Page 67 – The Occidental Observer

The Yoke of Woke: Nathan Cofnas Is Wrong about the Nature and Origins of Wokism

September 9, 2024/7 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Academic Activism, Jewish Aggressiveness/by Tobias Langdon

I admire the moral courage of Nathan Cofnas, the Jewish philosopher and race-realist. He stood out against the dominant ideology of Cambridge University and was duly punished for his crimethink. He’s also stood up for the free speech of heretics like Kevin MacDonald, even though he doesn’t agree with MacDonald’s heresies. But I don’t admire the honesty of Nathan Cofnas. It’s hard to admire something that disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake. For example, here’s Cofnas on what you might call the yolk of woke — the central principles and origins of wokism:

To explain the appeal of leftism — which increasingly takes the form of wokism — you have to explain what wokism is. I argue that wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality. Both the mainstream left and right believe that innate cognitive ability and temperament are distributed equally among races, and probably the sexes, too. (Mainstream conservatives acknowledge the existence of physical sex differences, but they rarely chalk up disparities in, for example, mathematical achievement to differences in innate ability — at least not publicly.) As I will explain, wokesters correctly follow the equality thesis to its logical conclusion, whereas conservatives fail to recognize the implications of their own beliefs. Smart people are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities. (“Why We Need to Talk about the Right’s Stupidity Problem: To win over the elites, the right needs to challenge the Big Lie that motivates wokism: the equality thesis,” Nathan Cofnas’s Newsletter, 2nd January, 2024)

Nathan Cofnas, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the internet meme Wojak

So Cofnas claims that wokism is “wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality.” He’s wrong. Wokism is not a simple phenomenon — not ideologically, not psychologically, not historically. And although I agree that the right has a “Stupidity Problem” and that anti-Semites are often “emotionally disturbed fools,” I also think that Cofnas has a dishonesty problem. First of all, wokism doesn’t in fact take “the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously,” as I will shortly show. Second, wokism’s concern about “the persistence of racial disparities” isn’t to end them but to reverse them. It wants to place favored racial groups at the top and Whites at the bottom. In his article, Cofnas doesn’t address what are perhaps the core features of wokism: its hatred of Whites and Western civilization, and its desire to harm the former and destroy the latter. That hatred and that desire can’t be explained by egalitarianism or a “background of Christian morality.” But they can be at least partly explained by Jewish activism and the longstanding resentments of Jews against Whites and the West.

The wickedness of Whiteness

Let’s take Cofnas’ claim that wokesters take “the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously.” In fact, no, they don’t. They emit rhetoric about equality while simultaneously believing in the innate evil of Whites or men and innate virtue of non-Whites or women. George Orwell called this kind of contradiction doublethink: the simultaneous holding of “two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” But wokism is increasingly less about doublethink on race and more about singlethink. It’s very easy to find wokesters blatantly contradicting “the equality thesis of race”:

A former Seattle city employee has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging he was a victim of anti-White discrimination due to a “racially hostile work environment.” … As part of his RSJI [Race and Social Justice Initiative] training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called “Undoing Institutional Racism,” during which facilitators declared, “white people are like the devil,” “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and “white people are cannibals.” … “Mr. Diemert’s colleagues used their work emails to berate and entertain violence against him, referring to him as ‘some a—hole,’ the ‘reincarnation of the people that shot native Americans from trains, rounded up jews for the camps, hunted down gypsies in Europe and runaway slaves in America,’ noting that it was not worth addressing his concerns because he would ‘just come back with more stupidity,’ and that someone should ‘get a guy to swing by when Josh is in the restroom and beat him bloody,’” the lawsuit alleges. (Seattle City Employee Sues Over Anti-White Discrimination, ‘Racially Hostile Work Environment,’ Fox News, 29th November 2022)

If wokesters took the “equality thesis” seriously, they wouldn’t make anti-White statements like those. No, they would condemn statements like those. They don’t. The New York Times, a bastion of woke, happily accepted the Korean wokester Sarah Jeong onto its editorial board in 2018 despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites in ways that blatantly contradicted the “equality thesis.” At American Renaissance, Gregory Hood has accurately described woke anti-racism as a “Church of the Damned” for Whites. Nothing Whites can do will ever cleanse them of their hereditary taint — their original sin — of racism. In short, wokism operates more and more explicitly on an in-equality thesis of race. Whites are innately wicked (“racism is in white people’s DNA”) and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Orwell said this in 1945:

Among the intelligentsia, colour feeling only occurs in the transposed form, that is, as a belief in the innate superiority of the coloured races. This is now increasingly common among English intellectuals, probably resulting more often from masochism and sexual frustration than from contact with the Oriental and Negro nationalist movements. Even among those who do not feel strongly on the colour question, snobbery and imitation have a powerful influence. Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it. (“Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic, London, 1945)

Orwell used the terms “intelligentsia” and “intellectuals.” Cofnas uses the term “smart people.” Orwell described their racial beliefs accurately. Cofnas doesn’t. And Cofnas doesn’t mention the central role of some particularly smart people in fomenting the anti-White hatred that is central to wokism. Here is the Ashkenazi Jew Susan Sontag:

The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. (Partisan Review, 1967)

And the Ashkenazi Jew Noël Ignatiev:

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. (See Andrew Joyce’s “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies’,” The Occidental Observer, 12th June 2015)

That is the Jewish “Culture of Critique” described by Kevin MacDonald: the anti-White, anti-Western ideology created by highly intelligent Jews and taken up by much less intelligent Blacks and others. In Britain, the Black academic Kehinde Andrews is a woke hero for books like The Psychosis of Whiteness (2023), which implicitly argues for the enslavement and even extermination of Whites. After all, Kehinde believes that rational argument is useless against the psychotic whiteness that has a stranglehold on so-called Western civilization:

Critical Whiteness studies has emerged as an academic discipline that has produced a lot of work and garnered attention in the last two decades. Central to this project is the idea that if the processes of Whiteness can be uncovered, then they can be reasoned with and overcome, through rationale dialogue. This article will argue, however, that Whiteness is a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis framed by its irrationality, which is beyond any rational engagement. (“The Psychosis of Whiteness: The Celluloid Hallucinations of Amazing Grace and Belle,” Journal of Black Studies, Volume 47, Issue 5, July 2016)

Unlike Jewish Sontag and Ignatiev, Black Kehinde is stupid. Non-Whites like him couldn’t have created and promulgated the ideology they are applying. But they can certainly adopt the ideology and base successful careers on it. Kehinde’s stupidity is apparent in the self-refuting nature of his thesis. If “whiteness” were so psychotically powerful in Britain, he wouldn’t be able to criticize it as he does. Could a book called The Psychosis of Stalinism have been published in 1940s Russia? Or a book called The Psychosis of Islam in modern Iran? Obviously not. And what would happen in modern Britain or America to a book called The Psychosis of Blackness? It would be anathematized as abhorrently racist, as a genocidal assault on “black bodies.”

What wokesters want

Well, Kehinde’s book is “abhorrently racist” by the “equality thesis of race” that Cofnas claims to be at the heart of wokism. But no wokester has condemned Kehinde or pointed out where his logic is pointing. If he is right in his claims about “Whiteness,” it follows that only physical force will successfully “overcome” its “Psychosis.” But what do wokesters like Kehinde really mean by “Whiteness”? They mean the physical existence and autonomy of Whites. To defeat the Psychosis of Whiteness, then, Whites must be enslaved or exterminated. What other conclusion is possible if rational argument is impossible and “psychosis” arises inexorably from “Whiteness”?

Cofnas says wokesters want equality. I say wokesters want enslavement and extermination. I think history is on my side, not Cofnas’ side. The Bolsheviks preached equality before they seized control of the Tsarist empire. They then practised enslavement and extermination. Here’s a chilling quote by one of the successful Bolshevik leaders: “To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.” That was Grigory Zinoviev, who launched “the Red Terror” in 1918 after the assassination of Moisei Uritsky and the near-assassination of Vladimir Lenin. Another prominent Bolshevik, Yakov Sverdlov, promised “merciless mass terror against all enemies of the Revolution” after that attempt on Lenin’s life.

