Bright White Light: More on White Men Achieving Most and Being Vilified Worst

/1 Comment/in , /by

Why are lighthouses so fascinating? In part, it’s because they’re luminal zoons in liminal zones. And why is Tom Nancollas’ Seashaken Houses: A Lighthouse History from Eddystone to Fastnet (Penguin 2019) such a good read? In part, it’s because it doesn’t use pretentious phrases like “liminal zones” and “luminal zoons.” Instead, it uses clear prose and simple illustrations to describe the huge effort and astonishing ingenuity of the White men who designed and built an essential but often overlooked part of the early modern world: the rock-based lighthouses that saved countless lives and ensured safe voyages for countless ships.

Seashaken Houses: the cover of Tom Nancollas’ unconscious celebration of White male achievement

Or they ensured safer voyages, at least. The sea has never ceased to be a dangerous place and lighthouses didn’t end the wrecks and the drownings. Indeed, the first chapter of Seashaken Houses describes how lighthouses sometimes couldn’t save their own keepers, let alone the ships and sailors they were built for. Tom Nancollas asks his readers to “imagine a time-lapse film” of a dangerous patch of sea “13 miles” off the southern coastal town of Plymouth, England. If the film reached “back three centuries” and were “rewound at speed”:

It would show four towers falling and rising upon the Eddystone reef: one disassembled, one combusting like a firework, one destroyed in a storm, their materials cycling from stone to wood, their forms regressing from engineered simplicity to experimental folly, the types of ships darting around them devolving from diesel to steam to sail, until the time-lapse halts at the first Eddystone lighthouse, a thing of outlandish fantasy. (ch. 1, p. 17)

The “outlandish fantasy” of Henry Winstanley’s Eddystone lighthouse (image from Wikipedia)

It was a fantasy that failed during “a storm of unprecedented ferocity” in November 1703. Henry Winstanley (1644–1703), the “eccentric creator” of that first lighthouse, had expressed “the hope that he might chance to be inside his Eddystone during the fiercest storm nature could muster.” As the Great Storm of 1703 began to grow, he realized his hope and sailed to the reef with workmen, seeking to reinforce his creation against the rising wind and waves. But his efforts were in vain: when the storm subsided, the lighthouse had vanished from the reef with Winstanley and his men. They had defied Mother Nature and been rewarded with death.

The pale male paradox

But in its four years of existence, the lighthouse “had become vital for Plymouth’s prosperity.” (p. 22) That’s why more ingenious and courageous White men defied Mother Nature and built lighthouses on the reef, maintaining Plymouth’s prosperity even as other White men did the same for other ports around the coast of Britain. One of them was Robert Stevenson (1772–1850), the Scottish engineering and architectural genius responsible for the lighthouse on Bell Rock off the coast of Angus. As Tom Nancollas describes, Robert was the grandfather of another White genius, the writer Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–94). Not that Nancollas ever refers to race in any way in his book or celebrates the creators and keepers of Britain’s lighthouses as “white men.” He’s interested in their achievements, not their genetics or gender, and he celebrates their ingenuity and courage, not the color of their skin.

Turner’s drawing of Robert Stevenson’s Bell Rock Lighthouse (image from Wikipedia)

After all, he’s a White man like them and it’s characteristic of White men that they aren’t obsessed with themselves and their own identity. Unlike Jews or Blacks or women of all races, White men are exotropic, directed outward to the universe, not endotropic, directed inward to themselves and their own advantage. As I described in “The Pale Male Paradox: How White Men Achieve Most And Are Vilified Worst,” this explains both the mighty achievements of White men and their lowly status in the racial hierarchy of leftism. Contra the claims of leftists, White men don’t constantly seek their own advantage and empowerment, which is why they’re been so vulnerable to the culture of critique. It’s also why under-achieving Blacks have been elevated so far above them. In modern Britain, we hear very little about the ingenuity and courage of White men like Henry Winstanley and Robert Stevenson.

Turning history against Whitey

But we hear incessantly about the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence, England’s new patron saint. Lawrence was an aspiring architectural student who was stabbed to death in London in 1993. Hundreds of other young Black men have met similar or worse fates in the same city, stabbed, shot, kicked, beaten or bludgeoned to death. But those others have never become the subject of a martyr cult, because all of them were murdered by their fellow Blacks. Stephen Lawrence was highly unusual, because he was murdered by “a gang of white racists.” That’s why he can be used to promote an enormous lie: that evil and aggressive Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to the lives and well-being of vulnerable Blacks. The truth is entirely the reverse. Despite still being a relatively small minority, Blacks kill far more Whites every year in Britain than Whites kill Blacks. Blacks also rape, wound, rob, and defraud Whites in vast disproportion to their numbers.

But leftists care about power, not about truth, which is why the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence was created and is now lavishly funded by the state. Modern Britain celebrates Blacks and denigrates Whites. For example, Britain’s astonishing history of maritime adventure and exploration is now turned against its native Whites, because what did Whites do with their ingenious ocean-braving ships? They committed horrible and unforgivable crimes against the noble and innocent Blacks of Africa, wrenching them from their homes and carrying them across the Atlantic at huge expense in lives and suffering to toil at voyages’ end in sugar-plantations and cotton-fields for the enrichment of Whites. That’s why Britain is so rich and Africa so poor today, as Black scholars like these are happy to explain to the Whites whose taxes fund their propaganda:

In this essential two-part lecture, Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews will draw on historical fact to demystify [sic] the notion that the Western economy owed its bounty to scientific advancements, industry and democracy — and was instead built on violence, slavery and colonialism. (“The Guardian at 200: Windrush histories and mythologies of race in Britain,” Online workshop at The Guardian, 19th May 2021)

The anti-White hatemongers Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews

I would suggest that Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews are as mediocre in intellect as they are biased in racial politics. After all, they don’t appear to understand the simple difference between “demystify” and “debunk.” I doubt that they have any concern at all for “historical fact.” No, they’re not historians but hatemongers, driven by envy and resentment of White achievements. As I described in “The Pale Male Paradox,” the humble screw undoubtedly contributed (and contributes) more to the “Western economy” than what Kehinde Andrews calls “centuries of African enslavement.” The lighthouses described in Tom Nancollas’ Seashaken Houses also contributed more. But Perry and Andrews aren’t interested in screws and lighthouses, fascinating as those things are in so many ways. Perry and Andrews are Black and endotropic, directed inward to themselves and to their own advantage and self-glorification.

No wheels or sails in Africa

That’s part of why they and other Black pseudo-scholars will never consider another vast crime against the Blacks of Africa: the theft of the rich and abundant natural resources of the island of Madagascar. By all standards of geography and natural justice, Madagascar belongs to the Blacks of the south-eastern coast of Africa. After all, it lies a few hundred miles off that coast and is separated by vast stretches of ocean from all other large land-masses. But Madagascar was peopled and exploited not by Blacks but by Austronesians, a race that began its seafaring on the distant island of Taiwan, thousands of miles from Africa. You see, despite the very long coastline of Africa and its many large lakes, sub-Saharan Blacks never invented the sail or built ocean-going ships. Austronesians, in contrast, were excellent sailors and spread their genes and languages over an astonishing area, from Madagascar in the east to the Pacific islands of the west. When Europeans arrived in the Pacific, they discovered that Polynesians practised both slavery and cannibalism.

Madagascar was stolen from nearby Blacks by far-off Austronesians (image from Wikipedia)

But that isn’t held against them today, as I described in “The Island of Slave-Keeping Cannibal Saints.” Instead, Polynesians are celebrated as the noble and nature-loving indigenes who were cruelly oppressed and exploited by brutal White invaders. Once again, Britain’s astonishing history of maritime adventure and exploration is being turned against its native Whites and their diaspora. Captain James Cook (1728–79), the highly intelligent and courageous navigator who rose from humble origins to remarkable achievements, was once justly celebrated as a hero in White-majority nations like Australia and New Zealand. Now he’s unjustly reviled as a villain. Once again, we’ve got the Pale Male Paradox of White men achieving most and being vilified worst. But I think I’ve explained that paradox. White men have achieved most because they’re not obsessed with themselves and their own advantage. But it’s because they’re not obsessed with themselves that they’re vulnerable to the culture of critique that casts them not as the greatest heroes of history but as its darkest villains.

“Stone, air, water, light”

Tom Nancollas and his book Seashaken Houses are another example of the paradox at work. Nancollas is a White man writing about the vast achievements of White men, but he’s interested in the achievements, not in the Whiteness or the masculinity. He doesn’t refer to race in any way in the book and I doubt that race ever crossed his mind in any way when he was writing it. But that absence of race and self-obsession is part of what makes Seashaken Houses so interesting and so satisfying to read. This is Nancollas explaining what attracted him to his subject:

The [lighthouses] may be sophisticated, but my experience of them felt primal. Out in the starkness of the sea, the basics – stone, air, water, light, dark, life, death – were just as vividly emphasized as engineering prowess. By achieving a home, a presence, in the most hostile of environments, the rock lighthouses provide a poignant insight into what it means to build and endure – and to bring light into places where previously there was none. Entwined with the stories of the houses is the story of their purpose – how lights were established and maintained in these liquid places, then improved, made crisper, more powerful, until certain sectors of the sea were as brightly and safely lit as Grosvenor Square [in the heart of London]. (Introduction, pg. 13)

As you can see, Tom Nancollas would never indulge in pretentious prose like “luminal zoons in liminal zones.” I described lighthouses like that at the beginning of this article. But what did I mean by it? Well, a “luminal zoon” is a light-bearing creature (Greek ζῷον, zōon, “living being”). When lighthouses are operating, casting strong light through salt-laden darkness, they seem alive in an uncanny way. And they exist in liminal zones, that is, places that stand on a threshold between one realm and another. They’re built on solid rocks or reefs but are constantly menaced by the ever-shifting sea.

Black Barack Obama pays tribute to White Neil Armstrong with a photo of Barack Obama (image from Daily Mail)

That uncanny life in precarious places explains part of the appeal and fascination of lighthouses, I think. But you could also say that White men are luminal zoons, light-bearing creatures who have entered the world’s most liminal zones. Who was the first to reach the world’s highest spot? To plumb the world’s greatest depth? To reach the north and south poles? To stand on the surface of the Moon? In every case, it was a White man. But those White men did so as individuals, as exotropic explorers of the outer universe, and not one of them regarded his achievement as casting luster on the male half of the White race. After all, if they’d thought like that, they wouldn’t have achieved what they did. White men are doers of deeds, not celebrators of the self. That’s why, after achieving most, they’ve become vilified worst.

