPLC was not content lining their pockets merely with the suffering of the innocent. They also allegedly paid cold hard cash to the scariest “extremists” on their lists.

The SPLC claims the money was not in fact subsidizing their boogey men but a program to pay informants (“field sources”). But even if that were the case, it’s likely not good enough to get them out of charges of wire fraud and money laundering.

Continues…

 

Sins of my father – on William Luther Pierce

/7 Comments/in /by

This article was originally published in Danish on April 23, 2023.

BOOK REVIEW
SINS OF MY FATHER
Growing up with America’s most dangerous white supremacist
Kelvin Pierce
Self-published, 2020.

Reviewed by Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

William Luther Pierce is one of the most important figures in the Nationalist movement in the United States. After drifting around for a while, he joined George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, which had now been renamed the National Socialist White People’s Party—perhaps not the catchiest name, but it was more respectable than American Nazi Party. There he became editor of the magazine National Socialist World, which was intended to be the ideological torchbearer of the National Socialist movement, but which largely merely offered trivial historical nostalgia.

After Rockwell’s assassination on August 25, 1967, Matt Koehl took over the leadership of the party, and after some time, Pierce and Koehl went their separate ways. Koehl followed Rockwell’s political line to some extent, but gradually gave the movement a distinctly dogmatic, Hitlerist profile that had no chance of success, while Pierce distanced himself from the symbols and slogans of the past without, however, significantly altering his ideological stance. In addition, it was likely a specific case of two alpha males who couldn’t coexist in the same group, possibly combined with the fact that Matt Koehl felt a certain sense of unwarranted inferiority toward Pierce. Pierce held a Ph.D. in physics and had worked for Pratt & Whitney, a job he left to become a full-time Nazi and editor for Rockwell. It was a career change with major consequences. Koehl had no formal education and had made a living doing odd jobs until he was hired by Rockwell, but he was intellectually on par with Pierce, and characteristically, they both pursued the same strategic idea: They both wanted to build a more or less National Socialist society that was self-sufficient and could serve as a powerhouse for the movement and a model for others to follow. And the reasons why they both failed were the same: They were dictatorial; based on their experiences, they had no trust in their members; and they could not distinguish between a free National Socialist local community and a Stalinist labor camp. In short, they were not leaders, but ideologues. Furthermore, neither of them considered what would happen when they themselves were gone. Alpha males do not train potential successors—they fear them. Both left a movement in ruins and without leadership. It is an irony of fate that Matt Koehl was making plans to hand over “Nordland” to Pierce, as he—apparently quite correctly—saw the greatest potential for the future in him. He discussed this in depth with me at the end of June 2002. When, after a long trip through eastern Canada, I called home to the “Nordland” base from Halifax a good three weeks later, Koehl’s first question was: “Have you seen the news?” I hadn’t. “Pierce is dead,” said a clearly shaken Matt Koehl.

Kelvin Pierce is one of William Pierce’s twin sons. After his father’s death, he set out to try to penetrate his father’s worldview and practical political work, not only by studying his father’s many papers left behind, but also through extensive archival research, including declassified reports from the secret services, which clearly show how many resources were devoted to monitoring William Pierce and his followers. For the secret services, this is, just as in Denmark, pure job creation and a successful attempt to demonstrate how necessary it is to provide them with additional resources, while the truth is that, realistically speaking, this group of people poses absolutely no threat to national security—though in the U.S., this is not quite the case for individual citizens.1 Protecting them, however, is simply police work and a rather impossible task for the intelligence services. This project has been quite successful for Kelvin Pierce; perhaps too well, since he has been unable to find a publisher willing to release his quite excellent biography of this man, whom anyone with even a passing interest in politics knows, and whom the media never tires of berating, partly because, under the name Andrew Macdonald, he wrote the 1978 novel The Turner Diaries about a violent racist revolution in the United States. Later, Hunter continued more or less along the same theme. These books are claimed to be the inspiration for all acts of terrorism and all crime on the so-called far right in the United States.

Kelvin Pierce has gone to great lengths to distance himself from his father and his political views, to such an extent that it is sometimes a bit nauseating. Apparently, however, this has not been enough to convince a publisher to release the book. Kelvin Pierce offers many insightful observations and reflections in the book, for example:

I remember being puzzled by the two men in Dad’s office because they didn’t seem to be all that intelligent. Over the years, I would see similar people at Dad’s gatherings. It was as if he were surrounded by weirdos, mostly young men who had nothing better to do than hang out with other small-minded thugs, making themselves feel better by putting down other people.

I must regretfully say that I know these types all too well. I think everyone on the right does, and I am convinced that it is not much different on the left.

Extremist groups attract, in particular, people who are not like most people. If they were, they would be liberals or conservatives. And make no mistake: among these seemingly pitiful existences, there are outstanding activists, computer geniuses, and so on. But of course, there are also the others. It has always been a problem on the nationalist wing to bring together deep thinkers with high intelligence and people with fewer intellectual gifts, belonging to the lowest social group, within the same organization. But that is the challenge. Intelligence is necessary and a prerequisite for a victory to be realized in the form of a better social order, but the musclemen and activists are the prerequisite for a victory to happen at all! The community begins here!

As in all other organizations I have known, the overarching problem was funding. Pierce had a wife who earned money. That was enough for daily life, but Pierce needed money to organize the political work. Voluntary contributions don’t go very far. Most members have no money, and those who do are reluctant to part with it—also because, with their better education and practical experience, they see limited chances that their contributions will yield results in the long run. Revilo Pendleton Oliver, a prominent American professor of classical philology, Spanish, and Italian with strongly national-conservative views, suggested that Pierce write fiction to make money. He did so with The Turner Diaries, which has sold over half a million copies. He also received a large sum of money, which many claim came from Bob Matthews’ criminal activities to support the revolution.2 However, this is an allegation that no one has been able to prove. Matt Koehl was also offered a large sum of money from an unknown source, but he declined.

Pierce used the money to purchase “The Land.” “The Land” was an area of approximately 1.4 square kilometers near Hillsboro in eastern West Virginia. It was indescribably beautiful, far off the beaten path, and thus—unlike “Nordland”—it met one of the basic requirements for a home base for a movement like The National Alliance, which Pierce—like Koehl—transformed into part of a religious movement, The Cosmotheist Community Church. Whereas Koehl created a rather laughable Hitler cult with the Führer in the role of Jesus II, cosmotheism is a continuation of the European pantheistic idea that God is in nature. It is a far more sensible approach to the religious question, but it hardly stands much of a chance in the religious marketplace either. Religions are about selfish salvation for one’s own small, insignificant soul—not about the survival of the people or the race. In the U.S., however, there are tax exemptions associated with being a religion. This is a significant motivation for religious prophets.