Minority rites

Many millions of Russians and Ukrainians were enslaved or exterminated by communists like those. The pattern was very clear: minorities were taking their revenge on majorities. Zinoviev, Moisei, Sverdlov and many other leading communists were fully Jewish, while Lenin was half Mongol, a quarter German and a quarter Jewish. Josef Stalin was Georgian and won supremacy partly because of Leon Trotsky’s reluctance to be the obviously Jewish leader of what was supposed to be a movement for all mankind. You can see the same over-representation of Jews in the proto-woke Weather Underground, a revolutionary movement in 1960s America that claimed to be pursuing equality but planned to enact extermination. The Weather Underground was infiltrated by an FBI agent called Larry Grathwohl, who later described a meeting at which the disproportionately Jewish Weatherfolk discussed how to secure their revolution:

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter revolution and they felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the Southwest where [they] would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t reeducate that are diehard capitalists and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate I mean kill — 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious. (“Patriot Larry Grathwohl, 65, Infiltrated Weather Underground, Indicted Bill Ayers,” The American Spectator, 24th July 2013)

People with “graduate degrees from Columbia” are what Cofnas calls “smart people.” And Cofnas says that smart people “are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities.” Bolshevism and the Weather Underground prove that smart people often have other and much darker motives for embracing supposedly egalitarian ideologies. The smart people preach equality, then practise enslavement and extermination.

A golem, not a shabbos goy

Jews were disproportionately involved in both Bolshevism and the Weather Underground. Like Marxism in general, communist movements like those are a vehicle for minority resentment against the majority and for minority revenge on the majority. Wokism owes much more to communism than it does to Christianity. And communism foreshadows wokism in another important way. Both movements were created by Jews to serve Jewish interests, then escaped Jewish control. Jews have recently watched in dismay as their “natural allies” among Muslims and other non-Whites have supported the wrong side in the war between egalitarian Israel and hate-filled Hamas. Wokism is escaping Jewish control just as communism did. Georgians like Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria are more examples of the way communism attracted vengeful minorities. But Jews were one of the groups Stalin sought revenge on after becoming leader. Once he had supremacy, he exiled Trotsky and murdered Zinoviev and many other Jewish communists who had learnt too late that he was a golem, not a shabbos goy. Later he murdered Trotsky too. Stalin was a resentful man who tirelessly pursued revenge. That makes him an excellent example of leftist traits identified in this academic research:

In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism. Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to remain a significant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions. We investigated our hypotheses in two studies using cross-sectional correlational designs. Two nearly representative US samples (Study 1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits, and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle. (“Understanding left-wing authoritarianism: Relations to the dark personality traits, altruism, and social justice commitment,” Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams, Current Psychology, 2023)

Contra Cofnas, wokism is not “simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality.” Malevolence and hatred are central to wokism. Cofnas also ignores the central role of Jews in wokism. Although Jewish activism was certainly not sufficient to create and empower wokism, I would argue that it was necessary. Cofnas can’t admit that and doesn’t accurately describe what lies at the center of woke. Wokesters don’t in fact take the equality thesis of race and sex seriously. And wokism owes much more to communism than to Christianity.

If you want to remove the yoke of woke, then you have to understand the yolk of woke — the central principles that guide its adherents and power its malevolence. Wokism is driven by hatred of Whites and the West, not longing for equality. That’s why the end-logic of wokism is the same as the end-logic of communism: enslavement and extermination. We’re fortunate indeed that modern wokism has no highly competent leaders like the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin and the fully Jewish Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Genrikh Yagoda, Lazar Kagonovich, Maxim Litvinov, Karl Radek, etc, etc, etc.

Ashkenazic Afterword

Writing about the ethnocentric Ashkenazi Nathan Cofnas reminds me that I owe an apology to the alcoholic Ashkenazi David Cole, whom I criticized in my article “First-Amendment Blues.” I’ve sinned against Cole by both commission and omission. My commission came when I hacked his computer and added some embarrassingly inept insults against myself — Adolf Mentally-Unfitler, Heinrich Dimmler, Reinhard Heydick, Oskar Girlywanger, Horst Wuss-el — to the manuscript of “The Gentile-Jew Death Tango,” his reply to my article.

I knew that Cole would peer blearily at the published text through his latest hangover and attribute all those to himself “not being funny any more” rather than to malicious outside action. Sorry about that, David. I’m not a “sieg heiler” (honest), but I am good at writing like a 12-year-old. And my omission? That came when I failed to acknowledge that by Jewish standards David Cole is remarkably honest about Jewish malfeasance. I think he’s much more honest than I would ever be if I were Jewish myself. He hasn’t matched Larry Auster yet, but maybe he’ll get there in time. As for the genuinely Colean part of the anti-sieg-heiler article: yes, I like the tango metaphor, but I don’t think David has thought it through properly. Maybe he should meditate on “The Human-Mosquito Malaria Tango.” And listen for the sound of one hand clapping. Geddit?

The Carlson-Cooper Podcast: A Major Step Forward

September 7, 2024/34 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Influence/by Kevin MacDonald

Tucker Carlson has often been the subject of commentaries on this site, some quite negative, although I have tended toward his defense while calling attention to some of his blind spots, mostly involving race and Jewish influence. However, quite simply, Carlson has been by far the edgiest voice among mainstream conservatives. This interview marks a major step forward and has resulted in outrage from some of the usual suspects such as from the Biden Administration, the ADL (J.D. Vance sought to “distancee the candidate from the interview). Among the “numerous columnists” (according to CNN) who condemned the interview was Jewish activist and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg. Two things particularly angered Goldberg. First:

This clever rhetorical formulation, familiar to various strands of right-wing propaganda, flatters listeners for their willingness to reject all they’ve learned from mainstream experts, making them feel brave and savvy for imbibing absurdities. Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.”

I don’t have the background to comment on Hitler’s attempts to avoid a war or the beginnings of concentration camps, but of course we do know that Churchill’s profligacy and chronic indebtedness was funded by wealthy Jews who desperately wanted war with Hitler, as the articles by Horus and other accounts clearly show. The relevant passage in the interview is very brief but Goldberg fastened upon it and, at least to my hearing, Cooper seems uncomfortable discussing it. Needless to say, Goldberg does not attempt a rebuttal for any of these points or give any citations to people who could.

On Carlson’s website the interview is titled “The Fall of Europe” and subtitled: “Darryl Cooper: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe.”

The offending material starts with a comment on Jewish involvement in Bolshevism based on Churchill’s famous article from 1920 advocating that Jews embrace Zionism rather than Bolshevism but noting that many Jews got caught up in it, and Cooper agrees. Here are the relevant parts of Churchill’s article:

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [i.e., Jews who are nationalists in the nations they reside in] rise the schemes of the international Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all. of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown. a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very, great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff. And the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek, all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing,

So Churchill was aware of the evils of Bolshevism and the intensive Jewish involvement in it but cooperated with the Jews financing his lifestyle in order to destroy Hitler whose crimes paled in comparison with those of the Bolsheviks, at the very least in the 1930s. Needless to say, Goldberg and her ilk never refer to Jewish domination of the Soviet Union in the decades after the Revolution.

The following machine translation has been edited to try to make sense out of a mess (Tucker needs to hire an editor), but you get the idea.

Darryl Cooper: Churchill wrote a kind of infamous now article called Zionism Versus Bolshevism. And he [Churchill] basically makes the case — which was which was true to a large extent that all of Eastern Europe — that the Pale of Settlement, which is where the vast majority of Jews lived other than the United States, which is where a lot of them had had traveled to that area had become so engulfed by a revolutionary spirit that all of the young Ashkenazi Jews who were over there were getting swept up into it. It was the 60s here on steroids, right? [Perhaps suggesting Jews were deeply involved in the 1960s counter-cultural revolution throughout the West — which they were.] And in a much more serious and destructive way. And this is 1920. So shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Basically, the point of his paper is he says, these people who over there they’re all going one direction or the other. They’re going to be Bolsheviks. They’re going to be Zionists. We want them to be Zionists, you know? And so we need to support this. And so that was early on. There was an ideological component of it. But then as time goes on, you know, you read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money. Getting bailed out by people who shared his interests, you know, in terms of Zionism, but also, his hostility. Just, just. You know, I think his hostility, to put it this way, I think his hostility to Germany was real. I don’t think that he necessarily had to be bribed to have that feeling. But, you know, I think he was, to an extent, put in place by people, the financiers, by a media complex that wanted to make sure that he was the guy who, you know, who was representing Britain in that conflict for, for the, for a reason. And you know, Churchill’s a… Again, it’s so hard. Because like, you know, especially in a short interview like this where you have this guy. Who? I mean, he’s an Abraham Lincoln-, George Washington-, Martin Luther King-like type figure in the sort of Western consciousness, right?

Tucker [00:57:09] Yes.

Darryl Cooper [00:57:10] And so people have so many assumptions in built-in triggers, like when it comes to this guy, that it’s hard to talk about it because you’re always thinking about the triggers that you’re setting off and your listeners. And I don’t say that in a way of like, I don’t want to offend anybody. No, no, I understand it’s that it’s, you know, you know, that things are going to be misunderstood. And so this is why I do 30, our podcast.