Alexander Jacob: Introduction to Contributions to the History of European Liberalism by Kurt Hancke

/in , /by

Contributions to the History of European Liberalism
Kurt Hancke
Uthwita Press, 2024

Amazon Blurb by TOO contributor Prof. Ricardo Duchesne who founded the Council of Euro-Canadians, interviewed here: This translation of Dr. Kurt Hancke’s book (Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des europäischen Liberalismus, 1942) should be welcomed as a major, original addition to the growing scepticism in the Anglo world about the merits of Western liberalism.

Hancke’s historical reflections on the history of Western liberalism and the Enlightenment notion of an “undifferentiated” humanity with equal rights, take us beyond a traditionalist perspective to propose instead a German nationalist conception of humanity and individualism.

This emphasis on the importance of a nationalist position that values the highest in human nature, expressed from the perspective of a particular people rather than a rootless cosmopolitan humanity, is one reason to take this book by Hancke seriously, irrespective of what our views may be about his political actions as a supporter of German National-Socialism.

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Introduction:

Kurt Hancke was born in 1911 in Hagen to Maria (née  Redhardt) and the engineer Otto Hancke. As a precocious youth he attended the local Albrecht-Dürer-Gymnasium. His propensity for German poetry led him to German studies and the history of literature at the universities of Tübingen, Munich and Berlin. In 1935 he presented the first result of his extensive studies in his doctoral dissertation on The View of Fate in Eighteenth-Century German Irrationalism. He began post-doctoral work at the Universität Freiburg but did not complete his post-doctoral dissertation. Instead, he joined the SS in 1937. In 1939 he became a Hauptsturmführer of the SS and worked as an advisor in the Sicherheitsdienst Hauptamt led by Franz Alfred Six. In 1940, as Chief Assistant to Six in the department of International Studies at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Hancke published a work entitled German Revolt against the West. Around the time of its publication, he was called to the Wehrmacht as lieutenant. It was during the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that Hancke died fighting at the small village of Sobotniki. After his untimely death, Six published Hancke’s manuscripts on liberalism as the present work, Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des europäischen Liberalismus.

The recent literature on the defects of liberal ideologies is too extensive to be enumerated here. There have been several works detailing the defects of Western liberalism by members of Alain de Benoist’s Nouvelle Droite (New Right) movement based in France, for instance. However, the Nouvelle Droite is an avowedly apolitical movement and is necessarily handicapped by the fact that liberalism, originating in England, pushed its roots into the continent first in France and achieved its most dramatic success in the Revolution of 1789. As for Britain and its American colony, it is needless to add that these are quite worthless in the fight against liberalism when they were indeed the founders not only of liberalism and Deism but also of Freemasonry. The value of the present work by Kurt Hancke lies in its focus on the special philosophical and religious virtue of the German ideology — or German Movement, as he calls it — as the most effective counter to the Enlightenment ideas that had infiltrated Germany from England and France. Though Hancke is aware that the German ideology had not been very successful initially in its fight against liberalism, he is confident that it has finally found a firm political backing in the National-Socialist regime.†

Hancke considers liberalism as an ideology of the primacy of the individual and locates its rise in the breakdown of the mediaeval world-order of the Holy Roman Empire and the subsequent emergence of nation states in Europe. Economically, this seismic shift in the social ethos of the continent was later helped by the growing phenomena of industrialisation and capitalism. The turning point of the end of the mediaeval order was the Renaissance in the south and the Reformation in the north. Thus, we glimpse liberalistic views emerging in Machiavelli and Jean Bodin and reinforced by Johannes Althusius and Hugo Grotius. The tendency now was to have recourse to Natural Law rather than Ecclesiastical as the basis of society. This reliance on natural law naturally led to the formation of Deism in England, especially in the works of Herbert of Cherbury and Viscount Bolingbroke. Adam Smith then consolidated the system with his economic liberalism.

In France, Mandeville reinforced these liberalistic trends with an amoralistic liberalism. Montesquieu’s lasting contribution to the movement was his doctrine of the separation of powers in the state, while Rousseau consummated the liberalistic impulse with his thesis that the people must eventually determine their own constitution. It was only Germany that seriously sought to resist the English and French liberalistic inroads into old Europe. This it did through the nationalistic writings of Fichte, Herder and Novalis. However, in Germany, even under the Second Reich, there was not a clear demarcation between the new German Idealism and the rising economic liberalism or the new socialism — which indeed represented a radical form of liberalism that would turn into Bolshevist Communism in the east. Liberalism is thus seen to be a versatile ideology that was able to accommodate itself to several different forms of state constitution — thus to absolutism, democracy, republicanism and socialist government in turn. Freemasonry, which followed in the steps of liberalism, evinced the same versatility.

The origin of the liberalistic idea of man may be traced back to the ‘humanitas’ of the Renaissance which represented a liberation of man from Christian otherworldly teleology that had forced him to rest his hopes on Faith. Gradually Reason was substituted for Faith and moralism replaced religion. This transformation was even more acutely associated with the Protestant Reformation of Luther and Calvin, Melanchthon and the educator Comenius.

Yet the resistance to the new liberalistic movements was also crystallised in Germany especially through the mystical tradition of Pietism. The monadology of Leibnitz was also a philosophical refutation of the Enlightenment principles since it was not atomistic and mechanistic like the Western empirical systems but more organic in conception. Nationalism was, besides, encouraged in Germany through the focus on the nation as a larger organic entity than the human in Fichte and Schiller and Herder. As Hancke puts it:

The centre of this circle, however, is the concrete German people and the threat it faces from the West. The resort to the inimitable uniqueness of the individual turned one folk among many into the single folk, the historical folk par excellence. The idea of humanity as an abstract universal model of man became the metaphysical justification of a German self-consciousness: This is the meaning of German humanity and its contrast to the Western ideology of humanity.

Unfortunately, however, Germany was not able to fully resist the Westernising influences:

The German movement’s idea of humanity was overwhelmed by the industrial levelling of Europe, by the dominant economic rationalism, by the international powers that allied themselves with the West and, as a whole, imposed a realism on the Second Reich that left no room for the German idea of ​​humanity.

It is interesting to recall that German nationalists like Fichte were also often Freemasons, but what they contributed to German philosophy and politics was distinct from the Masonic ideal of global liberalism. Thus, the philosophical and literary ‘German movement’, though ineffective through the period of the Second Reich, maintained itself in spite of Western Masonic pressures on Germany and found its fullest champion, according to Hancke, in National-Socialism, which reasserts German independence against liberalistic and Masonic universalism:

The German worldview conceives of man as the bodily-mental unity founded in race, rooted in nationality and viable only in national community, as it has always revealed itself in the genuine history of the folk. This is the National-Socialist idea of humanity.

*   *   *

The Enlightenment, Deism and Freemasonry are the principal intellectual movements that ushered into Europe the universalist worldview. The Humanism of the Renaissance was transformed by these movements into a fully optimistic view of man as no longer burdened with notions of original sin. The theocratic state was also replaced by a humanitarian universalism. It is not surprising that the first proposals for an international association such as the later League of Nations and the United Nations were made by Deist thinkers of French extraction like Abbé de Saint-Pierre and his friend Marquis d’Argenson.

However, the baneful results of the Enlightenment ideology were the increasing mechanisation and mathematisation of the world as exemplified in the works of Descartes, Newton and Boyle. Hobbes’ political views were also mechanical in that he viewed the state as a huge machine. The Protestant ‘Glorious’ Revolution in England that marked the accession of King William of Orange to the English throne in 1688 fostered the works of the Puritan thinker John Locke, who is generally considered the father of liberal democracy.  Interestingly, Locke also vigorously championed ‘toleration’, even though he meant thereby the toleration of Catholics.

Ironically, as Hancke points out, the so-called emphasis on tolerance that was common to the Enlightenment and Masonry bore in itself the potential of intolerance when it came to defending their own position. This is the explanation of the transformation of liberalism into Bolshevism too, since the defence of the liberal ideology requires, finally, the establishment of a tyrannical totalitarian state.

In France, the Catholic regime of Louis XIV did not permit the flourishing of free-thought and it was under his successor, Louis XV, that the French Enlightenment came to the fore in the writings of Voltaire and Diderot. Rousseau, though a child of the Enlightenment in his humanitarianism, represented also the ‘irrational’ or sentimental compensatory aspect of Enlightenment rationalism. His calls for a return to Nature indeed constitute the more dangerous side of Enlightenment ideology that projects not merely a mechanisation of the world but also a reduction of it to its primitive natural constitution.

The Enlightenment’s focus on secularisation helped the Masonic ideology just as the mechanistic worldview of the age, including that of Deism, encouraged the Masons’ view of the universe as ruled by a world-architect. The Deism of Hebert Cherbury in England replaced conscience and faith with innate ideas wherewith it sought to secularise Christianity. As Hancke points out:

The reduction of faith to the innate ideas of the individual demands not only rationalism and individualism but, at the same time, a universal claim to validity: Since the ideas are equally innate in every human being without distinction, they must be equally valid for all human beings.

Another branch of the Enlightenment that differed slightly from Deism is Pantheism, which was represented especially by the Irish thinker John Toland in his Pantheisticon. This strand was derived from Spinoza’s rationalistic divinisation of Nature.

Both Deism and the Enlightenment were motivating forces in the rise of Masonic Lodges in France. The first major Lodge was established between 1728 and 1738 with Philip, Duke of Wharton who had been the grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of London, presiding as its grandmaster.

It should be noted, however, that the Enlightenment focus on rationalism also produced several irrationalist compensations that sought to emphasise the feelings or the deeper life powers, which were not tangible to the rational mind: The moral sense, which functions uninfluenced by the mind as a hidden common organ for beauty and morality, is the most successful of these life powers.

But this emphasis on feelings was inevitably perverted into a love of symbolical frauds:

Especially the dialectic of the Enlightenment counter-image led to the most strange excesses of mysticism, artificial darkness and symbolic fraud in Freemasonry: No other organisation of that time reveals the described surrogate-character of secret activity so strikingly as the Lodge, and nowhere could the primitive fantasies of the “enlightened” unfold more unrestrainedly than here.

Thus the irrationalism noticed in Rousseau was manifested in Masonry in its fake esotericism and rituals.

Freemasonry is throughout its history marked by its secretive nature and Hancke pauses to study the development of secret societies within Enlightenment Europe. Religious mysteries as the earliest forms of esoteric groupings are noticeable already in the pre-Cretan Mediterranean and they were followed in Hellenistic times by the Platonic Academy (which was dissolved by Justinian) and in the Renaissance by the Florentine Academy of the Medicis. The mediaeval era had also encouraged the formation of social groupings such as the guilds and these were followed in the modern era by various workers’ unions and political clubs, both socialist and aristocratic. The rapid interest in science promoted academic societies devoted to scientific learning such as the Royal Society and the incipient nationalism of European lands resulted in the formation of societies devoted to the promotion of national languages. Catholicism, however, succeeded in absorbing such groupings into its large organisation by making the Franciscans, for example, an Order within the Church.