Later, Resistance Records became Pierce’s third golden goose. Under this label, CDs were released containing nothing but horrific noise—a foreign body that poisoned and destroyed everything Pierce otherwise stood for—but it was—mirabile dictu—a highly significant source of income, and that says a lot about the audience he had gathered around his movement. Resistance Records was also Erich Gliebe’s ticket into the movement, and Pierce made this former boxer his successor. Poor judgment is an understatement here, and in record time, the entire National Alliance—with annual revenue exceeding $1 million—fell apart, and “The Land” was eventually sold. A sad, but unfortunately not unique, story. I don’t really know of any example of an organization or a form of government run according to the so-called Führer principle that has outlived its creator. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Perón, Pinochet, Koehl, Pierce, and everyone else on that side I can think of. It’s quite thought-provoking.

It is quite clear from Kelvin Pierce’s book that the children had a horrific childhood, and that William Pierce can in no way be described as a good father. Kelvin’s brother Erik thus severed all ties with their father and did not even attend his memorial service. Kelvin, however, clearly retained a certain fascination with him. Now, discipline in America is considerably more strict than here, but Pierce beat the boys excessively whenever, in their attempts to at least establish some contact with their father, they did things they knew would trigger his rage. It’s a bit of psychology for the advanced.

I visited Pierce at “The Land” for a couple of days in the summer of 1988. At the time, he was married to Olga, a Hungarian girl who had been a pianist but had lost a few fingers in a meat grinder. That was the end of that career. She and my wife got along well. They were connected by music. My wife thus tried to maintain the connection by writing to her—but she never received those letters. Pierce wasn’t interested in his wife corresponding with others. We only realized this later. It was part of the prison camp’s regulations.

Our conversations were, in a sense, merely elaborative. We already knew each other’s views. At that time, I had resigned from my work with the World Union of National Socialists, where I had been Pierce’s successor, as I found it futile to maintain an organization without members, without funding, and without a publishing operation. On top of that, I had been able to ascertain that the WUNS was being held responsible for every so-called “Nazi” action across the globe, no matter how idiotic it was. I would not lend my name to that. Everything was apparently being directed from my modest office at Ahornvej 11 in Vejgaard.

Ah, if only it had been so. Added to this, of course, was the introduction of Hitlerism as a religion, the change of name to The New Order (never try to abbreviate it!), and blatant inefficiency and poor leadership. The move of the headquarters from Arlington, Va. (which in practice means Washington, D.C.) to the Milwaukee area had taken 10 years. In those 10 years, the movement had practically disintegrated, and the rationale for the move had vanished. The Midwest had been the party’s best breeding ground, but members want to see action. They had been promised an intensification of the work, but saw only that everything was falling apart: Cedric Syrdahl had left in anger, the headquarters in Chicago had been sold, as had the two properties they had owned in Arlington. There was thus plenty to talk about, and Pierce had, of course, also been following these developments. We were in complete agreement on that point.

In 1988, however, there was still hope for “Nordland,” and there were, of course, also things I didn’t feel I could discuss. No matter how much I might disagree with Koehl, he was a friend, and he remained so through all crises—even beyond his death. Pierce also made no secret of the difficulties involved in building a colony on a barren field. He specifically emphasized that it had to be so remote—and, of course, television was forbidden. It was a community that was to remain untainted by the outside world. It was a full day’s drive to what we somewhat misleadingly call civilization. The few residents who were there—and whom we weren’t introduced to—came from the city. It had been quite a shock for them and a reason why many ran away again. “Nordland” was closer to civilization—far too close to the city.

We also discussed The Turner Diaries. I’ve never liked the ending. Nuclear bombs are a bad thing. Pierce basically agreed—he would have written the ending differently if he’d had to write it in 1988. We were shown the main building with its assembly hall, book storage, and office spaces. It certainly had a certain style to it. The facilities were better suited to their purpose than the building at “Nordland,” but there were big plans there as well.

Pierce had a magnificent German shepherd, and a German shepherd is one of the most loyal creatures on this earth. We slept in the guest trailer, and in the morning the dog scratched at the door. I opened the door, and in came Hans—that was the dog’s name—and with a full leap he landed right in the middle of the double bed, and there he stayed. Pierce wasn’t happy when he saw that the dog had been inside with us—and in the bed—but he didn’t say a word. When we said goodbye the next day and drove off, Hans wanted to come along. He simply ran after the car. After a kilometer, I had to stop and make it clear to him that he had to go back. Shepherds are smart animals. Hans understood what I said, and crestfallen, he trudged slowly back along the dirt road, constantly turning around to look for the car. At that moment, it became clear to me that something was very wrong at “The Land.”

If you wish to explore Pierce’s ideas further—and it is certainly worth doing so—please refer to Robert S. Griffin: The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, 1st Books Library, 2001. Regarding Rockwell, see William H. Schmaltz: Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, Brassey’s, Washington 1999. A later edition is titled For Race and Nation. Also recommended is Frederick J. Simonelli: American Fuehrer: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1999. Matt Koehl did not care for Simonelli’s book. Simonelli goes into greater depth than Schmaltz and has a very thorough set of footnotes at the back that document what he writes. Both are informative, and Kelvin Pierce’s book certainly is as well. One can skip the last chapters if one finds it too distressing. It is hard to imagine that Pierce’s children are 63—and that it has been over 20 years since I had that sad phone conversation with Koehl from Halifax—and that Koehl himself has been dead for nearly 9 years. The wheel of time is relentless.

Notes

  1. See, for example, Stephen Singular: Talked to Death: The Life and Murder of Alan Berg, Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, New York, 1987. ↩︎
  2. See Kevin Flynn, Gary Gerhardt: The Silent Brotherhood. Inside America’s Racist Underground, The Free Press, New York 1989. This is by far the best and most readable book on Robert Matthews and his associates—indeed, on the extreme nationalist movement as a whole. It is absolutely required reading for anyone interested in such movements—or who has an inherent penchant for reading about human tragedies. ↩︎

Glen Allen’s Statement Regarding the DOJ’s Criminal Indictment of the SPLC

/7 Comments/in /by

Glen Allen’s Statement Regarding the DOJ’s Criminal Indictment of the SPLC

By Glen Allen, Esq., FEF President

Friends of FEF,

As many of you know, I was a victim – one of many – of the odious Southern Poverty Law Center’s fraudulent and criminal conduct. In 2016, the SPLC, led by the hateful Hedi Beirich, orchestrated a campaign against me with the aim and successful result of having me fired from the Baltimore Law Department, impairing my family and social relationships, and sullying my reputation as a competent, ethical, and honorable attorney.  I do not use the word “orchestrated” lightly. On the day Beirich and the SPLC attacked me, I was headline news in a dozen newspapers in Beirich’s network of connections, as far away as England and Los Angeles, and the SPLC  put my photograph on the back of its infamous “Hate Map” right between Donald Trump and Steve Bannon with the caption “We’ve stopped Nazis from infiltrating state governments.”  I had news reporters in front of my house.