Tucker [00:57:31] Well, it’s just it’s interesting because I, you know, as a follower of your work, I don’t see you as hostile to the West. I see you actually as a product of the West and as a defender, really of the West for its values. You know, in your approach, in your open mindedness, rigor, you know, belief in accuracy and honesty and those are Western notions. And yet Churchill has been positioned and has been and really is accepted as like the defender of the West over the last 100 years.

Darryl Cooper [00:58:02] Yeah.

Tucker [00:58:03] And so maybe that’s and I wonder why that is. I don’t I mean, people can certainly take issue with any factual claims you’re making. I assume they’re all right. They’re consistent with what I think I know to be true. But why do you think Churchill has been presented in a way, in the way that he has?

In other words, Tucker has long known this about the roots of World War II, Jewish involvement in it, and Churchill’s role in producing this disaster.

Darryl Cooper [00:58:22] Well, it’s it has to do with what you said earlier, right? Neville Chamberlain versus Churchill has been the binary model that has served as the chief rhetorical device for every conflict we’ve wanted to get into since then. Yes. You know, the entire Cold War. And then even after the Cold War, in the global war on terror is if you appease them, you’re Neville Chamberlain. Hitler’s the, rather, Churchill’s the one who saw all along where this was headed and was trying to warn people this, you know, Cassandra. And finally, because nobody listened to him, the war ended up breaking out and we were forced to, like, go stamp out this threat. And now it’s a….much bigger threat than it ever would have been if we just …

Tucker [00:59:05] Put a listing, say, if we had strangled it in its

Darryl Cooper [00:59:07] Crib and it’s justified every conflict, you know, really, since the Second World War, everybody’s the new Hitler, right? It’s you know, it really did become the founding myth of the of the global order that we’re all living in now. Right?

* * *

The other big problem for Goldberg (also predictable):

Toward the end of their conversation, Carlson and Cooper discussed how the “postwar European order” has enabled mass immigration, which has, in Carlson’s telling, destroyed Western Europe. “So why not have a Nuremberg trial for the people who did that?” asked Carlson. “I don’t understand. I mean, that’s such a crime.”

“Well,” Cooper responded, “we have to win first.”

Goldberg’s column ends there. For the Michelle Goldbergs of the world, the worst thing that could happen would be for people to realize that Western cultures and peoples are in the process of suicide and that Jews are influential advocates of this process. Here’s the relevant transcript edited for clarity because the machine transcription is a mess:

Tucker Carlson: “I just can’t get over the fact that the West won and is completely destroyed in less than a century. … Somehow the United States and Western Europe won. That’s the conventional understanding. And both now look like they lost a World War. So, like, what the hell was that? Like, there’s something very, very heavy.

Darryl Cooper [02:08:46] Yeah. I mean, it’s all the things that we have been talking about. [Presumably a reference to Jewish involvement in Bolshevism, Hitler’s campaign against Bolshevism, the Jewish-financed campaign against Hitler and its ensuing media-and academic-manufactured mythology, as well as the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, massive non-White immigration, and multiculturalism.] And probably some things that, you know, we only talk about privately, but we can see the results of it. I mean.

“We only talk about privately. A revealing statement. It’s pretty clearly a reference to the disastrous consequences that await anyone who dares to question the consensus and an oblique reference to Jewish power that is so instrumental in suppressing ideas that they don’t like, especially any ideas that seriously discuss Jewish power.

Tucker [02:08:58] Yeah. So that’s that’s the real question. If they were trying to achieve that destruction that you’re talking about, if they if they were trying, they couldn’t have done it more directly or more effectively, you know. And so, there are trends in forces. There are things that drive people, you know, like incentives to drive people that they’re not aware of. There’s a lot of things going on.

So no clear reference to Jewish influence, but he’s certainly right about incentives that are so attractive to so many non-Jews, particularly politicians and others with aspirations to power, that smooth the way for traitorous behavior by so many White people. I have argued that the Jewish motive is quite clear: They feel safer in a multicultural, non-White majority country as an antidote to what happened in White, Christian Germany beginning in 1933.

Tucker around 2:05: So when can just tie a bow in [your] World War Two project? … I think it’s like it’s central to the society we live in, the myths upon which it’s built. I think it’s also the cause of like the destruction of Western civilization and these lies.

Absolutely right.

I should also mention a tidbit from an Alex Berenson blog — Berenson being the Covid dissident who was on Tucker’s Fox News show several times. Berenson:

And just weeks ago, when I heard that Tucker said on a podcast that my “indispensable quality is bravery,” I was genuinely thrilled. Which is why it hurt to hear Tucker playing footsie on his incredibly popular podcast this week with Darryl Cooper, a historian who is a Nazi apologist and — at best — walks to the edge of Holocaust denial.

To take a recent example, Cooper posted on X that the Nazi occupation of Paris was “infinitely preferable” to the (admittedly idiotic and offensive) opening ceremony of the Olympics in July. The Nazi occupation of Paris led to over 70,000 French Jews being sent to gas chambers. (Cooper later deleted the post.)

So Cooper is definitely on page with the idea that World War II has led to the disastrous consequences we see in the contemporary West in terms of cultural degradation and, on the basis of the above, on being colonized by the Third World. Of course, Berenson (and the rest of the critics) never bother to consider the consequences to the people and culture of the West as a result of the World War II mythos being so entrenched in the West, much less give any serious analysis of the Jewish role in establishing and maintaining it.

This interview is a big step forward in bringing these ideas into the mainstream. One wonders if Carlson did it in hopes of influencing the looming election in which immigration and multiculturalism are definitely on the minds of a great many voters. (Carlson is doing a 16-date cross-country tour in September, including a show with J.D. Vance on September 21.) Perhaps he understands that there is not much time left and that we have to make a stand against the onslaught we are facing. And a necessary part of taking a stand would be to change the public’s attitudes on the origins of World War II and on Jewish power and influence.

Of course, there will be consequences, but in retrospect, Tucker getting fired from Fox News is definitely a big positive. He never could have said anything like this on Fox. It’s not clear what the powers that be can do to Carlson, but for the ADL and the rest of establishment media figures, this is Armageddon — a battle they can’t afford to lose. They will pull out all the stops to prevent it from becoming mainstream in conservative circles.

But some people are just too big to completely bury and his alliance with Elon Musk and Musk’s ownership of X is a big plus. Any conservative who is remotely paying attention realizes that the formidable power of the Jewish community is firmly aligned with the Democrats as it has been for decades.

We’ll see. It will be a nice test of Jewish power. Believe me, they won’t take this lying down.

Here’s Goldberg’s screed:

Tucker Carlson and the Heterodoxy-to-Holocaust Denial Pipeline

Credit…Thalassa Raasch

By Michelle Goldberg

This week Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News star who now hosts one of America’s top podcasts, had an apologist for Adolf Hitler on his show. Darryl Cooper, who runs a history podcast and newsletter called Martyr Made, considers Winston Churchill, not Hitler, the chief villain of World War II. In a social media post that he’s since deleted, Cooper argued that a Paris occupied by the Nazis was “infinitely preferable in virtually every way” to the city on display during the opening ceremony of the recent summer Olympics, where a drag queen performance infuriated the right. On his show, Carlson introduced Cooper to listeners as “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.”

Over the course of a wide-ranging two-hour conversation, Cooper presented the mainstream history of World War II as a mythology shrouded in taboos intended to prop up a corrupt liberal political order. The idea that Nazi Germany represented the epitome of evil, argued Cooper, is such a “core part of the state religion” that we have “emotional triggers” preventing us from examining the past dispassionately.

This clever rhetorical formulation, familiar to various strands of right-wing propaganda, flatters listeners for their willingness to reject all they’ve learned from mainstream experts, making them feel brave and savvy for imbibing absurdities. Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.

Some on the right found Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism surprising. “Didn’t expect Tucker Carlson to become an outlet for Nazi apologetics, but here we are,” Erick Erickson, the conservative radio host, wrote on X. But Carlson’s trajectory was entirely predictable. Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression and ethnic grievance.

There are few better trolls, after all, than Holocaust deniers, who love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers oppressed by Orwellian elites. (The wildly antisemitic Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust named its journal “An Inconvenient History: A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry.”) Those who deny or downplay the Holocaust often excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship, using them to undermine rather than explore reality. They blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions, and they know how to use crude provocation to get attention.

Long before 4Chan existed, the disgraced Holocaust-denying author David Irving urged his followers, in an early 1990s speech, to break through the “appalling pseudo-religious atmosphere” surrounding World War II by being aggressively tasteless. “You’ve got to say things like: ‘More women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz,’” he said.