Germany was characterised in the mediaeval age by associations that worked independently of the Church and the State. Protestantism itself was not conducive to the formation of secret societies since it was an essentially tolerant movement. Yet, in the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment and its Deist religious reformations encouraged the growth of various Masonic Lodges. The anti-Napoleonic societies in Germany were also formed in secret groupings.

The Enlightenment proper entered into Germany particularly through the literary circles prevalent in Prussia: Thus through figures like Wieland, Lessing, Engel, Mendelssohn and Nicolai. Many of these thinkers were Jewish emancipationists as well. Thus, after Christian Wolff, the real representatives of the German Enlightenment were the Jews Moses Mendelssohn and Lessing.[1] Consequently the Enlightenment in general became synonymous with the emancipation of the Jews.

Against the French classical doctrines of the German thinker Johann Gottsched there arose a Swiss school led by Johann Breitinger and Johann Bodmer that propagated English Romanticism. A peculiarity of the return to Nature was its appeal to antiquity as well, but not to Roman antiquity so much as to Greek. Thus, for example, the art historian and archaeologist Johann Winckelmann constantly praised Greek inventiveness as the model to be imitated in modern Germany. The Romantic movement also manifested itself in darker aspects such as the love of horror and suicide as means of escaping the world. This resulted in the German movement called Sturm und Drang (‘storm and stress’). Again, the literary models sought here were not the figures of French classicism but Shakespearean heroes.

*   *   *

The major German reaction against this Western sentimentality is to be found in the works of the Pietist Johann Hamann, who pointed to the organic nature of the human being and the need to acquire an intense self-knowledge that transcends the passions by which the Romantics are so easily distracted.

The revolt of German philosophy against the Western Enlightenment was generally crystallised around the religious movement of Pietism that drew on the earlier mystical tendencies of such religious thinkers as Meister Eckhart and Jakob Böhme. The two towering philosophical figures that emerged in eighteenth century Germany to combat the Western intellectual invasions were Leibnitz and Kant. The German reaction against the Enlightenment was indeed spearheaded by Kant, who defeated rationalism and empiricism in his critiques of pure and practical reason.

Fichte too, though a Mason himself, broke away from the universalist ideology of Masonry by positing the metaphysical significance of the notion of Humanity,

which becomes the given essential character which can be achieved for individuals and for peoples only through the highest exertion of all forces; history becomes a process of the self-discovery of these characters of individuals and peoples; morality has its sole standard in these tasks and achievements. Such an overall process … is no longer “good for something” like Western Freemasonry, no longer a path to the realisation of enlightening goals, but “it is good in and for itself, not a means to any end” [quoting Fichte]. This is the specifically and unmistakably German step away from all utility thinking to an “in and for itself …

Unfortunately, however, the Western forces of the Enlightenment and its concomitant Masonry eventually triumphed over the German spirit until the time of National-Socialism. As Hancke points out:

It cannot be mistaken that the Enlightenment as an epochal process united the European-American “West” and secured its historical leadership for the time being. But this is the circumstance from which a present-day German view must primarily judge: Since the Enlightenment, Germanic-German continuity has been sick from Westernization.

Politically this brought about the opposition of the democratic West to the autarkic German National-Socialist state:

The “great democracies”, in this form already self-confident since the World War, still represent that old union of the West which had been formed at the height of the Enlightenment (with the foundation of the USA) between France, England and America. It is the spirit of the old Enlightenment which is mobilised today against National-Socialism: The spirit of rationalism, calculation and security (against German “unpredictability”), of individual liberalism (against German “despotism”), of tolerance (against German “radicalism”), of humanitarian brotherhood (against German “racial mania”), of secularised rational Christianity and its “morality” (against German “neo-paganism”), all in the name of civilization and progress.

The fight that National-Socialist Germany has undertaken against liberalism and its many forms should therefore, according to Hancke, be considered as a vital philosophical mission:

It is, however, once again the spirit of the old Enlightenment which today rules the world in the form of over-technology, rational standardisation, accelerated idling and total kitschification. Here it is necessary to deepen the outer fronts and, in radical self-contemplation, to make the overcoming of the Enlightenment through itself a conscious one again — as a German mission. From this arises the radical front, above all, against the international bearers of the bad Enlightenment spirit: Against intellectual Judaism and against the mischief of Freemasonry.

[1] Eugen Dühring considered Lessing to be a crypto-Jew and classified him, along with Ludwig Börne and Heinrich Heine, as a ‘Jewish group’ of writers (see my edition of Dühring’s Die Judenfrage, Eugen Dühring on the Jews, 1997, p.120.).

 

Destination Unknown: Can You Feel the Resistance?

/1 Comment/in , /by

His wife and family were aboard the lifeboat which held about 150 people. The majestic ocean liner which they originally sailed on was already abandoned, and there were now 30 of these lifeboats scattered on the surface of the rough Atlantic seas. From the moment the cruise was being planned on the SS West, Erik had voiced concerns about this titanic vessel of over 52,000 tons. The ship builder behind the SS West, Orange Star — the first prominent international corporation of its type, had nearly two hundred years together with influential organizations and spy networks that historically caused trouble for the honest engineers. The cruise line carrying the passengers, Clown World Cruises, was a leader in entertainment, especially for kids and young impressionable adults, but also renowned for shady collaborations with the shipbuilder.[1] Erik, a fan of ocean-cruising history and a mechanical engineer himself, had invested thousands of hours studying thick books on these problematic ship designs from the original Yellow Star Engineering of the 1800s through to its competitor Red Star before their 1905 merger.[2] His interest in ships and cruising was piqued by his years serving on the high seas in the U.S. Navy. But neither his practical or intellectual background did any good to earn his family’s respect for his drumbeat of worries and critiques, for the propaganda and promotions that came from serving Clown World were just that good!

The company’s nautical failures — even catastrophic sinkings — have always been overcome by a superior public relations team that brushed aside the blame and concealed the identity of the outside “experts” that replaced the potential for sound engineering with a pattern of corruption. And of course, Erik was well aware of the whistle-blowers, historians, authors and others whose lives would be dramatically altered for confronting the problematic evidence — Bey, Timayenis, Ford, Long, Lindbergh, Reed, Yockey, Oliver, Solzhenitsyn, MacDonald and Unz were some of the big ones Erik’s wife was tired of hearing about.[3]

The foundation of free expression for these men was always in conflict with the experts’ interests. And although Kennedy wasn’t publicly known for venting against the ship builder, historians researching his archives have certainly dug up interesting clues that made him a target too, for his WWII Navy experience certainly helped his understanding of seaworthy construction. Orwell, on the other hand, was left alone and even revered. The characters in his book would be left unchanged by the publisher, his euphemisms and symbolism for disguising his warnings unscathed, as the powers-that-be knew that creative fiction could never succeed in teaching the general masses an eternal lesson, for hardly anyone reads any more! But looking at the list of those who’ve called out this Orange Star and Clown World in one way or another — and there certainly have been scores more than mentioned here — none dared call them “supremacists” for their corruption of the shipping and cruising industry…save one…a courageous professor of history from Duke University who shall remain nameless. Once a not-uncommon figure on political TV shows with a brain functioning like a walking encyclopedia, he would be forever censored and defamed for introducing this label of power and control on the title of one of his books.[4]

Erik wished this was a bad nightmare! Even worse, as he looked over his overloaded boat (including castaways from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central and South America that were humanely rescued by Clown World), it appeared to him as if this mass of people didn’t even recognize that the SS West was partially submerged behind them. The passengers, all of them, kept their backs to the West and gazed at the beautiful sun slowly setting, ironically, in the west…as if locked in a trance. Erik scanned his eyes towards the other lifeboats and noticed the same eerie and droning behavior everywhere, a sight that mimicked the internet meme of NPCs back in the Trump days.[5] Additionally, the announcements, the ballyhoo, and the chatter of these ill-fated travelers signaled their belief that they were simply going on a short excursion to an exotic island, and that the SS West was still intact. As strange as this certainly was, it appeared that none of these passengers would have even recognized if an elephant had joined them on their boat.[6] And when this responsible father-of-three sought the attention of his own family to explain his dissention over the double-talk, even they were now at the point of tuning him completely out, tired of hearing what they deemed “conspiracy theories.” But Erik repeats himself under stress, and there was no longer any safe harbor to turn to.

Thankfully there were no IGF fighter jets strafing their lifeboats today like Orange Star did back on June 8, 1967. That was likely supposed to be a quick and dirty erasure to set up a false flag, but to the credit of the courageous U.S. Navy servicemen, their plans went awry. What impressed Erik most on this historical tragedy is how many of his friends who’d been gifted books on the event never seemed desirous to open up and discuss the facts. Oh, they’ll talk red, white, and blue all day and claim to be “patriots,” but they tacitly have approved the silent treatment on the most important subjects of our times…loyalty, interests, and foreign entanglements. Erik presumed that these friends would be okay if their son received a Medal of Honor and the ceremony was sidelined to an old Navy hangar so as not to embarrass Orange Star. The details of this betrayal are unfathomable, but we do live, in fact, under the spell of Clown World media masters!

Today it appeared that the method of drowning would be more gradual. Each lifeboat was configured the same. Erik noticed a pattern, as engineers tend to do, and it wasn’t looking good. There were two Orange Star experts at every bow working together, but these individuals were always immediately surrounded by four large and prominent figures that instilled confidence in the safety of the boats while concealing the activities of the two Orange Star advisors. One wore a captain’s hat, another was a famous (has-been) celebrity that had been performing on the cruise liner, the third was a politician of notoriety, and the fourth was a woman of the cloth. This formation at the head of his lifeboat and every other within Erik’s sight brought forth great worry. He had read numerous accounts from the boating industry that the captains and officers of this cruise line were often bribed to toe the party line, and the celebrities would “never work again” if they voiced their objective viewpoints on the shenanigans they’ve witnessed onboard the ships! The politicians, who infamously turned a blind eye to the corruption and enabled the perennial funding for Orange Star’s machinations were often thought to have been blackmail victims, succumbing to threats of exposing their naughty behavior at infamous Caribbean resorts. And the clergy members, being sympathetically drawn in to victimhood narratives, were so easily exploitable by the powers that be. On Erik’s lifeboat, this clergy member was a woman wearing a t-shirt displaying numerous religious symbols slightly altered and all linked together, spelling out the word “PEACE.”