What was my crime in the reptilian eyes of the SPLC and Beirich?  Just this: certain perfectly legal associations decades prior with Dr. William Pierce and the National Alliance, plus – horrors! —  my attendance at a Holocaust revisionist conference on National Alliance property.  And how did Beirich and the SPLC learn of these aspects of my private life?  The answer is by bribing or otherwise illegally and tortiously inveigling a National Alliance employee to turn over confidential information regarding me and others to the SPLC.

I fought back.  I sued Beirich and the SPLC in federal court, alleging multiple causes of action, including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). I not only sought redress for my own injuries but challenged SPLC’s tax-favored status as a 501c3 nonprofit. The Maryland District Court, however, dismissed my complaint on the rationale that the facts I alleged – and I alleged in detail the SPLC’s odious and illegal tactics – were not “plausible.”  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished and cursory opinion affirmed.

I mention this history because the Department of Justice this week brought a criminal indictment against the SPLC, accusing it of just the type of criminal activity I described in my complaint. The indictment sets forth numerous incidents of SPLC’s criminal behavior, including its illegal manipulation of the National Alliance employee as set forth in my complaint.

At one level I feel vindicated.  Among the most painful aspects of my SPLC experience was having friends, relatives, and others brush off my complaint as though I were a disgruntled kook attacking a venerable civil rights organization.  No impartial person who investigated the SPLC should have maintained such a view even then, but surely not now.  The SPLC for decades in plain sight has been illegally and criminally profiteering from “hate” that it manufactured.  It is long past time that it be held accountable.  I wish for, and predict, the DOJ’s full success in its litigation against the SPLC and hope that loathsome entity is shut down and its officers and operatives, including Beirich, are put behind bars.

On another level, however, I remain disappointed and frustrated at how our legal system treated me and other SPLC victims, failing to give us the impartial justice to which we are entitled. The system did not rise to the occasion but sank to a shallow and dismissive political Wokism that for many of us will always tarnish our view of the judiciary.

What’s next in this SPLC saga?  You may be assured that I and other legal minds in FEF’s milieu will be zealously investigating what old claims can be revived and new claims pursued against the SPLC as a result of the DOJ litigation. In the imagery of the old Greek mythology, the SPLC has sown dragon’s teeth and now must deal with the angry warriors its evil deeds have spawned.

Glen Allen, Esq. heads the Free Expession Foundation which is an organization dedicated to defending those who have gotten on the wrong side of our politically correct legal system. Here is their Donation Page.

Upstaging the SPLC: Communist Shapeshifters

/10 Comments/in , /by

Otto Dix, “Portrait of the (“new woman”, “anti-Nazi”) journalist Sylvia von Harden”, 1926

The recent U.S. government indictment of the SPLC may prompt a sigh of relief among White nationalist activists. Its defamatory activities have already caused significant harm to conservative and nationalist scholars, often labeled in SPLC vernacular as “white supremacists” or “antisemites.” Why it has taken the U.S. government so long to investigate the SPLC’s financial dealings remains unclear, especially given that some other agencies have used similar tactics—manufacturing threats to justify their own existence.

The SPLC’s smearing methods were heavily borrowed from standard practices in former communist Eastern Europe, where governments had to keep fabricating “fascists”, “nazis”, or “terrorists” in order to sustain their totalitarian regimes. One may also speculate, given the multiracial profile of the SPLC staff and its associates, that internal rifts may have prompted disgruntled individuals from one racial group to rat out their colleagues of a different color over the misallocated funds. When a money squeeze sets in, race always matters—just as money always talks.

This is nothing new in the left-leaning proto-communist and Antifa scenes. Those who were born and lived in communist states, or those who have studied the psychology of the communist mindset, know deadly well that the greatest enemies of communism, as recent history has amply demonstrated, were often disgruntled communist insiders. This brings to mind the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the early 1990s—caused not by proverbial right-wing insiders or foreign outsiders, but by systemic abuse of state funds coupled with internal ethnic squabbles among communist party members. The breakup of communist Yugoslavia and the infighting in the multiethnic Communist League comes to mind.

The True Non-Believers

The SPLC’s demonization of right-wing and nationalist circles in the U.S. and EU feels like a reenactment of quasi-judicial proceedings in former communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Whether other anti-hate think tanks or agencies will now come under the Trump administration’s scrutiny remains to be seen. One may gloat over the SPLC’s sudden fall from grace, but questions remain as to whether there will be similar legal efforts and comparable media outcry if other domestic, self-proclaimed anti-hate, anti-fascist organizations come onto the DOJ’s radar screen. The powerful Jewish ADL uses a far more refined name-calling when it comes to vilifying right-wing and nationalist dissenters. Why not examine its sources of funding as well as the methods of its demonology courses it presents at schools and police department? It is, however, very significant that over the past year the ADL and AIPAC have toned down their demonological rhetoric against so-called White supremacists while fully backing Trump’s rhetoric about bombing Iran to oblivion. A raw deal? A quid pro quo? Everybody can take a wild guess.

Nor are right-wing Christians in the U.S. and nationalist figureheads in Europe lagging behind in their sycophancy, as recently shown by the ‘discreet visit’ of French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen to the Israeli Embassy in Paris. The age of mutual Euro-right-wing and Israeli brownnosing is dawning.

The buck doesn’t stop with the SPLC though. Hundreds of other NGOs, especially in the EU—as noted in my previous pieces—are non-governmental in name only, yet depend on substantial state funding, draping themselves in the romantic attire of love, peace, and multiracial tolerance. Their public posturing, much like that of the SPLC, is a carbon copy of earlier Bolshevik agencies in the early Soviet Union. One must repeat, time and again, that some of the most zealous communist henchmen in the Soviet Union and Europe—such as Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentiy Beria, and Béla Kun, along with thousands of their leftist sidekicks—were put to death by their former trusted comrades-in-arms. In Czechoslovakia in 1952, a dozen communist Jews, the early masters of the post-WWII Czech totalitarian system, were executed on charges of treason by their former comrades in arms.  The same upstaging scenario may have been brewing among jealous rank-and-file SPLC members, where everyone thought they could run the money side best on their own..