Until quite recently, American conservatives mostly maintained antibodies against Irving-style disinformation. Right-wing thought leaders generally shared the same broad historical understanding of World War II as the rest of society, felt patriotic pride at America’s role in it and viewed Hitler as metaphysically wicked. Rather than recognizing the way right-wing politics, taken to extremes, could shade into National Socialism, they would hurl Nazi comparisons at the left, as the conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg did in his 2008 book “Liberal Fascism.”

Goldberg’s approach was dishonest, but it was representative of a broad antifascist consensus in American politics. Cooper is, in fact, correct that abhorrence of Nazism has helped structure Western societies. If we could agree on nothing else, we could agree that part of the job of liberal democracy was to erect bulwarks against the emergence of Hitler-like figures.

For parts of the contemporary right, however, the social consensuses undergirding liberalism are artificial and even tyrannical. After all, the “Matrix”-derived metaphor of being “red-pilled” implies a realization that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs. And once you discard all epistemological and moral guardrails, it’s easy to descend into barbarous nonsense.

Candace Owens, another anti-woke right-wing celebrity who has lately become Hitler-curious, has also come to question received wisdom about the shape of the earth. “I’m not a flat-earther,” she said in July. “I’m not a round-earther. Actually, what I am is I am somebody who has left the cult of science.”

Obviously, not every red-pilled conservative ends up arguing, as Owens did, that Hitler gets a bad rap. But the weakening of the intellectual quarantine around Nazism — and the MAGA right’s fetish for ideas their enemies see as dangerous — makes it easier for influential conservatives to surrender to fascist impulses. When they do, they pay no penalty in political relevance, because there’s no conservative establishment capable of disciplining its ideologues.

Carlson has just embarked on a national tour with special guests at each stop. In addition to Alex Jones, he’s scheduled to appear with the vice-presidential nominee JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr.

Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future. If Hitler is no longer widely understood as the negation of our deepest values, America will be softened up for Donald Trump’s most authoritarian plans, including imprisoning masses of undocumented immigrants in vast detention camps.

Toward the end of their conversation, Carlson and Cooper discussed how the “postwar European order” has enabled mass immigration, which has, in Carlson’s telling, destroyed Western Europe. “So why not have a Nuremberg trial for the people who did that?” asked Carlson. “I don’t understand. I mean, that’s such a crime.”

“Well,” Cooper responded, “we have to win first.”

Yamakazi Jews: They Hate Whites More than They Love Themselves

September 5, 2024/27 Comments/in Anti-Semitism, Featured Articles/by Spencer J. Quinn

During war it is often appropriate to attack despite putting oneself in great danger by doing so. If one can score a knockout blow, thereby ending the hostilities, the risk becomes justified. In such circumstances, victory is everything, and second place is not an option—even though it is obviously the only other one.

But what if there is no war? What if there are no men in uniform shooting each other, no airplanes or drones dropping deadly fire from the sky, no ships or submarines outmaneuvering each other on the high seas—and still there’s a subset of a population bent on attacking another, even when it is against their interests to do so? This encapsulates much of the Jewish Question, and what European Whites have been forced to deal with since their Jewish minorities had been emancipated in the late nineteenth century.

Before the formation of Israel, it could have been argued that the Jewish diaspora was acting in its best interests by opposing gentile nativism in America and many parts of Europe. Maybe. These days, however, with Jews being the per-capita wealthiest minority in the United States and with a nuclear-armed Israel thriving and receiving billions in free aid, this is no longer the case. To hurt America and to contribute to its decline through illegal immigration and openly anti-White policies, is to risk ultimately harming the successful Jewish diaspora. Yet the Jewish elite continues to do this very thing through its unwavering support of the Democrat Party.

I have a name for such suicidal/genocidal Jews: Yamakazis. Such Jews ignore or downplay the often vicious anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism of their non-White allies in order to press the attack upon their ultimate bête noir—or bête blanch, if you will—White people.

It’s as if they hate White people more than they love themselves. They must feel that they are at war with Whites—despite Whites not being at war with them. I’m reminded of how Jewish Avant garde composer Arnold Schoenberg eschewed having his atonal works performed during the First World War, given how detested they were by the Czech public. But peacetime was another matter. In a letter, he once wrote [emphasis mine]:

. . .surely, it isn’t cowardly if I now try to avoid that sort of thing. In peace-time—which means war-time for me—I am quite prepared to go back to being everyone’s whipping boy, and everyone who is accounted indispensable today will be welcome to lash out at whatever bit of me he thinks most vulnerable. But for the present—more than ever—I should like to keep out of the limelight.[1]

More apropos might be what Jewish banker and Bolshevik financier Jacob Schiff once said after his 1911 meeting with President William Taft in which he attempted to persuade Taft to abrogate a trade agreement with Russia. Schiff wanted to punish Russia for its discriminatory treatment of Jews. When Taft refused, Schiff reportedly declared to one of his allies—in classic Daffy Duck fashion—“This means war!”

Such all-consuming truculence was on display recently during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago when members of the Jewish political elite, such as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff, stood in front of cameras and proclaimed their loyalty to a political party which is growing as anti-Semitic as it already is anti-White. They made nary a mention of Israel’s war in Gaza and the violent backlash Jews have been facing over it from the Left—especially the Muslim Left. During the proceedings in Chicago, however, this was made impossible to ignore.

According to the Washington Free Beacon:

On Tuesday, pro-Hamas agitators disrupted a DNC event with hostage families hosted by Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. The protesters shouted, “Zionism has got to fall” and “Shame on you” at attendees. Dozens of anti-Israel protesters were also arrested after clashing with police near the convention Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, it was see no evil and hear no evil from the Jewish elite, as represented by Schumer, who pointed to his blue lapel pin and claimed he was wearing it to “stand up to antisemitism.” But, of course, he was looking in the wrong direction. Outside, a mob of incensed anti-Semites was practically screaming bloody murder against Israel and Jews, yet Schumer would rather vent his wrath at affirmed Israel ally and philo-Semite Donald Trump:

As the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in American history, I want my grandkids and all grandkids to never, never face discrimination because of who they are. But Donald Trump—this is a guy who peddled antisemitic stereotypes. He even invited a White supremacist to Mar-a-Lago.

And according to Daniel Greenfield of Front Page, no one at the DNC denounced the unruly Jew haters, either for being unruly or for hating Jews. Joe Biden even admitted they had a point. The American Free Thinker also made the most of Schumer’s hypocrisy when whining about anti-Semitism while remaining on excellent terms with noted anti-Semite Al Sharpton.

As if this weren’t remarkable enough, however, something unheard of occurred at this year’s DNC: Jews had to meet in secret for their own security. That is how dangerous it has gotten for them in the political party they fund and pull leftward, always leftward. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Jewish groups acting on the periphery of the DNC had to act very carefully indeed:

The Jewish Democratic Council of America held panel discussions with former U.S. ambassador to Spain Alan Solomont and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), but attendees were required to register before receiving the location. Private security and metal detectors were present at both events.

The Israeli-American Council only disclosed the location for its “Hostage Square” discussion to attendees a few hours before it started, the Times of Israel reported on Wednesday.

So let’s get this straight: actual anti-Semitism is happening at the 2024 DNC which forces Jews to meet in secret to avoid violent encounters with anti-Semites to whom their own party openly caters, and the highest ranking Jew in the US government can’t find anything better to complain about than how Donald Trump once had a dinner at his home crashed by a supposed “White supremacist.” In other words, I, Spencer J. Quinn, by virtue of writing this essay for this website, am a greater threat to world Jewry than people who are willing to go jail for violently protesting the very fact that Israel exists. The internal consistency of my arguments, the amount of verifiable evidence I bring to the table, the fact that I am arguing in good faith—all mean nothing to people like Schumer.

There is zero credibility here, as usual. But this past DNC has taken it to a whole other level. Never before has the suicidal nature of the Jewish diaspora elite been in starker focus.

Chuck Schumer is a kamikaze Jew. He is a Yamakazi. He only knows one thing: to attack, regardless of what this will do to his own people. When it comes down to the aleph and tau of the Jewish Question, people like Shumer care little about real anti-Semitism—just as they care little about the welfare of other Jews. First and foremost, they care about hating White people. And since Donald Trump has become the avatar of White America, they unload all their ammo at him.

After all, this is what you do during a war.

But this is a cowardly, undeclared war. I wonder if Chuck Schumer proudly stands up to antisemitism on the Right only because that is where it is indeed weakest. But where it is strongest, that is, on the Left and right under his hooked nose, he keeps as quiet as a mouse.

There’s a lesson in here somewhere, folks.