The sweat of the sun beating on Erik’s face didn’t bother him as much as the situation he knew he and his family were facing! As he peered closer to the gaggle at the bow, he noticed water flowing between the celebrity’s and politician’s feet. This flooding of the vessel was undoubtedly stemming from behind the wall of four. Erik rushed to the front to get a better look, and saw one of the experts hacking away at the floor with a sharp object. He hoped the other expert — the one with the small hat  —  was a bona fide sailor with the skills to stop the leak, but on further examination he concluded that this was not a sailor’s cap, and the two were working in unison.

With the front of the lifeboat, appropriately named The Savior, now listing to the left, Erik peeked back at the SS West, about 90 percent under water. With his morale deflating further and his psyche turning towards survival mode, he grabbed his wife and family into a huddle and urgently pleaded with them, “Do you all not see what is happening here? Our boat is being sabotaged!” His wife snapped back with the power of a whip, “What is wrong with you? When I married you, I didn’t sign up for a mariner’s history lesson and all your negativity! You are always a glass half empty, aren’t you?! I hear that the mojitos at our island destination bar are to die for, so lighten up for a change and enjoy the picturesque sunset!”

And as soon as she quit her retort, an echo of serene sound filled the salty air, as if humpback whales were swimming close by. Then there was another echo, but this time he clearly knew it wasn’t marine life, but possibly those unique animal noises performed by King Crimson’s guitarist Adrian Belew. But after the third echo, the sound was confirmed! It was the intro to a song Erik had rocked out to ever since high school, always digging the killer riffs, the massive tone and guitar lead of this radio classic. How seductive this song had always been to him, and the technical advancements of the iPhone 15 belonging to the desperate Somali refugee on The Savior did a nice job playing it so all 150 could hear the crisply distorted chords of the Gibson Les Paul humbuckers and the silky slide lead of the pedal steel guitar. Erik’s head started bopping along to the 98 beats-per-minute pulse of Red Rider’s Lunatic Fringe as he joined the crowd’s wolf-like howl following every verse, “oh oh oh, oh oh oh, oh oh oh.” Erik had never actually delved into the meaning of the lyrics, but this tune was overtly about him — and it wasn’t a good image — but it reinforced the mainstream narrative that there will always be individuals and groups on the fringe of society, holding meetings in hiding while exercising wrong-think!

Since the internet and song-meaning websites weren’t around when this iconic rock piece became popular, Erik, too, was for decades duped into liking and appreciating Lunatic Fringe for its sound. This hit was not just a voice for the songwriter’s frame of mind (and possibly even his girlfriend’s), but also provided substantial reach of his message and honors in an entertainment industry fully approved by Clown World Cruises. Rumor even has it that the pro-IGF mob of counter-protestors contesting UCLA’s peaceful anti-genocide activists were blasting Lunatic Fringe shortly before they sprung their violent 2024 late-night tent attacks. Those unfortunate, humanely minded students never heard their footsteps coming. And for the Orange Star experts, this was open season in Twilight’s Last Gleaming! So a lesson late in life for Erik and all his extracurricular studies and experience was that he never fully comprehended how insidious so much of Clown World’s messaging always was.

The ocean simultaneously subsumed The Savior, the SS West, and the 29 other lifeboats, the final two B-minor chords rang through Erik’s head, a euphoric neurobiological sensation that numbed all his senses from the current trauma and brought back memories of his comfortable yet adventurous life fleeting across his eyes. These last two chords were the same as those found in the beginning of the song. How appropriate! And in the end, songwriter Tom[7] and his supporters didn’t let Erik “kill the laughter,” because they cleverly never let the final resistance begin.

Burbling water now silenced Erik’s ears, leaving his vision as the last sense of his surroundings. With a final glimpse of the bodyguards at the bow, and maybe just a hallucination amidst the chaos, he noticed an additional person assisting the four already protecting the two perpetrators…the useful idiot.

Erik’s last breath consumed his mind for one final minute. At first his thoughts centered on the words of a central figure from a 2013 speech, words stuck in his head, words troubling him as to who spoke them: was it that politician or one of those useful idiots? Nevertheless, they penetrated the depth of his consciousness: “No group has had such an outsized influence per capita…so many notions that are embraced by this nation emanate from your [maritime?] history, tradition and culture…all those movements…I bet you 85 percent of those changes are a consequence of you, Orange Star experts and Clown World Cruises.” But finally, he let go of his deep muse and grasped for his wife, chain-linked by arms and hands to the rest of his family going down in the same ocean their ancestors once commanded as Nordic kings. Erik used the last pocket of air in his mouth to pass his final words directly to her face. And in a dark abyss where ignoble people had to blame someone for their confusion, he might have sarcastically said, “I told you!” Instead, his beautiful and tolerant wife, sleepy-eyed and waking up, lifted her head from the bed pillow and shook her husband’s shoulder to rouse him for the splendid sunny morning, with plentiful bird-chirping nature sounds that greeted them both. And with cheerful sincerity she spoke, “AW, I LOVE YOU TOO!”

Regardless of how his wife and family perceived him through the years, Erik had always, in fact, been the diehard optimist. Undaunted, he nevertheless faced tremendous odds. It was love for his family, love for his homeland, and love for his people and heritage that consumed his mortal space and time, his path in becoming. While it never earned him any respect on Clown World Cruises, it always was his Destiny.

Dedicated to the fathers of dissident politics on Father’s Day, 2024, as well as the oppressed around our world. Yes, while we are all in the same boat, you are not the lunatic fringe, just as two plus two will never equal five.

This article is replete with metaphors and symbolism, and it likely presents some difficulties of interpretation, especially for those unfamiliar with the musical references. The author has provided a commentary that clarifies his intent.

[1] Clown World Cruises had no business relationship with the popular Carnival Cruise Line, but their owners were fourth cousins.

[2] Red Star designed and built the famous Russian cruiser The St. Petersburg, which sailed for over seventy years, but was renown for using a slave labor crew — worked to the death — to operate this ship. Recent unearthed documents show how the American government, even after fighting a war that freed its slaves, provided an abundance of intellectual property, technical supplies, finances, food and personnel support to keep The St. Petersburg running and winning during WWII.  For clarification, it was this company that merged with their American competitor to form the international corporation Orange Star — a global leader in the maritime industry.

[3] Bey’s real name was Millingen.

[4] The word “Supremacist” had been reserved by the experts for use in all media and academia strictly for their mortal enemy alone.

[5] NPC: Non Player Character, a video gaming reference; The song “Waiting Man” by King Crimson provides an interesting backdrop of musical patterns, especially those played by Robert Fripp. Patterns are an important element to Erik’s analyses. The audience in Munich, Germany, from this video clip, appreciated and understood the value of patterns.

[6] Is it possible to recognize and appreciate good music and art these days in a world saturated with noise and commercially suitable compositions controlled by the “experts”? Would the King Crimson musicians be the Wagner of our modern times composing and performing Faustian art if set free from the chains of the music industry?  Oswald Spengler had some philosophizing on this. Also, are we simply inundated with noise in our modern technical world to such an extent that we cannot make heads or tails out of the reality of our lives, much like the people on this author’s lifeboat? Can humans continue to adapt and live in such technically complex societies or will we inevitably return to a simpler life, with naturally acoustic music and nature pleasing our ears? Or will we become technological slaves? Such were the concerns of Dr. David Skrbina and his philosophical predecessors (e.g., Ellul, Kaczynski, et. al), but probably not the cares of Clown World Cruises or Orange Star.

[7] In a Canadian news interview, song writer Tom Cochrane is quoted, “‘Lunatic Fringe’ should be disturbing, but it should also be a cause for hope, because, like I say in the song, there are those of us out here that aren’t gonna let those things happen again. And you gotta speak out when you see injustice.” In this interview and other “song meaning” sources, it is suggested that Cochrane was influenced by the humanitarian efforts of Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish architect, businessman, and diplomat during WWII.  This author would be curious whether Cochrane’s girlfriend at the time of writing his hit song ever introduced him to the humanitarian deeds of the noble Swede Count Folke Bernadotte? If Cochrane would have written a song honoring the Count, would it have been accepted in the American record industry? Let us hope so!

 

Don’t Be a Patriot

/24 Comments/in /by

A patriot, according to customary definition, is someone who vigorously supports their nation and is prepared to defend it at all costs. A patriot is also someone who believes in the essential goodness or rightness of their country, particularly when it is at war. Americans are generally known to be a deeply patriotic people and a soft nationalism largely permeates much of the country. We’re inclined to think that our elected leaders in Washington, though perhaps flawed, are basically good folks who genuinely have the best interests of the people they represent.

This might be less so today because a growing number of Americans have started to realize just how corrupt our current government is, including of course the president and almost the entirety of Congress which is deeply influenced and controlled by the Israel Lobby, military contractor corporations, and other special interest groups.

I confess that I was once such a patriot. This was the sort of mindset I carried for many years. America, right or wrong, I was proud to call it my home and to defend its honor before its many detractors. I believed, for instance, that the North was on the right side of history when it sought to overthrow the South’s rebellion during the Civil War — a war justified because it supposedly sought to free negro slaves. I was persuaded that whatever reasons lie behind America’s entry into WW1, it was justified. The same may be said when I considered the events of WW2. I implicitly trusted America’s court historians to tell me the truth. The wars that came after, such as the Korean conflict, Vietnam, The Gulf War, and the ensuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were all necessary and grounded in vital American interests (or so I thought).

When people questioned and challenged the official version of the events of 9-11, I dismissed them as kooks and conspiracists. I was certain that our government wouldn’t lie about something as obvious as the events of that early September morning in 2001. It wasn’t until years later that I realized how little I knew of America’s dark history, its persistent habit of creating conflicts and political coups throughout much of the world.

I was historically and politically naïve, to say the least. To arrive at where I am today has been a fascinating journey which I have neither the time nor space to explain in this brief article. Suffice it to say, decades earlier there were a plethora of reasons to seriously challenge one’s patriotic commitment to America, its foreign policies, its authoritarian statism, and the circus that Washington has morphed into which suffocates the life of anyone foolish enough to get caught within its web. The American people, then, have every right to distrust and to even despise their government. The government has given us every reason to do so.

Thus, at this time in history, there’s no excuse for not seeing clearly the rot of Washington and eschewing everything about it, including the 535 members that currently comprise Congress. The information is abundant and readily available if one is willing to search. In short, the federal government has proven to be the enemy of us all.

The level of betrayal and outright treason by both congressional Democrats and Republicans staggers the mind when one stops to consider what evils they have vomited on the American people. The following is only a small sampling of what our government has perpetrated on the world and its own citizens.

A $95 Billion Aid Package for Everyone But Americans

If hatred for Congress hadn’t gripped you years earlier, then the most recent events should certainly seal the deal as when Congress authorized 95 billion in war aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. All this while massive numbers of Americans are homeless and poverty-stricken, unable to afford their mortgages or medical insurance, including an infrastructure that is largely neglected and dilapidated. Mind you, this was after the U.S. had already given $107 billion worth of aid to Ukraine!