Historically, the more exotic titles these virtue-signaling agencies carry—such as the lavishly funded SPLC or the UK-based NGO Hope Not Hate—the more prone they are not just to violent proscriptions of right-wing wrong-thinkers but also to constant purges of their own kind. In passing, one should mention the case of Hans-Georg Maaßen, who headed Germany’s powerful domestic intelligence service—euphemistically known as the “Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution “ (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz)—and who was removed from his post in 2018 by Chancellor Angela Merkel following disagreements over the agency’s inquisitorial practices against the manufactured right-wing menace.

I have already written and provided references to the rise of the totalitarian spirit, also suggesting that it is part and parcel of absolute democracy—not its opposite, as many scholars claim. As a brainchild of post-communist multiracial pathology, the SPLC operates in a manner similar to the former intel agency Securitate in communist Romania, the Stasi in ex-East Germany, or the UDBA in communist ex-Yugoslavia. All of those secret service outlets kept hunting down anticommunist wrong-thinkers even if there were none in sight. Ultimately, the paranoid mindset of communist cutthroats  made them terminate each other. The SPLC would have finished the same way, one way or another, regardless of the recent Trump clamp-down.

Here are some personal remarks. When my father, Mirko Sunic,  a former Catholic lawyer, was arrested in communist Yugoslavia in 1984 on charges of having ties with Croat émigrés in the UK, the first to testify against him were our family members! This is a classic mode of the totalitarian mindset—of war of all against all—where self-denial and avoidance of guilt by association by family members becomes the rule, so well-illustrated in Shakespeare’s prose.

There is no such thing as true believers in politics. The SPLC members could have, under different circumstances and with different winds blowing, acted as a loudspeaker of the Right-wing or, for that matter, embraced belief in fearsome extraterrestrials. Furthermore, contrary to widespread belief, Croatia did not turn in 1991 into a right-wing country based on its own decision. Its new diplomatic and intelligence apparatus was staffed entirely by former communist officials. It was, willy-nilly, the ethnic infighting amidst the famed intel agency UDBA that sped up the independence of Croatia. As a high diplomat in newly born Croatia, I was literally surrounded by former Yugoslav diplomats who, in a matter of weeks and months, had converted from ardent Yugo-communist apparatchiks into church-going ardent Croat nationalists. The dread of getting terminated by their former Serbian communist comrades made them welcome extreme right-wing nationalists and expats who were best skilled to protect their rears. The true Croat nationalists did their work out on the front lines—similar to the Ukrainian Azov—still daydreaming their unfulfilled dreams.

No need to reinvent the wheel when discussing the SPLC . Political shapeshifting into the Other is nothing new, as was well described by the Latin poet Ovid two millennia ago. Family disunion or party betrayal will continue whoever comes to rule the US or EU ten years from now or ten centuries down the road. One must be prepared that the communism-minded SPLC or other left-wing NGOs in the US will, under different circumstantial sunsets, become devoted right-wingers or hide when needed—where the sun don’t shine.

The modern Left has always followed the mode of an all-you-can-eat buffet, i.e., dancing to the tune of the dominant ideology. Neither are right-wingers much better, as we learn from Shakespeare’s Richard III. Our own tribe, our ingroups, many of our own people—if our longed-for “White miracle” happens—will quickly resort to mindless vindictiveness and show their egomaniacal racial traits. With permission granted, let us cite again the French-Romanian pagan philosopher Emil Cioran, who warned us to beware of any attachment: “To be free is to rid yourself forever of the notion of reward; it is to expect nothing—neither from men nor from gods.”

 

Baby-Killers for Open Borders: Why Leftists Love Lies and Hate Whites

/11 Comments/in /by

Kathleen Stock usually writes badly but sometimes thinks well. She’s the British philosopher who was driven out of  academia because she refused to accept leftist lies. What was her thought-crime? Inter alia, she denied that schlong-slung slime-bags should be part of sapphic traffic. In other words, Stock rejects transgenderism and doesn’t think that men can be lesbians. She’s right. She’s also right about a new freedom granted to women in Britain. It’s the freedom to murder their babies. Here’s what Stock said about the contradictory leftist arguments that have won women their right to infanticide:

The Victim Strategy and the Omniscient Gambit can’t both be true. Women seeking late-term abortions for healthy babies cannot be disempowered, traumatised wrecks, but also clear-sighted rational actors whose decisions society should respect. If the number of late-term abortions grows after the removal of the criminal deterrent, then presumably the defenders will stick to their respective sweeping stories even so. Women who induce late abortions are too emotionally delicate to withstand judicial scrutiny, but somehow also powerfully agentic. Either way, their personal involvement in the deaths of their babies is no matter for the law. […]

It seems we have here another example of the “Let’s Be Free” people and the “Let’s Be Kind” people teaming up to wreak havoc upon settled moral intuitions. I first noticed the dynamic during the gender wars, and wrote about it then: of gimlet-eyed sexual libertarians taking advantage of the cover provided by mumsy rainbow types with lanyards [the neck-worn name-tags often sported by leftists]. While the former pushed the boundaries, the latter preached compassion to unfortunate minorities and accused anyone who objected of cruelty. […]

And as for full-term abortion here, it seems likely that — having removed the women at the centre of the story from the possibility of prosecution — there will be later attempts to legalise the process fully, removing providers and partners from criminal sanctions too. Indeed, [Stella] Creasy has been trying to do this for some time.

Though decriminalisation is currently being presented by BPAS [British Pregnancy Advisory Service] as a kindness towards damaged and exploited women-children, I predict that institutional memories will be short. After some time has passed, the act at the heart of the debate will be framed once again as a vital freedom for all kickass girlbosses, at which point surrounding prohibitions can fall away. How can it be rational, it will be asked, to punish providers, doctors, or romantic partners for helping with a process that is not actually a crime for the main participant? Not wishing to go against women’s “reproductive freedoms” or indeed their “vital healthcare”, many politicians once again will not know what to say. (“The limits of bodily autonomy,” Unherd, 27th March 2026)

Stock is describing how leftists have no fixed principle except the pursuit of power: “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” And power, for leftists, means being able to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. Leftists like Stella Creasy (whose love of open borders I’ll discuss below) have now given women the privilege to murder babies. Murder is, after all, what “full-term abortion” entails even by feminist standards: a fully developed baby, easily capable of surviving outside the womb, is deliberately deprived of life. That’s murder. In effect, leftists want females, as pets of leftism, to be above the law.