La soviétisation des droits pénaux occidentaux

September 2, 2024/in Translations: French/by Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Dans ses livres, Le Théâtre de Satan ou Droit, conscience et sentiments, et dans ses articles publiés par Polémia, le juriste Éric Delcroix n’est pas seul à déplorer la dérive juridique européenne camouflée en « État de droit ». Docteur en philosophie, polyglotte, diplomate aux États-Unis et politologue, le Croate Tomislav Sunić aborde lui aussi cette question cruciale dans de nombreux articles et conférences. Il est également l’auteur de plusieurs livres dont certains traduits en français tels Chronique des Temps postmodernes, La Croatie : un pays par défaut ? ou Homo americanus, rejeton de l’ère postmoderne (préface de Kevin B. MacDonald), chroniqué sur notre site. Voici un texte rédigé par ses soins traitant d’un sujet essentiel.
Polémia

Sommaire masquer

1. Une image miroir du système communiste

2. Anomalie verbale et juridique

3. La mal-pensance criminalisée

Une image miroir du système communiste

L’un des avantages du système judiciaire de l’ancienne Europe communiste était que personne, y compris les apparatchiks des partis, ne croyait à son langage frauduleux. C’est la principale raison pour laquelle le système s’est effondré. Les procédures judiciaires contre les dissidents politiques – officiellement qualifiés d’« éléments hostiles » ou d’« infiltrés fascistes parrainés par l’Occident » – étaient des parodies de simulacres où les procureurs projetaient leur vrai Moi dans leur double Moi imaginaire et embelli, tout en sachant que leur palabre juridique n’était qu’une litanie de mensonges fabriqués de toutes pièces. L’erreur judiciaire communiste est devenue visible peu après l’effondrement du système communiste au début des années 1990, incitant des milliers de juges et de législateurs communistes dans toute l’Europe de l’Est à adopter du jour au lendemain le mimétisme judiciaire libéral nouvellement importé d’Occident.

Bien que l’on utilise des termes différents, le système judiciaire moderne occidental, et particulièrement américain, devient rapidement une image miroir du système communiste. Contrairement aux citoyens méfiants de l’ancienne Europe de l’Est communiste, des millions d’Américains et des milliers d’experts juridiques croient sincèrement que le système judiciaire américain est le meilleur du monde. Mais le fléau actuel des procès et des poursuites aux États-Unis et dans leur territoire, l’UE, prouve le contraire. Un étranger peut davantage comprendre le système judiciaire américain en comparant son jargon juridique à celui de l’ancien système communiste, ou en le traduisant de manière erronée et en l’appliquant au système judiciaire de l’UE.

Anomalie verbale et juridique

À l’instar du système judiciaire communiste et de son arsenal de constructions verbales diabolisantes conçues pour les dissidents politiques, le ministère américain de la Justice a, ainsi que les médias, de plus en plus recours à la criminalisation des dénominations des opposants politiques. « Donnez-moi l’homme et je vous donnerai le dossier contre lui » était une pratique juridique répandue dans les anciens États communistes d’Europe de l’Est. Des accusations fabriquées de manière similaire peuvent désormais être facilement formulées contre des libres penseurs, des écrivains et des lanceurs d’alerte qui critiquent la conduite du gouvernement. Un intrus non armé du Capitole, le 6 janvier 2021, qui crie des slogans pro-Trump et retire de force les barrières de police, ne peut guère s’attendre à être accusé d’un simple délit. Au contraire, sur un coup de tête d’un procureur en chef, toute personne qui défie le système libéral peut se retrouver accusée, en vertu du chapitre 115 du Code des États-Unis, de « s’être livrée à des activités séditieuses et criminelles ».

D’innombrables constructions verbales que la plupart des citoyens américains tiennent pour acquises doivent être examinées de manière critique. Les expressions négatives ou fleuries telles que « discours de haine », « discrimination positive », « diversité », « suprémacisme blanc » et « rassemblements néo-nazis » sont utilisées par les médias et les tribunaux, avec un effort minimum de la part des juristes et des linguistes pour en extraire le sens. Lorsque leur origine, leur étymologie et les distorsions sémantiques qui en découlent sont soigneusement étudiées, des failles dans les codes pénaux américains sont détectées. Le même effort s’applique à la multitude de termes allemands et français émaillant les codes pénaux respectifs de la RFA et de la France, des termes qui sont pratiquement intraduisibles en anglais, ou, lorsqu’ils le sont, résonnent de manière totalement différente dans les procédures judiciaires américaines.

L’expression « discours de haine » est une construction verbale bizarre qui permet de poursuivre un large éventail de manœuvres extrajudiciaires. La liberté d’expression de quelqu’un est toujours le discours de haine de quelqu’un d’autre. Cette expression n’existait même pas dans le glossaire judiciaire il y a un demi-siècle. On peut se demander qui a inventé cette expression et l’a introduite dans le droit en premier lieu. Sa signification abstraite permet aux juges ou aux jurys de la définir comme ils l’entendent.

L’une des caractéristiques principales du légalisme totalitaire communiste était l’utilisation d’expressions abstraites et liquides qui fournissaient au procureur une myriade d’accusations potentielles lors des audiences. Mais le terme même de « légalisme totalitaire » est une contradiction dans les termes, étant donné que la juridification en cours de la politique dans l’UE et aux États-Unis a déjà conduit à un légalisme excessif, c’est-à-dire à une guerre juridique, qui n’est qu’un premier pas vers la mise en place de systèmes totalitaires. On pourrait illustrer encore davantage les anomalies juridiques qui en découlent en examinant l’expression tant vantée et universellement acceptée des « droits de l’homme », en oubliant que les droits de l’homme sont compris différemment par les différentes parties ; différemment, par exemple, par un Palestinien à Gaza et par un colon juif en Cisjordanie. C’est au nom de principes des droits de l’homme à consonance romantique, écrivait il y a longtemps le juriste Carl Schmitt, que les crimes les plus sauvages sont commis contre une entité ou un peuple déclarés hors de l’humanité. Une fois déclarés hors de l’humanité, une entité politique en guerre et ses civils ne sont plus des êtres humains ; les droits de l’homme ne s’appliquent plus à eux. La volonté d’imposer des droits de l’homme universels et une démocratie mondiale a été parfaitement observée lors des bombardements aériens des villes allemandes par les Alliés occidentaux pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Une autre expression largement utilisée, rarement examinée de manière critique, est l’« affirmative action » imposée par le gouvernement fédéral. Outre son contenu, bien connu de la plupart des employeurs, cette expression met en évidence un langage soviétique générique. Il est impossible de la traduire mot pour mot dans d’autres langues européennes, sauf en modifiant grossièrement son sens. Lorsqu’elle est traduite en allemand ou en français, elle génère une appellation hybride impropre telle que « discrimination positive » (positive Diskriminierung). On doit se poser une question légitime : s’il existe une chose telle que la « discrimination positive », existe-t-il également une « discrimination négative » ? L’expression « discrimination positive » est à la fois une anomalie lexicale, conceptuelle et juridique que la plupart des professionnels du droit aux États-Unis et dans l’UE considèrent cependant comme une figure de style acceptable.

La mal-pensance criminalisée

Les termes « fascistes » ou « nazis », autrefois utilisés sans cesse dans le code pénal soviétique pour condamner les dissidents, font désormais partie d’un vocabulaire diabolisant similaire, en particulier dans le système judiciaire de l’UE. Le national-socialisme ou le fascisme ne représentent plus d’affiliations historiques et politiques spécifiques, ayant été transformés en symboles du Mal absolu et ultime.

Le code pénal allemand comporte une multitude d’expressions criminalisantes similaires, qui défient souvent les règles grammaticales et morphologiques. Le nom composé relativement nouveau de Volksverhetzung, qui figure en bonne place dans l’article 130 du code pénal allemand, a été maladroitement traduit en anglais par « incitement to hatred » (« incitation à la haine »), bien que l’original allemand ait une portée beaucoup plus large lorsqu’il est utilisé dans les actes d’accusation. Ce terme à sens multiples représente un cas d’anomalie linguistique semblable aux formulations du système judiciaire soviétique. Les citoyens allemands l’appellent péjorativement « Gummiparagraph » (paragraphe en caoutchouc, ou clause élastique) car son interprétation si large peut envoyer en prison toute personne posant des questions politiquement incorrectes, de quelqu’un qui fait une blague sur un migrant somalien illégal à une personne qui soulève des questions critiques sur l’Holocauste ou l’État d’Israël. Même un avocat américain parfaitement versé dans la langue allemande aurait du mal à déconstruire le sens de ce terme allemand lorsqu’il défendrait son client devant un tribunal allemand.