Additionally, “The U.S. government has purchased seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers. America is covering the salaries of Ukraine’s first responders, all 57,000 of them. The U.S. funds divers who clear unexploded ammunition from the country’s rivers to make them safe again for swimming and fishing” (‘In Ukraine, U.S. Tax Dollars are Funding More Than Just Military Aid,’ CBS News, by Aliza Chasan, 9/24/2023).

Does anyone really think that such astronomical taxpayer funds given to Ukraine (or any country for that matter) will receive the level of fiscal oversight it deserves? Congress has rejected oversight on Ukraine funding for years, and Ukraine has gained a well-deserved international reputation for being rife with corruption at its highest levels. Why, then, would any sane nation trust billions in taxpayer dollars to Ukraine knowing full-well the level of corruption that exists there? Whether this is a ginormous money-laundering scheme or something far more sinister, this is precisely what our Congress has chosen to do with little concern for what is best for the American people. How can we expect there to be any serious oversight and accountability in Ukraine when there is little of it here in the states?

According to an article in Responsible Statecraft, “The Pentagon failed its sixth audit in a row last month. And “failed” is putting it generously . . . But semantics aside, one major reason the Pentagon keeps failing its audits is because it can’t keep track of its property. Last year, the Pentagon couldn’t properly account for a whopping 61% of its 3.5 trillion in assets” (‘Pentagon Can’t Account for 63% of Nearly 4 Trillion in Assets,’ by Julia Gledhill, 12/4/2023).

The U.S. Complicit in the War Crimes of Israel

Congress has also given billions to support Israel’s war efforts against Hamas and the Palestinian people. Congressional Republicans are even pushing for military aid and monetary benefits for any American who possesses dual citizenship (Israeli/American) and is called to serve in the IDF. Our congressional traitors seem to have no qualms about such exorbitant spending sprees distributed on behalf of foreign nations rather than the people they were elected to serve. How is such excessive spending justified when the national debt registers at over $34 trillion?

And what ‘vital interests’ does the U.S. have in supporting Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians? Thousands of women and children have been killed as result of Israel’s bombing raids. In fact, according to a press release published by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, it was noted that “women, girls and children overall are among those most exposed to danger in this conflict, and that as of 29 April 2024, of 34,488 Palestinians killed in Gaza, 14,500 have been children and 9,500 women” (‘Onslaught of Violence Against Women and Children in Gaza Unacceptable: UN Experts,’ 5/6/2024).

Such atrocities and bloodshed committed against civilians by the Israeli government is not something widely supported by the American people. Yet both Democrats and Republicans have united to lend both moral support and huge sums of taxpayer funds to help Israel. Does any of this sound like a government that harkens to the will of its people? How many nations does our government have to internally disrupt and bomb before we realize what an evil and grotesque institution we have unleashed on the world?

“BRICS” and its Move Away from the American Dollar

The U.S. federal government has caused so much misery and ruin overseas, that an alliance has formed among a growing number of nations (“BRICS”) to move away from the U.S. dollar’s reserve currency status. The times have changed, and the nations of the world are fed up with America as a bully who goes about seeking to impose its “democracy” and degenerate western values on every country. They have tired of the persistent efforts of American neocons to uproot countries and erect puppet governments throughout the world that they can exploit. They have tired of the CIA’s long track record of destabilizing South American and Middle Eastern countries and in creating color revolutions that run counter to the will of the people. Does anyone think that the federal government’s efforts at causing unrest and conflict throughout much of the world will work out well for the average American citizen? There is no reason to think so.

Illegal Immigration

The U.S. federal government has for many decades turned a blind eye to illegal immigration. More often it has pretended to ‘get tough’ on those who have illegally crossed onto American soil while doing nothing to stamp it out permanently. Some presidential administrations, granted, have been more diligent in trying to secure the border than others. Yet the problem persists.

Now, under the Biden administration, not only are America’s borders wide open, but the federal government actively encourages and incentivizes millions of illegals to enter our country. Efforts to stop crossings at the Rio-Grande, including the use of barbed wired to keep out hordes of newly arrived immigrants has been opposed by the Biden administration, almost all of it favored by federal courts. Whether incentivized illegal immigration is for the purpose of replacing its majority demographic (Whites) or for mass recruitment into our military since a large percentage of the invaders are males of military age, there can be little doubt that none of it will fare well for our citizenry.

What kind of nation is this that allows millions of non-assimilable immigrants from Third-World countries to enter unchecked? How could this not have disastrous effects on our economy? Why should White Americans have to compete with illegal immigrants for the few remaining jobs available? How will any of this reduce the already existing racial troubles that America is known for? The Biden administration has concocted a recipe for the fall of America and the complete displacement of Whites within their own country.

The Government Has Turned Against its Founding Stock

The U.S. federal government has for many years supported the rising tide of anti-White sentiments and propaganda. It has given aid, taxpayer funds and various resources to groups and political organizations that stridently work to racially and culturally displace Whites as the majority demographic in the U.S. Aside from federal Affirmative Action policies which explicitly discriminates against Whites, the federal government promotes DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) which in a host of practical ways works against the White majority. It is meant to demoralize Whites, to villainize them, and to weaken any efforts at solidarity among them.

What kind of government is this that seeks to dispossess the founding stock of its own nation? I know of no other government in the world that works as fervently as the U.S. federal government to create hardships, policies that mandate reverse discrimination against Whites, and the eventual displacement of those whose ancestors created the nation. Is this the mark of a benevolent government seeking what is best for its people, or one that is deeply adversarial toward its founding stock? The answer should be obvious.

Americans Are Excessively Taxed

The U.S. federal government excessively taxes the American people. Everyone knows this, and yet Congress does nothing of substance to relieve this burden. Our nation’s tax code is so complicated and convoluted that it requires highly educated tax ‘experts’ to make sense of it all. Everything we own or possess is taxed, re-taxed, and then taxed again on both federal and state levels. We are, seemingly, allowed to make barely enough to stay economically afloat, and a growing number of Americans aren’t even able to do that. Almost everything has become unaffordable for the average American, particularly housing and food.

What kind of government is this that allows its own people to wallow in poverty and homelessness, especially when it possesses the resources needed to improve their condition? Does this sound like a government that places the welfare and health of its citizens as top priority?

The Government Complicit in the Covid Scam

During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. federal government worked tirelessly to make sure every American got the vaccine. As it turned out, those same vaccines caused enormous amounts of harm and medical complications (e.g., blood clots, myocarditis, immune suppression, and a plethora of vaccine injuries). Has the U.S. federal government ever apologized? Has it conceded its role in causing enormous harm to the American people? Has it sought to make amends in any meaningful way? Of course not, and I doubt it ever will. Perhaps the greatest deception ever foisted upon Americans was performed by our own federal government, and never forget that both Democrats and Republicans allowed it to occur.

The Government Seeks War with Russia

And now, our continually warmongering federal government is doing all in its power to instigate a war with Russia. We are literally on the precipice of WW3, and yet our congress does nothing to put a stop to it. Where are the voices of reason within our government? Where are all the anti-war peace activists that were seemingly everywhere during the Bush era? Apparently, they only take to the streets when it’s a republican president in the Oval Office.

What kind of government seeks a military conflict with another nation that is not only nuclear capable, but possesses even more nuclear warheads than we do? They may have their reasons for such aggression toward Russia (e.g., to salvage the American dollar, to retain American and Western hegemony, to obtain Russia’s vast resources, to secure forever the liberal international order of the West, etc.), but how can they not see that their efforts at poking the Bear will inevitably bring about the deaths of millions of Americans, including Russians?

To demonstrate just how fast events have escalated, the Biden administration recently gave authorization for Ukrainian forces to employ U.S. manufactured missiles against Russia’s interior. While it may be Ukrainian soldiers launching the missiles, Russia knows well that they have been provided to Ukraine by the U.S. When viewed in this light, it’s obviously no different than our own U.S. military directly launching them.

Is it any wonder why Russia speaks openly of the possibility of a nuclear exchange with NATO?  In a statement given to Reuters, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergei Lavrov, said the following: “We do not rule out additional steps in the sphere of nuclear deterrence, because our command centers and the locations of our nuclear forces will be in range of American forward-based missiles” (5/30/2024).

I cannot think of any other time in our nation’s history where we have been this close to nuclear war, except perhaps during the Cuba missile crisis in October of 1962. Unlike our dementia-ridden president currently in office, both Nikita Khrushchev and John Kennedy were of sound mind and body and, thankfully, cooler heads prevailed at the time. Yet both houses of Congress refuse to step in and put an end to this insanity! Continuing in its warmongering trajectory, the U.S. and Britain recently bombed Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, in a retaliatory effort against the Houthis who have launched attacks at shipping vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

Thus, while engaged in covert military operations in Ukraine against Russia that has brought us to the brink of WW3, the Biden administration is also engaged in warfare against Israel’s neighboring countries. In truth, neocons within the federal government for over twenty years have created so much destabilization and destruction within the Middle East that we now find ourselves at war with multiple countries.

A Military Draft Seems Inevitable

And because of it, the U.S. federal government is now considering the possibility of a military draft. The American people are largely war-fatigued after having to endure a host of seemingly endless wars beginning in 2001 when we waged war against Afghanistan and later when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Most young adults have little interest in fighting foreign wars in countries they couldn’t even begin to find on a map. The government’s solution, then, is not to ramp down its fiery rhetoric nor to cease its aggression toward Russia. Rather, it is to conscript huge numbers of American males and females for the upcoming meat grinder!

While the government and its complicit media currently denies any intention of creating a military draft, there is little doubt that conscription would be the only reasonable avenue for a warmongering government like ours. Our current all-voluntary force is barely able to meet its current obligations and challenges, and rather than reducing its operations throughout the world, we seem hell-bent on expanding them into every region. This will require a significantly greater number of trained troops. The wars we waged in Afghanistan and Iraq were largely fought against insurgents with limited arsenal and resources. This will not be the case if the U.S. were to find itself in a full-scale war against Russia, China or Iran.

In an article published in The Atlantic, military analysts Jason Dempsey and Gil Barndollar noted that a “major conflict would break” the voluntary military, and that such realities are “an open secret in defense circles” (‘The All-Voluntary Force is in Crisis,’ 7/3/2023). The government and media deny the inevitability of a military draft because it would alarm too many Americans. It would provoke a fury of public challenges as to why it was needed and whether such a war would even be necessary. It would create a panic, and many Americans would find creative ways to not comply. It seems more likely that our government will announce a draft after it has already committed itself to some kind of overseas conflict, and then use it to justify the draft.