Two privileged Blacks, six dead Whites: the triple-slayers Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane

At the same time, leftists want males, as enemies of leftism, to be more and more firmly under the law. In 2026 leftists in Britain have simultaneously granted females the freedom to murder babies and celebrated a “landmark case” in which a man was jailed for eight years for allegedly driving his wife to suicide. Leftists want any bad outcome for women to be the fault of men. That’s why they believe in privilege for females and punishment for males. Or rather, it’s punishment for White males, whom leftists classify as enemies. But leftism gives privilege to non-White males, whom leftists classify as pets. And so leftists apply the law as harshly as possible against White males while granting maximum license to non-White males.

No details of gang-rapists

That’s why Muslim rape-gangs have flourished for so long in towns and cities all over Britain. And it’s why obviously dangerous Blacks like Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane were left free to commit three murders apiece. In 2026 we’ve just seen another example of this leftist double-standard: law for White males, license for non-White males. At the end of March, there was widespread public disorder in the London district of Clapham as large groups of predominantly non-White youths mobbed shops, committed thefts and intimidated shoppers. How did the police respond? By allowing the yoots to express their vibrant culture without interference.

Riot-police for White male thought-criminals in Epsom (image from GBNews)

A short time later and short distance away, the police acted quite differently when White men protested about an alleged gang-rape in a town called Epsom. Yes, riot-police were out in Epsom to confront the protestors. The White men were protesting because the police have refused to reveal any details of the “several men” allegedly involved in the gang-rape. As the police explained, detectives “do not have full descriptions of any potential suspects.” You see, detectives don’t yet know the suspects’ shoe-sizes, finger-lengths, average heart-rates and dental histories, so they’re not releasing any details beyond that “several men” are being sought. That’s perfectly reasonable, don’t you think?

Blight, not blessing

Well, you’ll think it’s perfectly reasonable if you’re a leftist, because you’ll guess the very simple reason for the police silence. Namely, that the suspects are non-White and have foreign accents. The White men protesting in Epsom have made the same guess. But those men aren’t non-White, aren’t leftists and don’t think the police silence is reasonable. That’s why the riot-police turned out to confront them. But there were no riot-police for the non-White males in Clapham. Why the contrast? It’s simple. White males threaten leftism, because they have the potential intelligence, organization and fighting spirit to challenge and overthrow the leftist elite. But leftism isn’t threatened by non-White crime and chaos. On the contrary, leftism is enhanced by non-White pathologies, because they harm ordinary Whites and reduce our ability to resist and rebel.

Smarmy leftist Stella Creasy and her Jewish partner Dan Fox

Another bonus for leftists is that non-White pathologies reduce the ability of Whites to have children, because Whites lose money both directly and indirectly through them. But non-Whites don’t have to commit crime or create chaos to be a gross and ever-growing burden on Whites. As Arctotherium and Alden Whitfeld have pointed out in an excellent essay at Heretical Insights, leftist economists have been lying for decades about the benefits of Third-World immigration. In fact, it’s a blight, not a blessing:

[B]ecause immigrants cluster in high-productivity areas, and because their presence drives natives out, immigrant incomes are artificially inflated relative to natives. In Britain, ethnic minorities are overrepresented in London by roughly a factor of three. London’s productivity is about 50% higher than the rest of the country. Were it not for immigration-induced native displacement, white British incomes would be higher and minority incomes lower than observed. Fiscal and income comparisons therefore substantially understate the true cost of immigration relative to natives. (“Moving Targets: The ‘missing’ impact of immigration,” Heretical Insights, 28th March 2026)

This brings me back to the leftist Stella Creasy. It’s no coincidence that Creasy is a fan both of baby-murder and, as I described in “Doom of the Dumb,” of non-White migration. She’s a baby-killer for open borders. She knows that both these things are good for leftism, because baby-murder will harm Whites and open borders will help non-Whites. Like the new Green MP Hannah Spencer, Creasy is herself a White blonde, but their shared hair-color may help explain their hostility to their own race. The value of natural blonde hair goes up as the White share of the population goes down. So what’s not to like for egocentric narcissists like Creasy and Spencer? It’s also significant that Creasy’s “partner” is the publicity-shy Zionist Jew Dan Fox, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel.

Iryna Zarutska ignored a vital rule and was then ignored herself by leftists

And perhaps Creasy and Spencer themselves have Jewish ancestry. An anti-blonde American politician certainly does. He’s a Jew called Brett Smiley. As the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, he’s overseen the removal of a mural of Iryna Zarutska, the blonde Ukrainian refugee who was horrifically murdered by a Black career-criminal called Decarlos Brown. Now, when a Black woman behaves stupidly and gets herself shot by the police, leftists demand that the world “Say Her Name.” But Smiley could not bring himself to “Say Her Name” when he explained why the mural of Iryna Zarutska just had to go: “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence. I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.”

They belong behind bars

Like “democracy” and “rule of law,” “divisive” is a favorite term of leftists. But when they use words, they follow the lexical rule laid down by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1871): “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” What did Brett Smiley mean by saying the mural of Iryna Zarutska was “divisive”? He meant that it revealed the truth about two things that contradict leftist lies and threaten leftist power. First, Black predation on Whites; second, leftist enabling of that Black predation.

Judeo-pol Brett Smiley, yet another elite leftist who belongs behind bars

But Smiley and countless other leftists have never objected to murals of the alleged Black martyr George Floyd. Why not? Because Floyd murals present Whites as vicious villains and Blacks as virtuous victims. In other words, when a mural tells the truth, leftists want it taken down. When a mural tells lies, leftists want it to stay up. Leftists love lies because lying is how they win and maintain their power to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. But sometimes privilege is punishment too. Leftists in Britain have given women the privilege to kill their babies because that’s another way to harm Whites. The agenda is always anti-White because Whites are the only group that can overthrow leftism and put elite leftists where they belong: behind bars.

“Antisemitism—its history and causes as seen … by a Jew” April 1944 – Special Issue titled “I Hate You”

/12 Comments/in /by

ANTISEMITISM – its history and causes as seen… by a Jew
April 1944 – Special Issue  “I Hate You”

We reproduce below the thirty-third article from the special issue “I hate you” published in April 1944. 