Contrairement au dogme libéral sur la prétendue indépendance de la justice, c’est toujours la classe dirigeante qui fait et défait les lois ; jamais les lois ne font la classe dirigeante. Le mythe libéral répandu selon lequel la Cour suprême agit comme l’arbitre indépendant ultime pendant un état d’urgence n’a jamais fonctionné dans la pratique. Le penseur romain Juvénal le savait depuis longtemps lorsqu’il posait la question intemporelle : « Mais qui gardera les gardiens ? »

Mud and Blood: How to Super-Charge First-World Economies with Third-World Fuel

August 31, 2024/11 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Mud, sand and sawdust. These simple things make excellent fuels for sophisticated modern engines. All reputable engineers will tell you so. Simply fill your tank and zoom away, enjoying vastly improved performance and mileage. There are just two conditions. First, you have to source the super-fuels in the Third World. It has to be Syrian mud or Moroccan sand or Pakistani sawdust. Second, you have to use the Third-World super-fuels in the First World. Strangely enough, if you try to run an engine on mud in Syria, your engine will stop working. But use the same mud in Germany and your engine will pulsate with power. Trust the experts!

Showered with gold

Well, I’ve just written utter nonsense, of course. No engineer has ever said that mud, sand or sawdust makes good fuel for any kind of engine. Engineers aren’t idiots. They deal in reality, not fantasy. No, the idiotic group that makes nonsensical claims about Third-World fuel isn’t engineers but economists. They’ve been claiming for decades that mass immigration from the Third World is absolutely vital for sophisticated modern economies in the First World. The stale pale frail West will collapse without the dynamism and vitality of youthful Syrians, Moroccans and Pakistanis. Strangely enough, those Third-Worlders don’t make the economies boom in their own homelands. But in the West, they will shower their lucky hosts with gold. Trust the experts!

That’s the message of economists. Their idiocy is matched only by their arrogance. In truth, if you fuel a Western economy with mud, you get blood, not gold. At the end of July 2024, Southport in England saw how readily Third-World mud turns into First-World blood. A Rwandan Black invaded a schoolgirls’ holiday club and began laboring with a large knife. The fruit of his labor was three dead little girls and more seriously injured. At the end of August 2024 Solingen in Germany saw mud and blood too. It was holding a Festival der Vielfalt, a festival of diversity. The highlight of the festival was provided by a Syrian Arab, who shouted “Allahu akbar!” and began laboring with another large knife. The fruit of his labor was uncannily similar: three dead adults and more seriously injured. The expert economists at the Financial Times (FT) reacted to the attack just as you would expect – with arrogance and idiocy. They zoomed in on what they regard as the real problem exposed by the slaughter in Solingen. Not stabby Syrians, but the evil and inbred far-right:

Germany’s real problem: not stabby Syrians, but wicked Whites on the far right (image from the Financial Times)

An expert called Henry Foy, the “FT’s Brussels Bureau Chief,” explained “Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears.” I’ll reproduce his words below. When you read them, note the blithe unconcern revealed by the sub-heading “Knife edge.” It’s a pun referring to the danger of Europe tipping over into xenophobia. Yes, the Financial Times is punning about the bloody and barbarous slaughter and wounding of ordinary German Whites. The paper’s editors and writers simply don’t care. The elite currently ruling with West regard the violent death of ordinary Whites as no problem at all. It’s the reaction to violent death that’s the problem. Here is Henry Foy’s article:

Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears

Today, I unpack what Germany’s response to a stabbing attack this weekend could mean for Europe. …

Knife edge

A fatal knife attack in Germany has convulsed the country’s politics ahead of regional elections this weekend — but is also worrying officials across the EU nervous about the rise of the far right and anti-immigration rhetoric.

Context: A Syrian man stabbed three people to death and injured eight more on Friday night in the west German city of Solingen. The attack has boosted already strong support for the far-right nationalist Alternative for Germany party ahead of elections in the states of Saxony and Thuringia this Sunday.

Yesterday, alongside promising to tighten Germany’s laws on weapons, Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged to reduce the inflow of irregular migrants and increase deportations. That followed remarks by Björn Höcke, the AfD’s leader in Thuringia, who blamed the attack on what he called: “This multicultural experiment on our country.”

There are two major concerns for Brussels from the Solingen tragedy.

Short-term, it has rammed home the political dangers posed by a resurgent far right across Europe, just weeks after centrist parties celebrated what they saw as European election results that confirmed their dominance of the EU’s political stage.

Longer-term, many in Europe worry that a knee-jerk reaction in Germany — potentially including new border controls and possibly even checks on movement inside of the country — could prompt a rash of similar unilateral moves by other countries where anti-immigration politicians are popular.

That would undermine the core principles of the EU’s Schengen free movement area, and further strain a fundamental aspect of the bloc’s single market.

“We can’t react to this by slamming the door in the faces of people who are often themselves fleeing from Islamists,” said Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of Scholz’s Social Democrats party.

Many in Brussels hope that calmer response prevails. (“Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears,” The Financial Times, 27th August 2024)

Three ordinary Whites have been bloodily slaughtered. Eight more have been wounded. Henry Foy glides past the deaths and woundings with a perfunctory reference to “tragedy.” He simply doesn’t care. When he speaks of “dangers,” he isn’t referring to stabby Syrians but to the “resurgent far right.” He’s also deeply concerned about a “knee-jerk reaction” in Germany that might “prompt a rash” of “unilateral moves” elsewhere in Europe. Note the medical marvel apparent in that mixed metaphor: a “knee-jerk” creates a “rash.” As George Orwell pointed out in his magisterial essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946), mixed metaphors prove that writers are not thinking and not seeing reality. Instead, they’re using what Orwell had earlier called “duckspeak.” It’s not language “in the true sense” but “noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.”

Not idiots, but evil

Foy is a duckspeaker, someone who quacks out orthodox opinions without any concern for reality, only for ideology. In his case, it’s the ideology of open borders. That’s why he quotes with approval the duckspeak of another open-border enthusiast: Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of the Social Democrats party. Kühnert said: “We can’t react to this by slamming the door in the faces of people who are often themselves fleeing from Islamists.” He too isn’t concerned about the slaughter and suffering of ordinary German Whites. No, the important thing is keeping the borders open. Kühnert wants Germany to protect people “fleeing from Islamists” by allowing Islamists to accompany those people to Germany. Is he an idiot like Henry Foy and the other experts at the Financial Times? Well, no. In truth Foy, Kühnert and company are evil, not idiots. It’s not their intelligence that’s faulty, it’s their ethics.

Jews’ views

That’s why they demonize the “far right” for not welcoming the slaughter and sex-crimes committed by Third-World invaders. It’s also why they censor their own lies. Recall that the stabby Syrian in Solingen set to work at a “festival of diversity.” That’s ironic, isn’t it? One moment Solingen is celebrating diversity, the next moment diversity is slaughtering Solingeners. Well, the Guardian decided that the irony was too rich for the delicate palates of its readers. As Mark Steyn pointed out: “The original Guardian headline referred to three dead ‘at diversity festival’ …but it was quickly revised to three dead merely at a ‘festival’.”

Mendacious Michael Mann, the Jew who screwed Mark Steyn (images from Wikipedia and Daily Sceptic)

Not that Steyn himself is honest about the disaster of Third-Worlders invading the West. As I’ve often pointed out at the Occidental Observer, he refuses to admit the central role played by Jews in the invasion. So there’s more irony in the legal battle Steyn has fought against Michael E. Mann, a leading advocate of global warming. Steyn has shattered his health and lost huge sums of money trying in vain to defeat his sly and slippery opponent. Guess what? It turns out that the mendacious Michael Mann is a Jew. You can be certain that Mann is just as firmly in favor of open borders as he is opposed to global warming. After all, those are Jews’ views: even as Jews praise the flood of mud, they order Whites to fight the sky.

Lessons from the English Riots

August 29, 2024/24 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Marshall Yeats

“The judge of today needs no such virtues. He is not the agent and exponent of justice, but its mere lackey.”
L. Mencken

At time of writing, more than 1,000 people have been arrested in England for participation in riots sparked by the brutal murder of three children by an African. The riots have been described variously as “anti-migrant” or “anti-Muslim,” causing journalists and politicians on the Left to offer weak analyses of the disorder as being the irrational product of online misinformation and Islamophobic prejudice since the Southport murderer was born in the United Kingdom and was not, they insist, from a Muslim background. This is, however, a paradox of the Left’s own making since the riots are best understood as an expression of White working-class exasperation at the increasing pace of demographic change, at the increasing marginalisation and demonisation of the White working class in culture, and of White working-class suffering at the hands of non-White violence more generally. In every meaningful respect, these were race riots with a class subtext. In the English context, Islam and migration, especially in northern England, are merely useful and appropriate bywords for the broader category of racial displacement and for the undeniable sense of a native people under threat. The widespread unrest is a watershed not only because it marked the first major instance of White violence since the 2001 Oldham riots, but also because of how quickly it spread across England, even reaching Northern Ireland. The rapid spread of the riots illustrates that this was not an isolated reaction to an isolated incident, but a guttural nationwide release of anger and frustration that has been building for decades. No less important is the government and police response, ruthless and astonishingly efficient given the suffocating lethargy with which it usually responds to ethnic crime. If anything, the slick response to the riots has all the hallmarks of something long in preparation. Both the riots and the response to them have the feel of a turning point, for better or worse. For those on our side, what lessons can be learned?