The prevailing U.S. military philosophy for the past few decades has been to rely on high-tech war systems, precision strikes, and fewer troops. But having fewer troops will likely prove disadvantageous when fighting large-scaled armies that both the Chinese and Russian militaries possess. Thus, waging wars against countries that have technologies on par or close to us — especially if they have large standing armies, naval ships, and equivalent air power — would seem to require a draft if we intend on meeting such perceived threats.

Yet, when one considers how vile the federal government has been toward the American people for the past 60 or so years, including its many unnecessary wars which has only created chaos and destruction for much of the planet, why would any American seriously consider enlisting? Were the U.S. to find itself in a war with China, Russia or Iran, the number of returning body bags would be unprecedented! The scale of it would likely be greater than the deaths registered during WW2 due to the sheer power and accuracy of modern weapons. What sane parent would be willing to send their children to such a miserable death for a cause that makes little sense?

Consider also the character of those who serve as our elected officials in Washington. Do any of them even begin to inspire confidence and loyalty? Are these the caliber of people you’d be willing to sacrifice your children on behalf of? Do you seriously think any of them will send their children to the meat grinder?

Naturally, there are going to be patriot-types who possess little discernment and who haven’t learned a thing about America’s long history of warmongering who will gladly show up at the military recruitment center. The U.S. is filled with this kind and, unfortunately, the greater number of them come from among White Americans. Like a battered wife who keeps returning to the husband who constantly disrespects and beats her, so also young White males will eagerly sacrifice their lives for a government that despises them.

Whites who are considering joining the military might want to also consider what kind of military they are joining. This is not the military of your father’s or grandfather’s era, but a military marked by open acceptance of homosexuality and Transgenderism. Today’s military leadership is led by persons who are openly homosexual, lesbians, and men pretending to be women. While not every higher ranked military official may be this way, every enlisted person is expected to go along with it and to never oppose it in any fashion.

Every branch of the U.S. military is committed to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) which amounts to acceptance or ‘tolerance’ of any and every deviancy one can imagine. This is our military’s version of the rainbow flag. Recruitment has been so low that our armed forces have been compelled to lower its standards and, essentially, accept anyone no matter how odd or unacceptable they are to customary standards of military life. In a Department of Defense article, Bishop Garrison, the senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense for human capital and DEI, has said that “the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion to be a consideration or a part of all decisions in the military” (‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in U.S. Military,’ by Jim Garamone, U.S. Department of Defense, 2/9/2022).

Beginning in 1993, homosexuals in the U.S. military during the Clinton administration were urged to follow a policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This officially ended in 2011, and now openly homosexual, bisexual and Transgender persons are not only allowed to join the military, but they are not barred or reprimanded for making known their sexual proclivities. If one cares to see just how in-your-face they are about it, YouTube and TikTok are filled with videos and ‘shorts’ featuring military personnel parading about in their drag regalia.

Any White heterosexual male seeking a career in the U.S. military, then, will have to endure every stripe of deviant, freak, and oddity known to society. This is the freak parade that the federal government has allowed its military to morph into, and which the American people have largely accepted.

The American People Have Been Complicit

It would be convenient to simply blame all of this on the federal government as if none of it were the fault of the American people themselves. Yet I’m not inclined to see it that way. I think the American people have largely been complicit in it all (some more than others). Whether due to ignorance, apathy, preoccupation with fruitless and mind-numbing endeavors (e.g., sports, Hollywood entertainment, fashion), we have been asleep at the wheel while our government has engaged for decades in endless wars, tyranny against its own citizens, and corruption at the highest levels.

Whatever one may think of abortion, the greater number of Americans did nothing to stop the slaughter of millions of babies in the womb. They still did nothing when partial-birth and even after-birth abortions were legally permitted. Is it the mark of a sane nation that allows its most innocent persons to be butchered because the developing baby is considered inconvenient? What kind of people have we become?

When millions of Third-World illegals invaded our soil, most Americans either didn’t care or thought it was a good thing. Little consideration was given to the long-term effects of mass immigration, especially from people who share neither our race, our culture, our worldview, our religion or values. And now Whites are becoming minorities in their own country. How’s that racial ‘diversity’ propaganda you’ve been fed your entire lives working for you?

When the federal government, including local governments, taxed many of us into poverty, did the American people unite and revolt? No, we are much too fractured.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. In the end, we get the kind of leaders we deserve.

Will the American people wake up? It would be nice to think so, but I suspect they will do so only after they have lost all their modern comforts, pensions, 401k savings, their homes, and are driven into extreme poverty. Hardship and adversity have a way of sobering us up. They will awaken from their slumber only when it’s too late. Even though the signs of national decline were evident many years prior, most Americans are unable to discern that the U.S. is a dying empire and will reach its end as all empires throughout history have done.

 

 

Transsexual Activists are Highly Intelligent Narcissists. No Wonder They’ve Managed to Achieve So Much

/11 Comments/in /by

In just two decades, transsexuals have gone from being perceived as manifestly deluded and mentally ill, to being able to force members of many Western societies to participate in their delusions. As the Irish comedy writer Graham Linenhan has set out in his memoir Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy, people in the UK have lost their jobs or almost been thrown out of university for stating that you can’t change your sex.

Linehan himself has been driven out of the mainstream comedy industry in the UK due to his forthright criticism of the trans movement, teenagers have been sterilised and mutilated, women prisoners sexually assaulted by fellow female inmates with penises, toilets are increasingly unisex, biological men can participate in female sport and even use their changing rooms and anyone who dissents is subject to the wrath of the trans mob and its Woke supporters. Hardly any of his colleagues were brave enough to defend Linehan as he was attacked and many of them joined in with the mob of deluded bullies. How have we reached this level of insanity, where a deluded person can state they have changed sex and this must be accepted?

The answer, in part, is that the gender non-conforming have the precise traits which predict achieving power: They are high in Narcissism and they combine this, as my new study has found, with being highly intelligent. Narcissism is characterised by a sense of entitlement, self-importance, superiority, manipulativeness, callousness and envy. It strongly crosses over with the other “Dark Triad” of Psychopathology (low altruism, high dominance) and Machiavellianism (a desire for power).

To varying to degrees, these are reflections of Neuroticism: feeling negative feelings strongly. When people are plagued by negative feelings the world will seem out of control, so they will want power; high in hatred and anger, they will be psychopathic, and they may deal with low self-worth be creating a false self, where they tell themselves they are superior. In other words, they will create a delusion, which will be all the more convincing if others accept it. Puncture this delusion and you risk “Narcissistic Rage” as the method of containing the negative feelings unleashed by this attack on their false self; the agent of destruction is thus a threat to their ability to cope [see, Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, By Edward Dutton, 2023].

Many studies have found that those who attain extremely high status – what we might call geniuses – tend to combine extremely high intelligence with Dark Triad traits. The high intelligence allows them to solve problems and outwit their opponents while the Dark Triad traits make them highly competitive, unscrupulous, brimming with confidence, devious and power-hungry. It is people like this who are able to rise to the very top [see Sent Before Their Time: Genius, Charisma and Being Born Prematurely, By Edward Dutton, 2022].

So what do we find with transsexuals? Transsexuals are especially elevated in Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One study found that 80 per cent of transwomen had a personality disorder, with 57 per cent of those having Narcissistic Personality Disorder [The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder, By A. Meybodi et al., Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014]. It may be that Narcissistic males, not caring about the subversion and disgust which transsexuality induces, are more prepared to go ahead with surgery and are less able to keep their paraphilia – their fetish – under control. It has been argued that many display evidence of Narcissistic Rage when others refuse to accept that they are female [Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008].

To be clear, most male transsexuals are autogynephilous transsexuals (a minority are homosexual transsexuals, see themselves as female well before adolescence and are highly feminised). They suffer from a fetish, which develops in adolescence, whereby they are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a female, something with which they also become obsessed. The development of this and other fetishes is associated with autism. This is because, compared to controls, autistics are highly masculinised and hyper-sexual and feel sensations very strongly, meaning they easily create sexual associations. They are also obsessive, interested in objects over people and they are low in cognitive empathy. They are high in anxiety both due to their hyper-stimulation and problems they encounter due to their lack of social skills. This elevated Neuroticism, as we have seen, can easily lead to the development of Dark Triad traits [see Gender Dysphoria and Transgender Identity Is Associated with Physiological and Psychological Masculinization: A Theoretical Integration of Findings, Supported by Systematic Reviews, By Edward Dutton and Guy Madison, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2021]. Accordingly, we can see how this mix leads to transgenderism and they tend to be sexually interested in women even after they have “transitioned.”

But we must add to this their high intelligence. A recent study by me and Emil Kirkegaard, drawing on the large OK Cupid dataset, found that intelligence is associated with being non-binary as well as with unusual forms of sexuality, such as pansexuality [Intelligence is associated with being non-binary and unusual sexuality: Rare sexual orientation, gender non-conformism and intelligence in a large dating sample, By Edward Dutton and Emil Kirkegaard, Psychreg, 2024]. One possible explanation for this is that intelligence is associated with Openness, being open to unusual possibilities, this openness helping you to solve problems. The less intelligent may dismiss thoughts of gender non-conformity as ludicrous but the more intelligent may be more likely to entertain them.

Also, intelligence is associated with social conformity. Intelligent people are better at norm-mapping, forcing themselves, via effortful control, to adopt the dominant world view in order to attain the related social benefits. They will then attain status by competitively signalling their conformity to this world view. In our world of “grievance hierarchy,” being gender non-conforming allows you to attain a degree of status, so we can see why the relatively more intelligent would be attracted to it.

But taking all of this together, we can understand why transsexuality has managed to become so influential, even apart from the fact that Woke activists promote it. Autogynephilous transsexuals are more intelligent and higher in Dark Triad traits – more ruthless and power hungry – than normal people. The response of trans activists when you say this is to claim that the research “risks serious harm to already marginalised groups,” a point made about my own study by transwoman researcher Reubs Walsh [“Masculine” Describes Gender Expressions, Not Neurobiologies: Response to Dutton and Madison (2020),” By Reubs Walsh, Sex Research and Social Policy, 2021]. But this only proves my point. It is a fallacious appeal to consequences and is, therefore, manipulative. It also involves victim-signalling, something associated with Narcissism and especially so-called vulnerable Narcissism, in which such people manipulate others by stressing the degree to which they  are victims and need help [Signaling virtuous victimhood as indicators of Dark Triad personalities, By E. Ok et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021].    

Transgender activists have a delusion which they demand others partake in, with rage being the consequence if they fail to. This is textbook Narcissistic abuse; textbook bullying. And when it is combined with high intelligence, we can begin to understand why they have been so successful in cancelling critics such as Graham Linehan.