§§§§§§

“ANTISEMITISM: Its history and causes” as seen… by a Jew

In 1894, a 420-page octavo volume entitled L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (Antisemitism, its history and its causes), by Bernard Lazare [1865–1903], a Jewish author of great renown, was published in Paris by the publisher Léon Chailley, 8, rue Saint-Joseph.”

This volume is now impossible to find and the quotes published from it are often very incomplete, which is why we thought it useful to take as a collaborator to this notebook the Jew Bernard Lazare by reproducing in full the greater part of the first chapter of his book, Anti-Semitism:

 *   *   *

If we want to write a complete history of anti-Semitism — not forgetting any of the manifestations of this sentiment, following its various phases and modifications — we must undertake the history of Israel from its dispersion, or, to put it better, from the time of its expansion outside the territory of Palestine.

Wherever the Jews, ceasing to be a nation ready to defend its freedom and independence, have settled, everywhere anti-Semitism has developed, or rather, anti-Judaism, for anti-Semitism is a poorly chosen word, which only had its reason for being in our time, when it was desired to broaden this struggle between the Jew and the Christian peoples, and to give it a philosophy as well as a more metaphysical than material reason.

If this hostility, this very repugnance, had been exercised towards the Jews only in one time and one country, it would be easy to disentangle the limited causes of these angers; but this race has, on the contrary, been the target of hatred from all the peoples among whom it has established itself. Therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, lived in countries very far apart from one another, were governed by different laws, ruled by opposing principles, did not have the same morals or customs, and were animated by dissimilar spirits that did not allow them to judge all things equally, the general causes of anti-Semitism must always have resided in Israel itself and not among those who fought against it.

This is not to claim that the persecutors of the Israelis always had the right on their side, nor that they did not indulge in all the excesses that intense hatred entails, but to establish as a principle that the Jews caused — at least in part — their own suffering.

Given the unanimity of antisemitic manifestations, it is difficult to accept—as has been all too readily done—that they were simply due to a religious war, and the struggles against the Jews should not be seen as a struggle between polytheism and monotheism, or between the Trinity and Jehovah. Polytheistic peoples, like Christian peoples, fought not against the doctrine of the One God, but against the Jew.

What virtues or vices earned the Jews this universal enmity? Why was he, in turn, and equally, mistreated and hated by the Alexandrians and the Romans, by the Persians and the Arabs, by the Turks and by the Christian nations? Because everywhere, and even to this day, the Jew has been an unsociable being.

Why is he unsociable? Because he was exclusive, and his exclusivism was both political and religious, or to put it better, he clung to his politico-religious cult, to his law.

If we consider conquered peoples in history, we see them submitting to the laws of the victors while retaining their faith and beliefs. They could do so easily because, among them, the separation was very clear between religious doctrines bestowed by the gods and civil laws issued by legislators—laws that could be modified according to circumstances without the reformers incurring anathema or theological execration: what man had done, man could undo. Thus, the vanquished rose up against the conquerors out of patriotism, driven by nothing but the desire to reclaim their land and regain their freedom. Apart from these national uprisings, they rarely demanded to be exempt from general laws; if they protested, it was against specific provisions that placed them in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis their rulers. And, in the history of Roman conquests, we see the conquered bowing before Rome when Rome strictly imposed upon them the legislation that governed the empire.

For the Jewish people, the case was very different. Indeed, as Spinoza already pointed out, “the laws revealed by God to Moses were nothing other than the laws of the particular government of the Hebrews.” Moses, prophet and legislator, conferred upon his judicial and governmental provisions the same virtue as upon his religious precepts, that is to say, revelation. Yahweh not only told the Hebrews, “You shall believe only in the One God and you shall not worship idols,” but he also prescribed rules of hygiene and morality for them; not only did he himself assign them the territory where the sacrifices were to be performed, meticulously, but he also determined the methods by which this territory would be administered. Each of the given laws, whether agrarian, civil, prophylactic, theological or moral, benefited from the same authority and had the same sanction, so that these different codes formed a single whole, a rigorous bundle from which nothing could be deviated under penalty of sacrilege.

In reality, the Jew lived under the domination of a master, Yahweh, whom no one could defeat or fight, and he knew only one thing: the Law, that is to say the set of rules and prescriptions that Yahweh had one day wanted to give to Moses, the divine and excellent Law, suitable for leading those who would follow it to eternal happiness; a perfect law that only the Jewish people had received.

With such an idea of ​​his Torah, the Jew could hardly accept the laws of foreign peoples; at least, he could not think of having them applied to him; he could not abandon the divine, eternal, good and just laws, to follow human laws which are fatally tainted with obsolescence and imperfections. If only he could have kept civil ordinances separate from religious ordinances! But did not all of them have a sacred character, and did not the happiness of the Jewish nation depend on their total observance?

These civil laws, which were appropriate to a nation and not to communities, were not to be abandoned by the Jews when they entered into other peoples, because, although outside Jerusalem and the kingdom of Israel these laws no longer had any reason to exist, they were nonetheless, for all Hebrews, religious obligations which they had committed themselves to fulfilling by a pact with the Divinity.

Therefore, wherever the Jews established colonies, wherever they were transported, they demanded not only that they be allowed to practice their religion, but also that they not be subjected to the customs of the people among whom they were called to live, and that they be allowed to govern themselves by their own laws.

In Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Cyrenaica, they were able to act freely. They were not summoned to court on Saturdays; they were even allowed to have their own special courts and not be judged according to the laws of the empire; when the grain distributions fell on Saturdays, their share was reserved for the following day; they could be decurions, being exempt from practices contrary to their religion; they administered themselves as in Alexandria, having their leaders, their Senate, their ethnarch, not being subject to municipal authority.

Everywhere they wanted to remain Jewish, and everywhere they obtained privileges allowing them to found a state within a state. [FG : Why so?]

Thanks to these privileges, exemptions, and tax relief, they quickly found themselves in a better position than the citizens of the very cities in which they lived; they had greater ease in trading and enriching themselves, and thus they aroused jealousy and hatred.

Therefore, Israel’s attachment to its law was one of the primary causes of its disapproval, whether it reaped benefits and advantages from this very law that could provoke envy, or whether it boasted of the excellence of its Torah to consider itself above and apart from other peoples.