Public Shaming and Show Trials

The instinctive, impulsive, reactive nature of the riots gave them an open character not seen in organised Leftist violence with its face coverings and Black Bloc. On the one hand, this was one of the factors leading to their successful and rapid spread. There was a contagious fearlessness to thousands of Whites erupting in rage without shame. Careful preparation for public disorder and civil disobedience, however, was almost non-existent, with the result that the vast majority of rioters were not wearing face coverings or nondescript clothing. Some, including a man wearing a St. George’s flag shirt, wore clothing that actually attracted attention and singled them out for identification. Coupled with a dedicated and fanatically persistent police investigation, which included the use of drones at riot locations, and the fact most of the violence occurred in broad daylight, easy identification thus facilitated a much higher than normal arrest count than would be expected for such chaotic events. While some rioters were arrested at the scene of disorder, a great many more were arrested days later following a process of identification.

One of the more remarkable features of the aftermath of the riots is the way in which police forces across Britain used these arrests for propaganda purposes. Shortly after the riots began to subside, police forces appeared to follow a pre-existing and coordinated playbook by issuing sinister warnings and slick, live-action arrest videos complete with dramatic music. Everywhere the message was the same: “We are coming for you, and your punishment will be severe.” Rotherham’s police chief announced, “If you were there, we are coming for you.” Sussex Police issued a statement saying “We will make you regret your actions.” The head of the Metropolitan police said “We will come after you.”

The most sinister aspect of this intimidation campaign was the universal messaging. This wasn’t a warning to criminals, but to everyone who had attended or even just observed the protests. In other words, the propaganda campaign was directed at every White person who felt moved to take to the streets in outrage. White anger itself was criminalised and stigmatised. Hundreds of mug shots were displayed by regional police forces across multiple social media platforms with gloating, threatening captions, often with the arrested persons street address included. Leftist accounts spammed the comments, gleefully hoping that the arrested persons would face violent retribution from non-White criminals in prison. The BBC offered a searchable “Faces of the Riots” database, containing the photo, name, and other information of almost every convicted rioter, ensuring that they have a stigma, if not a target, attached to them for life.

The sentencing of the rioters was also manifestly excessive, especially in light of the fact the British justice system has been notoriously soft on ethnic crime for decades, not least in the category of sex crimes. Without any sense of shame, the authorities bragged of imprisoning a man for almost two years for “shouting at a police dog” while on the other hand releasing rapists and child molestors to make room for White rioters in Britain’s overcrowded prison system. In the perverse value system of the new Britain, a product of Jewish-designed “race relations” laws produced in the 1960s and steadily evolving since then, White anger is the bigger threat and the more dangerous and devastating crime.

Legal Encroachment and Overreach

One development from the riots that has gained most attention is that Britain’s hate speech legislation seems to have entered a new phase of growth and expansion. No new laws have been passed, but the original legislation, especially the 1986 Public Order Act, was sufficiently vague that it has allowed for increasingly draconian interpretation as the culture evolves in a more anti-White direction and allows for stricter enforcement. Jonathan Bowden, speaking in the early 2000s, once said that speech was still relatively free in Britain provided that you didn’t use slurs and provided you didn’t advocate for anything criminal. And at the time he made these comments Bowden was broadly correct. It was perfectly possible to criticise immigration—and even races and racial characteristics—provided it was presented in an intellectual and reasonable manner. Convictions for hate speech were reserved either for movement figureheads such as John Tyndall or Nick Griffin, or else for skinhead groups printing provocative pamphlets.

The growth of social media, however, and its power in the realm of disseminating ideas, has made every White person a potential danger to the prevailing system. The response of the system has therefore been to regard every negative comment made by a White person as a dangerous act of “publishing,” therefore bringing that person under the 1986 Public Order Act which expressly targets anyone who “publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting” with the intent or likelihood of “stirring up” racial hatred. What exactly constitutes “threatening, abusive, or insulting” words is obviously open to interpretation, and as Western culture has moved in a direction in which ethnic populations are afforded more and more sympathy and special privileges and protections, the interpretation of judges has increasingly moved towards protecting them from all criticism. UK judges and prosecutors are also “trained” in part by the Council of Europe’s “HELP course on Combating Hate Speech,” originally developed in 2015. The course provides all the usual propaganda, stigmatising White self-affirmation as a fundamental danger to minority populations everywhere.

The cumulative result of these developments has been that many of those arrested and publicly shamed in Britain in the wake of the Southport atrocity did nothing more than make comments on social media or, still less, merely repost what someone else had written. One wonders if we are not all that far from being arrested in such a situation simply for “liking” an “illegal” status update. Special task forces were established specifically for the purpose of trawling social media for “illegal” posting. Aggressive police officers were banging on doors across England within days, with some social media posters rapidly receiving prison sentences of more than three years for calling for mass deportations and saying they didn’t want their money going to foreigners who “rape our kids and get priority.” Cheshire Constabulary boasted online of a 55-year-old woman arrested “in connection with an inaccurate social media post,” a move that drew the attention of Elon Musk.

Displaying a staggering degree of ethnic solipsism, Jewish Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland, who once wrote a novel fantasising about the assassination of a Trump-like President, bleated hysterically that the riots were a re-run of anti-Jewish riots in 1144 following the murder of William of Norwich and demanded that Elon Musk be arrested and brought to trial by English authorities. Freedland worries that Musk’s purchase of Twitter/X has brought about a resurgence in the Right, fretting that “posts including “the word ‘Jew’ had increased fivefold since before the ownership transfer.” God forbid anyone should mention the Jews. Freedland’s solution is that “schools should be teaching information hygiene,” a descriptor equally banal and terrifying since the subtext is clearly a form of brainwashing. Freedland wants “online safety legislation with teeth … if that means toughening up laws so new they are yet to be fully implemented, so be it.” Jews, as always, remain at the forefront of censorship, and even the massive over-reach currently seen under Britain’s speech laws are clearly not enough to satisfy Jewish insecurity and paranoia.

The System Monopoly on ‘Safety and Security’

Another lesson from the riots is that the State will maintain its monopoly on ‘safety and security’ at all costs. Ostensibly the State is guarantor of the safety of its citizens, or at least this is the unstated agreement made in Western European states where citizens do not have gun rights and surrender certain of their capabilities of self-defence to the State in the expectation that the laws and law enforcement offered by the State are capable of substituting self-defense with adequate social protections. These social protections are assumed to be effective, so that police forces can be called upon in emergencies, the justice system will punish crime in an effective and fair manner, and, finally, that the State itself has some kind of notional integrity in the form of controlled borders.

The problem in Western Europe is that the State demands a monopoly on ‘safety and security’ but has utterly failed to fulfil its responsibilities in return. It has taken more and more freedoms, but catastrophically and even proudly neglects the basic safety of those whose freedoms it has taken. Whites everywhere have been robbed and betrayed by this bait and switch. Britons have lost much of their ability for self-defence, and thanks to Jewish-devised race legislation they are actively hindered from defending themselves. In fact, they can’t even speak openly about defending themselves. The British people have to endure compromised borders and constant ethnic violence. As a result, they get to experience a form of second-class citizenship in their own justice system. As events in Southport show, they can’t even send their children to a dance class. Just days after the riots, presented in the media as the pinnacle of moral failings, a White man was stabbed in the neck on camera by an African while a motley of other ethnics joked and laughed. No sooner had the blood been washed from the street than eight stabbings occurred at the Notting Hill Carnival, Britain’s biggest festival of multiculturalism. Neither of these latter incidents were presented as a form of civilizational crisis. Instead they are tacitly assumed to be the necessary cost of living in a “vibrant”, “diverse”, multicultural society. Anyone protesting or speaking negatively about vibrancy and diversity must therefore be a monster, and should be silenced, put in prison, and tarnished for life.