Dissidents: Ending Free Speech without a First Amendment

/4 Comments/in /by

 

George Orwell: “Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what others do not want to hear.”

Sometime in the 80s, Arne Melchior made the following statement on television with the usual contempt in his voice, quoted here from memory:

“Who are the Nazis? They mean nothing! There are no famous people who are Nazis, no scientists, actors, or artists. They are nothing.”

That’s pretty much what the great master said, his face twitching in disgust – and it should be said immediately that by “Nazis” Arne Melchior meant anyone who doesn’t agree with him about how the world has been put tpgether. And unfortunately, he is right in his assertion. The traditional right wing means very little – and the extreme right wing means absolutely nothing. How can this be? Well, it’s very easy to explain. Anyone who professes a nationalist or patriotic philosophy of life and steps onto the public stage to defend it is immediately excluded from all “good society” – and if he is a “Nazi”, the exclusion is complete.

Could you imagine a royal actor openly professing nationalist ideas or publicly speaking out against immigration and “integration”? A doctor? A teacher? A soccer player? A CEO? No, they would never get that far. Even if a doctor with such sympathies found the solution to the riddle of cancer, he would be relegated to eternal unemployment and his discovery would be ignored. And the same goes for artists, writers and others – right down to the humblest positions in society. Such people will be relegated to welfare, no one will dare to socialize with them, and their children will be persecuted until they turn against their parents. People with such views cannot be “trusted”, they think outside the box, they challenge the prevailing religion, they are in short heretics and are destined to be burned at the stake – symbolically as the real thing is not really possible, for now at least.

But don’t we have freedom of opinion and freedom of speech in our democratic age? No, we don’t. Only those who have never tried to use these freedoms to speak out against the ruling class can think so. Freedom, in the words of Rosa Luxemburg, is always the freedom of those who think differently, and freedom of speech is, in George Orwell’s opinion, precisely the freedom to say what others do not want to hear. Anyone who has used these alleged freedoms in blind faith in all the talk of democracy he hears around him will have learned that, in reality, they do not exist today. Sure, you won’t be shot or hanged, and we have no concrete Siberia to which you can be banished. However, such methods are also primitive and end up conferring martyr status on the presumptuous few. Today, we are far more sophisticated, but no less effective in dealing with dissidents. They are still banished, but now to a place in the absolute shadows of society, where they mean nothing, and where no one takes them seriously. How is this welfare client supposed to manage society’s affairs if he cannot even manage his own, if he cannot make a living for himself, in short, if he has no success in his personal life? This is the natural reaction.

In the meantime, the ruling “elite”, who have emerged from an absolute turnaround in society, where the bottom has risen to the top as a result of a spiritual oxygen depletion, can calmly employ each other in the highest positions, award each other the most prestigious awards and honors, appoint each other to councils and boards, receive state subsidies and lifelong benefits, fill the columns of the press and the airwaves of radio and television, and constantly pat each other on the back and tell each other how great they are. In short: you matter, you are something. Ability, knowledge, and skills are not required – as long as you have the right views and can recite the correct mantras – and the more you can sully your own nest, the better – the more you are.

The tools to exclude dissidents are not legal in nature – that would be unconstitutional. But there are so many other methods, and the main one lies in the demonization of real dissidents everywhere in the media, i.e. of those who do not share the worldview of the rulers – those who reject immigration, multiculturalism, or the EU, or who defend the nation state and the Danish people’s right to self-defense and to defend their territory against foreign occupation. Any real dissent is therefore immediately reported to the police by good-hearted people who believe that such dissent must necessarily be illegal. They don’t want to read or hear anything like that – and so it must be illegal.

In addition, the entire power system today is dominated by the descendants of the communist conspiracy who, in the years following the so-called student uprising of 1968, purposefully seized all important positions in society, i.e. in the education sector from kindergarten to university – where power was handed over to them unopposed by people who should have known better – the church, the courts, the central administration and the press, after which they began to take over the business world. At the same time, they took power in the various small associations from rabbit breeders to civic associations and voluntary organizations, where they suppressed dissenters with the schooled speech and empty platitudes that make reasonable people say: “No, I simply don’t want to participate in that”.

Today’s managers and employees are intolerant of anyone who thinks differently – and should they miss any by accident, there are countless ways of getting rid of them. Typically, it’s called restructuring, collaboration difficulties, fabricated “problems” supported by the red backing, complaints from customers or external suppliers, bullying, etc., etc., etc., etc. until the presumptuous person is forced out. This is where the trade unions and political electoral associations are always invaluable. The unions are happy to help create the problems, and the electoral associations put pressure on their people to participate in the witch hunt – while the media incite against the person in question without any reasonable distinction between truth and lies and always with addresses where the left-wing terrorists can carry out their misdeeds with the obvious approval of those in power.

Then comes social exclusion – people don’t dare to associate with “that kind of people”. What will the neighbors think, and what if you were to appear in the newspaper and be named along with “them”?

A good example is Nicolai Sennels, the spokesman for now defunct and in any case toothless Pegida (now For Freedom) in Denmark. Sennels is a psychologist working for the City of Copenhagen’s Child and Youth Administration, where he performs psychological assessments in connection with the ever-increasing flow of cases involving maladjusted and difficult young people. Naturally, this is not acceptable. His colleagues, who are organized in the communist-ruled National Association of Social Educators, are “uncomfortable” with Sennel’s “view of human nature”, and the vice-president of the association, the communist Jan Hoby, demands that he be fired for “professional pedagogical reasons”. As a representative of a trade union, this charlatan is supposed to protect employees against unfair dismissals – but of course this only applies to his friends. On the equally communist modkraft.dk, the DKP members get very upset about the firing of an “educator” who in his “teaching” has used a “rap song” with the evocative title “Musty ass”, the content of which intellectually and stylistically corresponds completely to the title. Hoby writes about this:

Everyone in the chain of command in Copenhagen Children and Youth Administration believes that the teacher has shown poor professional judgment and that the text is “abusive, offensive and unacceptable to present to this age group”. This is the reason why they no longer trust the teacher. But in the eyes of the administration, “professional judgment” becomes both an objective and an elastic band on a measuring stick. This means that the most powerful person decides what is a professional approach to the task. And not as it should be – the one with the greatest professional knowledge and insight.

We have to apologize for Hoby’s language problems, but so be it. He finds that the educator “professionally, objectively and research-based [has] justified his choice of text” and that the firing is “pedagogically and professionally Berufsverbot[barred from employment]”. Hmmm. What’s really wrong with firing someone because they are professionally and pedagogically unable to do their job properly – and whose approach to teaching is devoid of any decency, culture and ethics. We don’t know the name of the fired person, but we’d bet a bottle of good whisky that it’s one of their friends. We note that Hoby believes that the person with the greatest professional knowledge and insight should make the decisions.

In the case of Nicolai Sennels, this is suddenly not the case, here it is the “educators” who must decide on the psychologist’s professional competence, and in the case of Sennels, Berufsverbot is entirely appropriate. Here it is political. No one should have a job apart from their peers – and certainly not in this industry, where future generations will be shaped. Generally speaking, an academic job brings prestige, and dissidents should not enjoy that prestige. People who come into contact with Sennels by virtue of his job could possibly get the impression that Sennels might be sensible, skilled and sympathetic – this is completely unacceptable. People like Sennels must be isolated – and destroyed. He has previously had to resign from a position at the City of Copenhagen under similar, but less spectacular circumstances.

Of course, for the sake of completeness, Hoby surrounds himself with old communist posters and willingly allows himself to be photographed with pictures and busts of mass murderers such as Ho Chi Minh and Lenin, whose view of humanity this miserable relic of the past apparently shares.

It is not surprising that Social Democrat council member Jonas Bjørn Jensen, who is also the “campaign coordinator” for the blood-red “think tank” Cevea, which is the catchment area for some of the most superfluous existences in Danish society – the word “think tank” is absolutely misplaced in this context – immediately backed his colleague from the ideological dump for particularly dangerous waste and demanded Sennels be fired. Worst of all, however, both Hoby and Bjørn Jensen can enjoy their nation-damaging and parasitic existence in absolute safety and peace. They work for their friends, no one comes after their families, no one hurls abuse at them in their stairwells, no one destroys their cars, and no one attacks them with knives and clubs in public parking garages. All a luxury not enjoyed by their opponents. They are living proof of right-wing impotence.

Whereas in the past you didn’t always know where an applicant for a position stood politically, today anyone can look it up on the Internet, where terrorists from Demos and Redox use their networks in the CPR register and within the administration to keep all information up to date and to cast suspicion on anyone who does not share their warped worldview. It is therefore safe to assume that an employer will screen out in advance all applicants who might be suspicious – not necessarily out of malice, but to avoid the problems that he knows will inevitably arise or be created. You cannot cooperate with such people with dissenting opinions that contradict the company’s or institution’s “values” or “view of humanity”, as if these values and so-called “view of humanity” were above the constitution and the laws of nature.

With multiculturalism, the problems are further exacerbated. An opponent of immigration will naturally arouse the wrath of the immigrant lobby, and they will quickly mobilize the foreign fifth column. Doctors and social workers who do not do the immigrants’ bidding will be labeled “racists”, and examiners who will not give high marks to incompetent students from immigrant backgrounds or who catch them cheating risk the same fate. Feminists will complain about men who still believe there is a difference between the sexes, etc.

On DR’s online news, journalist Stine Bødker Nielsen asks the understanding question: “How much can you be allowed to express yourself on social media before it should [???] have consequences?”, as she reports on a Tumblr blogger who purposefully “exposes both racist comments and the people behind them – in the hope of getting them fired.”

“The blog reveals the identity of users and shares their name and workplace on the blog in the hope that someone will make a case out of it so that it will ultimately cost them their job.” Because, as she says sympathetically: “For some people, the racist tone has now become so harsh that they have started to take matters into their own hands.” Hmm, is that the society we want? The society where a random mob decides what you can say and what you can’t say – and where the aim is to get people fired from their jobs so they can learn to keep their mouths shut. What’s the difference between this and the more physical vigilante justice, where citizens catch and punish criminals that the police don’t want to deal with? Except, that is, that the Tumblr blogger’s activities are aimed at destroying law-abiding people who are simply exercising their alleged right to freedom of speech. Of course, it would have been appropriate for Danmarks Radio to problematize this development and perhaps raise the question of how this blogger comes into possession of his detailed knowledge of the people in question. However, Stine Bødker Nielsen is no journalistic heavyweight, and she is obviously intellectually challenged by such discussions of principle. She is just one of the usual automatic relay stations for the night soil of treasonous forces. But she is right, of course, that there should be consequences for certain speech – the question is, what speech and what consequences! Nationalist forces that find themselves in positions where this is possible should learn from this story. Fire a communist, hire a “racist”! Be conscious when choosing employees and suppliers – we no longer live in the age of democracy. Nowadays, every trick seems to work, and the enemy must be fought with the same means that he himself uses – and more than that.