If only the Israelites had adhered to pure Mosaic law, there is no doubt that they could have, at some point in their history, modified this Mosaic law in such a way as to leave only the religious or metaphysical precepts; perhaps even, if they had not had the Bible as their sacred book, they would have merged into the nascent Church, which found its first followers among the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Jewish proselytes. One thing prevented this fusion and kept the Hebrews apart among the nations: the creation of the Talmud, the domination and authority of the scholars who taught a supposed tradition. But this influence of the scholars, to which we will return, also made the Jews the fierce, unsociable, and proud beings of whom Spinoza, who knew them well, could say: “It is not surprising that after being scattered for so many years, they have persisted without a government, since they have separated themselves from all other nations to such an extent that they have turned against themselves the hatred of all these peoples, not only because of their outward rites, contrary to the rites of other nations, but also through the sign of circumcision.”

Thus, the doctors said, man’s purpose on earth is the knowledge and practice of the Law, and it can only be fully practiced by turning away from laws that are not the true one. The Jew who followed these precepts isolated himself from the rest of men; he retreated behind the hedges that Ezra and the first scribes had erected around the Torah, then the Pharisees and the Talmudists, heirs of Ezra, deformers of the primitive mosaic and enemies of the prophets. He isolated himself not only by refusing to submit to the customs that established ties between the inhabitants of the lands where he settled, but also by rejecting all contact with those inhabitants themselves. To his unsociability, the Jew added exclusivism.

Without the law, without Israel to practice it, the world would not exist, God would bring it into nothingness; and the world will only know happiness when it is subject to the universal rule of this law, that is to say, to the rule of the Jews. Therefore, the Jewish people are the people chosen by God as the custodians of his will and desires; they are the only ones with whom the Divinity has made a pact; they are chosen by the Lord. When the serpent tempted Eve, the Talmud says, it corrupted her with its venom. Israel, by receiving the revelation at Sinai, delivered itself from evil; the other nations could not be healed. Thus, while each nation has its guardian angel and protective constellations, Israel is placed under the very eye of Jehovah; it is the Eternal One’s beloved son, the only one entitled to His love, His benevolence, His special protection, and other peoples are placed below the Hebrews; they are entitled only through mercy to divine munificence, since only the souls of the Jews descend from the first man. The blessings that are given to the nations actually belong to Israel.

Bernard LAZARE.

Francis Goumain Transcription.

FG’s notes:

1 – We cannot fully subscribe to the author’s diagnosis: it is clear that it is the Jews who made the Jewish books and not the Jewish books that made the Jews.

2 – We cannot understand how God could physically have chosen the Jews over the Aryans (nor could Epstein, Weinstein and Polanski).

3 – Regarding Bernard Lazare, it is amusing to note that it was he, and not Zola, who was the true author of the hit song about the Dreyfus affair: “J’accuse”. https://francearchives.gouv.fr/fr/pages_histoire/40045

“At the same time, Bernard Lazare made numerous approaches to influential figures. Aided by Lucien Herr, the librarian of the École Normale Supérieure, he drew young students from the École Normale Supérieure, including Charles Péguy, into the Dreyfusard struggle. Approached as early as 1895, Émile Zola was hesitant. He became convinced in 1897, when the second edition of *The Truth About the Dreyfus Affair* was published. Before Zola’s “J’accuse,” Bernard Lazare had written in it: “As for me, I accuse General Mercier, former Minister of War, of having failed in all his duties; I accuse him of having misled public opinion; I accuse him of having orchestrated an inexplicable campaign of slander against Captain Dreyfus in the press; I accuse him of having lied. I accuse General Mercier’s colleagues of not having prevented this injustice; I accuse them of having helped the Minister of War obstruct the defense; I accuse them of having done nothing to save a man they knew to be innocent.” See also Wikipedia:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lazare

“It is a shock. Bernard Lazare devotes himself almost exclusively to this task; he publishes his first memoir, The Dreyfus Affair – A Judicial Error, in Belgium at the beginning of November 1896; in fact, it is a total reworking of the text that he had written at the request of Mathieu Dreyfus as early as the summer of 1895. Based on an article in L’Éclair dated September 15, 1896 revealing the illegality of the 1894 trial, Lazare dismantled the accusation point by point and demanded a review. This tactic was undoubtedly more in line with the wishes of the Dreyfus family because in its first version, he attacked the guilty parties, accusing them one after the other, and ended by launching into a litany of “J’accuse…!” which he gave, a little over two years later, to Émile Zola who would make it famous.accuse Zola of plagiarism…

 Additional sources:

Dr Eva Reichmann (1897 – 1998), Hostages of Civilisation A Study of the Social Causes of Antisemitism, 1945.

Le socialiste allemand Moïse Hess (1812-1875) – Rome et Jérusalem : la dernière question nationale, 1862.

The Russian doctor Leo Pinsker (1821-1891) – Autoémancipation ! Avertissement d’un Juif russe à ses frères,1882 (Self-Emancipation! A Russian Jew’s warning to his brothers, 1882).

The Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl (1869-1904) – Judenstaat, 1896.

Acknowledgements: the photocopy of this special issue was provided to us by Éditions de Cassandra (Revue Courrier du Continent) from Sierre in Switzerland, Case Postale 46, CH3960.

This much-appreciated gesture allows us to reconnect with the threads of our own history, a history from which efforts are being made to cut us off.

Cover of “I Hate You”, a 25×30 cm color album published in April 1944
Image: La Rochelle Museums of Art and History, Vincent Mariet

photographie – M0825_2014-0-291 – Alienor.org

In April 1944, using as its title an invective by Léon Blum addressed to the nationalist benches in the National Assembly, “I hate you!”, the editorial staff of the journal Cahiers Jaunes, which had become Revivre, published a special issue, more of a collective work, under the direction of Henry Coston, the last page of the work specifies: 


The final approval for this magazine was given on April 15, 1944, at the printing press of the Special Printing Office of the Central Press and Information Bureau. Maurice-Ivan Sicard was Director, Émile Bougère, Editorial Secretary, and Jehan Teisseire, Head of Photographic Services, the articles and documents in this publication were compiled by Henry COSTON, Director of the C.A.D., with the collaboration of Professor MONTANDON, Professor BERNARDINI, Jean DRAULT, Jacques PLONCARD, Gaston DENIZOT, VAUQUELIN, Paul LAFITE, F. REYSSEL, Henry MEUNIER, Jean VELLAVE, Jacques ROGÈRE, Claude WACOGNE, Jean BERTRAND, Nelly ROSTEAU, Robert JULLIEN-COURTINÉ, X. De TEYTOT and Philippe de NATTES.Our esteemed colleague MULLER, from Masonic Documents, has also provided various important documents concerning Judaism and Freemasonry.