The recent riots were an angry, messy attempt by elements of the British working class to grasp at some semblance of safety and security. And, as has happened so often in multiethnic contexts, this involved an attempt at “cleansing” certain areas occupied by a rival ethnic group or groups. The riots, to the extent that some of the violence was directed against the police, were also a form of retribution by the White working class against authorities which had failed and betrayed them. Leftists made much fun of videos of Britons throwing bins and other objects at police, but these were not just random acts of chaotic violence but the expression of genuine hurt and rage at an overwhelmingly White police force that had betrayed its own kind and turned its back in every meaningful way. White safety isn’t a concern in modern, multicultural Britain, and Whites have no right to protest when their own children are butchered by the imported tools of our hidden elites.

The Class Element and the Incentivization of the Left

Another lesson from the riots is that the White population in Britain is diverging strongly along class lines, with trendy metropolitan middle classes and those largely safe in the suburbs unable and unwilling to empathise with their ethnic kin swamped by migrants in Britain’s larger towns and slums. A common theme in social media commentary on the riots was a sneering condescension displayed by liberal, university-educated types against a class of Whites they view as ignorant, tasteless, boorish, and uncultured. This is summed up in the coining of the word “Gammon,” an even more sneering slur than ‘cracker,’ to describe a typical person from the White working class—gammon referring not only to the pale-pink complexion of those being scorned, but also in the assumption that gammon is a cheap, bland, and fatty meat that a “better” sort of person wouldn’t go for. For this kind of White liberal, “racism” is the resort of beer-swilling Little Englanders who enjoy an artery-clogging diet and whose antipathy to migrants is assumed to be irrational, primitive, piggish, and animalistic. The liberal middle classes have the luxury of thinking of themselves as enlightened, superior moral beings because the foreigners they tend to live and work alongside are at the higher end of the IQ and cultural scale.

In England’s post-industrial north, however, entire towns that once hosted the mining, cotton and linen industries have fallen first into decrepitude and then into mass swamping by millions of Pakistanis and other South Asians. Areas that once thrived with an industrious English working-class culture are now displaced by often predatory Asian communities and their gangs. Whites in these areas are scorned by the immigrant populations, and also by those Whites higher in the socio-economic scale, turning to a life on social welfare benefits, television and a mongrelised pop culture, and the petty amusements of cheap alcohol and football. The White working class is thus a despised caste in Britain, which explains in large part why the mass grooming and rape of girls from this group by Muslims went on for so long without a reaction, and why the stabbing of children from this group of “gammons” was not permitted to be protested, or even for the anger resulting from it to be understood. It has become fashionable to loathe the White working class, even in the midst of its suffering and its grief.

Deportation Discourse

The picture painted thus far is a depressing one indeed. It would seem that only negative lessons, and causes for despair, can be found in the aftermath of the riots. And yet, despite the overwhelming cultural and legal force brought against the riots, I believe there are enough glowing embers in the ashes to give rise to some positivity. The harsh penalties given to the rioters, far out of proportion to the weak justice handed out to ethnic criminals, did not go unnoticed. The hashtag #TwoTierKier quickly went viral, a reference to the fact Britain under Keir Starmer now has a two-tier justice system in which the English are punished far more harshly than those of foreign background. While snuffed out on social media, and forced into more convoluted expressions, there is also a palpable underground discourse which is moving more radically to the Right. Halfway solutions and considerations of moderate approaches are increasingly being abandoned. There is a real sense that “no-one is coming to help us,” and that sense of desperation and abandonment is itself liberating. Just a few days ago, The Telegraph posted an article titled “Britain needs a shock and awe campaign of mass deportations to tackle the illegal migrant crisis,” something that would have been unheard of a year ago. The phrase “mass deportations” taps into a growing discourse in Britain in which limiting immigration is acknowledged as being insufficient to rescue the nation from destruction. Only “mass deportations,” the removal of many millions of people of foreign origin, will restore Britain to a position of relative peace, security, and prosperity.

In a sense, Britain could be described as in a pre-revolutionary state of the kind witnessed in former Soviet countries before the “fall of the wall.” There is a superficial culture in which everyone knows what they should say and think, and there is a nervousness with new acquaintances about how much one can say to the other until one is sure that they aren’t “politically correct.” These social rules remain endemic in the workplace, under the watchful eyes of “human resources” apparatchiks who are incentivised to teach and enforce their “diversity and inclusion” dogmas. But underneath all this is the real Britain—astute, aware, and angry. They can’t imprison everyone, and the Saxon is beginning to hate.

MEDIA: LET’S BLAME THE BORDER CRISIS ON TRUMP!

August 29, 2024/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ann Coulter

The biggest problem Democrats have this year is the mess they’ve made of the border. No matter how many cartwheels the media do for Kamala Harris, immigration remains a top issue for voters — and they blame the Democrats. (I have a theory as to why: Probably because Democrats intentionally flung open the border and let in 10 million illegal immigrants.)

The media-Democratic Party complex has tried all manner of lies to hide the crime, but those deceptions crumbled on the slightest examination. (Kamala was NOT the “border czar”!)

Apparently, the lie they decided to stick with is the one about Trump ordering Republicans to oppose AN INCREDIBLY TOUGH BORDER BILL! Why, it’s draconian! The harshest immigration bill this century! But Trump opposed it only so that he could keep the border as a campaign issue. What a cynical, heartless bastard.

As Harris put it in her acceptance speech:

“Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. … But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal. Well, I refuse to play politics with our security. And here is my pledge to you: As president, I will bring back the bipartisan border security bill that he killed, and I will sign it into law.”

In fact, the ”strongest border bill in decades” was nothing of the kind: It was a mandate for open borders. Future presidents wouldn’t have to violate federal law to fling open the border, as the Biden administration has done — they would be required by federal law to fling open the border, as the Biden administration has done. That’s pretty much the only thing the bill did: codify the Biden administration’s disastrous immigration policies.

The left claims this bill is tough because it massively increases the amount of money spent on border patrol — which is how they purchased the BP union’s support for the bill. The agents still wouldn’t be allowed to do their jobs, but they’d get paid more.

Needless to say, every conservative group, publication and member of Congress had trashed the bill before Trump even mentioned it.

On Jan. 3, Speaker Mike Johnson said that if Biden wanted more Ukraine money for national security, “it better begin with defending America’s national security,” meaning a “closed and secured” border.

On Jan. 9, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said on Fox News that the border deal was “a sellout. … It’s saying, ‘Oh, we’ll let 5,000 people come illegally a day, and then after that, we might try to stop the next 5,000 that day.’”

Discussing the bill the very same day, Democrat negotiator Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said the Democrats would refuse to stop Biden from unilaterally releasing millions of illegal immigrants into the country. (Which, by the way, he’s doing in violation of existing federal law.)

In response, the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll tweeted: “ok then well that’s ballgame. guess Dems don’t want to end the border crisis after all.”

On Jan. 12, Breitbart published all the gruesome details under the headline: “Senate GOP Border Deal Leaked: Migrants to Get Work Permits, Lawyers, Green Cards.” And, as Sen. Murphy had promised, Democrats had rejected all proposals to secure the border — no fencing, no end to “catch and release,” and no return to Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program.

Shouldn’t someone tell them that most immigration bills are designed to discourage illegal immigration?

On Jan. 13, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the border bill would be “dead on arrival” if he were in the White House.

On Jan. 15, liberal Democrat (who doesn’t hate his country) Mickey Kaus tweeted: “I mean, what is [Sen. Mitch McConnell] thinking? … He really thought the House would buy this sh*t sandwich? … Has he lost it? … McConnell really should step down.” (In response, McConnell’s chief of staff assured reporters that the senator was “sharp as a tack” and that they could “barely keep up with him.”)

The bill was scorched on Fox News, in The Washington Times, in the House and Senate and all over Twitter. Congressional switchboards lit up like a Christmas tree. Before the bill was even officially released, at least six senators came out against it — Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), Mike Braun (Indiana), Tim Scott (South Carolina), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted Cruz (Texas).

But according to the media’s telling — that is, the lie — this bill was sailing through Congress until Trump bigfooted it. After all, why would it bother any Republican that it required Americans to accept at least 1.8 million illegal aliens every year, would grant asylum to anyone who asked for it, provided even more free benefits to illegals and funneled billions of dollars to the NGOs helping illegals into our country, while doing absolutely nothing to strengthen our border? Forget a wall — this bill did nothing.

That’s the Democrats’ idea of the “strongest border bill in decades.”

Trump’s very first comment on the bill was on Jan. 17 — following two weeks of the conservative media tearing it to shreds. He posted on Truth Social: “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people, many from parts unknown, into our once great, but soon to be great again, Country!”

Whereupon Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., claimed Republicans were blocking the bill “on orders from Trump.”

By now, this politically motivated lie has been repeated thousands of times, with the same assurance — and by the same people — as their claims that Trump colluded with Russia, called neo-Nazis “very fine people,” and told Americans to drink bleach.

They know it for a fact, as surely as they knew Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” and Biden was sharp as a tack.