Controlled Opposition: How “Progressive” Zionism Protects Jewish Influence

/12 Comments/in , /by

California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer launched a direct assault on the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in American politics, declaring that “AIPAC is a dark money organization that should have no place in our politics.” In a subsequent press conference, he added that “AIPAC is cheering on Trump and Netanyahu’s war” and argued that “we do not have the same interest as this dark money organization.”

The Jewish billionaire’s comments arrived alongside another striking rebuke of the lobby’s influence. Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who won the March 2026 Democratic primary for Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, declared after his victory: “Yes, Israel was a safe haven for my Holocaust survivor grandparents and their 2-year-old daughter, my mother, in 1948. And at the same time, the oppression of the Palestinian people is an unacceptable stain on the world and on the Jewish people as well.”

Biss continued with a direct challenge to the lobby that spent more than $5 million against his campaign. “AIPAC found out the hard way. The Ninth District is not for sale.” These confrontations reflect a broader shift within the Democratic Party as criticism of AIPAC spreads from the progressive fringe toward the mainstream.

Three House Democrats formally swore off AIPAC contributions in 2025 after accepting them in prior cycles, driven by constituent pressure over the Gaza conflict. Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) cut ties despite AIPAC being a top contributor in prior cycles. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) did the same — the two had received a combined $104,000 from AIPAC in 2024. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) rejected further support despite receiving $2 million from AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC for her 2022 race.

Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-IL) took the confrontation further, stating that he refused to meet AIPAC’s requirement of supporting unconditional military aid to Israel. He went on to defeat AIPAC’s preferred candidate in the 2026 Illinois 7th District primary.

A wave of prominent Democrats eyeing 2028 presidential bids have rejected any AIPAC association. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is rejecting all PAC money this cycle. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) compared Israel to an “apartheid state” — though he later walked back that specific term — and has said he will never take AIPAC money. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) have all distanced themselves from the lobby. Shapiro says he has never taken or solicited AIPAC support.

In a major symbolic move signaling the party’s shift, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accepted J Street’s endorsement for the first time — a notable break after years in which the House’s top Democrat had kept the progressive pro-Israel group at arm’s length.

J Street PAC is backing 133 House and Senate incumbents plus challengers running against Republican incumbents. The J Street Action Fund super PAC raised $3 million, its largest independent expenditure effort, in partnership with Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Key endorsed candidates include Representative Dan Goldman of New York and Daniel Biss. J Street has also “primary approved” Brad Lander — a separate designation that allows J Street donors to contribute to his campaign through the PAC portal, short of a full endorsement.

The scale gap between the two organizations remains enormous. AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has raised $78 million for the 2026 cycle and already spent over $7.3 million, but AIPAC also spent $22 million in Illinois races while obscuring the source of the funds. J Street’s $3 million super PAC fund is dwarfed by comparison but is being deployed strategically in targeted races.

Yet observers should temper their optimism about this shift. Liberal Zionist organizations that have emerged as alternatives to AIPAC, particularly J Street, function as gatekeepers that prevent a legitimate, principled anti-Zionist movement from taking root in American politics.

The Electronic Intifada has consistently framed J Street as a more palatable arm of the same lobby. Co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote that “if J Street does not have the courage to support the ICC investigation, opposes the nonviolent BDS movement, opposes cutting US aid to Israel, and, needless to say, condemns any form of Palestinian armed struggle, then, in effect, it does support total impunity for Israel.” The outlet has documented J Street’s rejection of BDS, its unconditional support for US military aid, and its use of “demographic threat” framing as evidence that J Street serves Israeli rather than Palestinian interests. Abunimah concluded that “J Street remains an enemy of Palestinian rights whose mission is to put a softer, ‘progressive’ face on apartheid.”

Mondoweiss published a May 2024 piece critiquing J Street for supporting Israeli military aid, Palestinian demilitarization, and rejection of the right of return, arguing that its two-state framework presupposes Palestinians must “settle for areas designated by the Israeli colonizers.”

Al Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, published an influential June 2023 policy brief calling liberal Zionism “a pillar of Israel’s settler colonial project” and using J Street as its central American case study, urging activists and institutions to refuse the normalization of Israeli settler colonization and to shift public discourse toward Palestinian decolonial frameworks.

The critiques of J Street from Palestinian solidarity organizations center on several key issues. J Street opposes BDS, the central tool of Palestinian civil society resistance, and actively lobbies against it in Congress, on campuses, and in churches. The organization historically supported every appropriation of US security assistance to Israel, undermining the leverage needed to end the occupation — although in November 2024, it backed Bernie Sanders’ resolutions to block some arms transfers, and in April 2026 it called for phasing out all US military aid to Israel by 2028. J Street backed the US position opposing Palestinian recognition at the UN in 2011 and rejects the right of return, which critics see as fundamentally anti-Palestinian.

The organization’s “demographic threat” talking point reveals that liberal Zionism’s concern is preserving a Jewish demographic majority rather than Palestinian rights. During the post-October 7 war, J Street issued no call to halt U.S. weapons shipments despite expressing concern about civilian casualties — a pattern documented across its 132 press releases between October 7, 2023 and the January 2025 ceasefire, as analyzed by The Nation. By occupying a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” position, J Street provides Democratic lawmakers a shield against demands for more substantive measures to rein in Israel.

The political terrain on which these battles are fought has transformed dramatically. On April 7, 2026, Pew Research Center published a major survey based on 3,507 U.S. adults interviewed March 23 through 29, roughly a month into the joint U.S.-Israeli military operations in Iran. The headline finding showed that 60 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, up from 53 percent last year and 42 percent in 2022. The share holding a “very unfavorable” view at 28 percent has nearly tripled since 2022, when it stood at just 10 percent.

The partisan breakdown reveals the depth of the shift. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 80 percent hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022. Among Democrats under 50, fully 47 percent hold a “very unfavorable” view.

Even among Republicans, cracks are appearing. While 58 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners still view Israel favorably overall, 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now view Israel unfavorably, up from 50 percent last year. Only older Republicans aged 50 and above remain solidly pro-Israel.

The shift in public sentiment against AIPAC proves that the establishment is losing its grip, but it also highlights a dangerous new phase of controlled opposition. Organizations and activists who seek to pivot from AIPAC to J Street are simply trading one layer of Jewish influence for another. We must call this what it is: the colonization of our political system by organized Jewry.

There is no legitimate political solution as long as we refuse to address the fact that our national interests are being systematically sacrificed to serve Jewish communal objectives. The path to defeat is paved with these “kosher” critiques that protect the core centers of power.