Under these circumstances, it’s no wonder that the dissidents’ network is quite weak – and so far they haven’t managed to do much against these forces of darkness. Many resign themselves to their relegation, to being “nothing”, but young, talented and gifted people who have studied their subject for many years because it interests them and because they want to work with it, usually choose to keep their mouths shut and forget about their ideas about society. Understandably, they want a career, and since this can only be achieved through lack of talent or prostitution, they choose the latter, as they are not naturally equipped with the most important qualification in Danish academia: boundless stupidity.

The brainpower that should have elevated the right is being forced away from it – and the process is self-reinforcing. This group understandably wants to find a community that shares not only its ideals but also its interests and intellectual level, but when the only people who can afford to be in opposition are largely those who are on welfare anyway, this desire becomes harder to fulfill.

The situation we envision is a far cry from the ideals of freedom that are constantly celebrated by officials on solemn occasions. Freedom of speech and political freedom only apply to speech that supports the prevailing social order. Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with the worldview of the power elite has no real freedom of speech. In Denmark and the rest of the Western world, there is far less real political freedom in 2015 than there was in the 1950s or 1960s – let alone the 1930s. Today, there is an absolute, totalitarian dictatorship of opinion that bears comparison with the worst dictatorships of the past, only without the bloodshed. As long as you keep your mouth shut, you can live your life as you please – you could do the same under Stalin or in the GDR. You are no threat to the system as long as you keep your mouth shut. If you open your mouth, you are destroyed economically and socially, and you are effectively lawless, as the courts are totally controlled by the power elite and secret police today unscrupulously use exactly the same methods they condemn the Stasi for, with the difference that today they have technical possibilities that the Stasi could not even dream of.

There are still oppositional forces who believe that you can play in this system’s casino on the system’s own terms and thus influence it through political debate. Unfortunately, this is naïve. There have been debates and many good books and articles have been published in recent decades, but none of them have noticeably moved the fence posts of political life – political freedom is diminishing year by year at an ever-increasing rate. However, the same power clique that controls the media also owns the politicians, and they know that it’s the small daily dose of poison that does it. Day in and day out, educators and media popes lecture the population on how “good people” should think – not through long lectures, but through indirect influence in “non-political” contexts. The aim of education is to directly create “democratic” people, and advertisements, movies and other media products increasingly reflect today’s distorted multicultural worldview. Goebbels was a happy dilettante compared to today’s propagandists. Let’s be honest: If facts or truth had prevailed and debates had been useful, the world would look different today. The knowledge is available – anyone with just the most modest intelligence and the slightest knowledge of history knows that this will end badly – but they ignore it and concentrate on the next election, hoping to keep their possibilities to siphon off some goodies from the public purse. The problems of the next generation remain the problems of the next genera­tion. Parties that start out as a vocal opposition to the old parties, such as the Danish People’s Party, end up as their wagging tail within less than twenty years – they become “responsible”, i.e. irresponsible towards history and towards future generations. Or they are excluded from any influence and eventually disappear into the mists of oblivion – aided and abetted by agents of the secret police, who provide the dissent that eventually dissolves them. This will not change in the future.

But aren’t the Danes the happiest people on earth? We don’t really know, because Danes – like other Western European peoples – are scared and afraid, afraid of being lumped in with the worst of the worst, the Danish People’s Party, Nazis and other good people. When the average citizen finally gets upset about everything that annoys them – which is often immigration – they usually end with something like this: “Please don’t think I’m a racist, because I’m certainly not, and I certainly have nothing against foreigners if they behave, work and pay their taxes, but….” In political opinion polls, the Danish People’s Party regularly receives far lower support than in elections. People are simply afraid to say they are voting for such an awful party. Danes are insecure and cowed, but they can still drown their insecurities in unprecedented consumerism, and as long as they can do that, there is little hope for change.

If Danish dissidents want to achieve anything, they must be clear about what they are up against, what they want and what they can realistically achieve under the current conditions – and they must stop wasting time and money playing with parties that ultimately only serve to wear people down and turn them into public figures and thus render them harmless through exclusion from society and surveillance by the secret police. There are no shortcuts or compromises possible. It is simply no longer possible to change society within the framework of the system because the system no longer respects its own rules of the game – which they are always bragging about.

This article was originally posted at Denmark’s Freedom Council  in 2015. Reposted with permission.

Translated by means of AI

 

Moulding the Australian Mind: The Jewish role in the Australian Media Landscape

/9 Comments/in , /by

 

Jews control the media — so goes the classic anti-Semitic ‘canard.’ Inquiries into the extent of Jewish influence over the streams of information that make up so much of our daily life are among the most studied aspects of the Jewish Question and it’s not hard to see why. In the age of mass democracy, the media has delivered the rich and the powerful an historically unprecedented mechanism to mould the minds of the general public and direct the political currents of society. Revolutionary and subversive new ideas can be broadcast wide and far, editorial decisions can determine the boundaries of the Overton window, critical perspectives can be silenced, and the thought-makers of the day set the overall tenor of discourse.

Western liberal democracies have always been averse to the bequeathing of this power to the government and the resulting predominance of wealthy private actors, each with their own ideological predispositions, was the necessary price to pay to avoid a state media monopoly. In times past, such arrangements could be begrudgingly accepted within homogenous nations, confident that even across sharp political divides the basic notion of the ethnic preservation of one’s homeland would remain uncontested. However, with the advent of multiculturalism and multiracialism, where competing ethnic groups clash on even the most fundamental principles of society, media outlets can now be fashioned into instruments of covert ethnic warfare.

Much has been written on this topic within the United States and undoubtedly many readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the graphs documenting US media ownership colour-coded by ethnicity that regularly circulate on the internet — and make an appearance with famous rappers. The basic line of argument is as follows: Jewish dominance over the American media results in the consolidation of Jewish power and the promotion of anti-White narratives. The ills of the world, as communicated by the Jewish intelligentsia at newspapers and television networks, are racialism, bigotry and exclusion, and the path to a brighter future is paved with diversity, open borders and tolerance. But what of the far reaches of the American empire? How true is the so-called canard in Australia?

In surveying the Australian media landscape, I am guided by two simple queries. Firstly, how much do Jews influence the media within Australia, and secondly, to what degree does this influence have an impact on political discourse. Focusing on ownership, the editorial gatekeepers and the media trailblazers, I seek to gain a balanced understanding of the state of the Australian media in 2024. Each section investigates the various constituent elements of information communication that make up what we broadly define as ‘the media’ — newspapers, television, radio, publishing etc. — and my review covers only those that are owned and operated in Australia, and are geared exclusively towards the Australian audience.

This therefore rules out foreign-based newspapers that have a presence in Australia such as The Guardian Australia and Spectator Australia, or overseas media companies like Netflix, which operates an office in Sydney for running local content. I have excluded media that is deliberately positioned towards a single ethnic group or is otherwise inaccessible by the majority of Australians, for example Jewish paper The Australian Jewish News, or the contingent of Chinese-language newspapers that operate in the country. Finally, I have restricted my analysis to ‘mass media’ — that is, media that is able and intended to reach a wide audience — as well as ruled out media outlets that cannot reasonably be described as political in character. One may well find a knitting magazine that has a Jewish owner, but it would be far-fetched to claim that pages of instructions for woollen socks and baby bonnets will be able to impart any kind of political influence in Australia.

Newspapers

Our survey starts out with the most traditional form of information delivery, the newspaper. As is the case around the world, Australian newspapers are in a period of significant decline. Their physical circulations are minuscule compared to what they once were and online content is increasingly hidden behind paywalls. Nevertheless, the newspaper still remains the prestige institution for the dissemination of news and opinion, and the putting of ink to paper will always have longevity over a television broadcast or a social media post.

The Australian newspaper industry of the 20th century was the domain of a handful of press barons, almost all of Anglo-Saxon extraction. The major names are the Fairfax dynasty, founded by English-born journalist John Fairfax in the mid-19th century, notably owning the oldest extant newspaper in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald; The Syme family in Melbourne who stewarded The Age until a later Fairfax takeover; The Norton family with their nation-wide sensationalist tabloids Truth; and the Packer family, whose newspaper, publishing and television holdings spanned four generations.

Australia’s historically minuscule Jewish population as well as the established nature of local newspapers from a time before the era of mass Jewish migration after the Second World War left little opportunity for strong Jewish ownership within this industry. Australia has no equivalent to the Sulzberger family at the New York Times or the Meyer family at the Washington Post. Historical Jewish ownership of Australian newspapers is limited to the periphery of the industry, owners of singular newspaper operations that never grew into a sprawling media empire. Thedore Fink owned and chaired the Herald and Weekly Times in Melbourne during the early half of the 20th century, the dominant newspaper in the city at the time. John Davies, a Jewish convict, founded The Mercury newspaper in the small state of Tasmania which remained in the family for almost 150 years, and Maurice Brodzky founded Table Talk, an infamous muckraking journal popular during the financial crash of the 1890s.

Today most newspapers fall under the ownership of larger media conglomerates, publicly traded companies whose shareholders need not even be Australian. Modern Jewish influence at the major papers comes primarily in the form of prominent editors and contributors, or in the occasional director or board member at a parent company. The list of Jewish journalists and editors that have made their mark over the years is too large to reasonably detail in this essay, only the more prominent individuals are worth mentioning. Michael Gawenda edited The Age from 1997–2004, Cyril Pearl edited a number of Murdoch and Packer papers during the 50s and 60s and George Munster edited the fortnightly journals Nation and Nation Review from 1958-1978.

An exception to the relative dearth of modern Jewish newspaper ownership is found in the case of Australian Community Media, which owns most of the regional newspapers in Australia and the newspaper of the nation’s capital, The Canberra Times. In 2019, ACM was sold off by its prior owners and Alex Waislitz, an investment manager and member of the Pratt Family (Australia’s richest Jewish family) purchased a 50 percent stake.

 

Television

Television was first launched in Australia in 1956 with a single governmental broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and a commercial broadcaster (TCN-9) founded by press baron Frank Packer. Free-to-Air[1] television is now comprised of the two government-funded and operated broadcasters — the ABC and its multicultural broadcasting twin the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) — alongside the three commercial networks; Channel 9 (current day TCN-9), Channel 7 and Network 10. Prior to the transition to digital television in the late 2000s, these five broadcasters corresponded to the five television channels available to the general public via analog broadcasting, with cable television having a very small market share. Thereafter, each broadcaster began steadily introducing additional digital channels to their schedule, the tally now standing at more than twenty-five separate television channels in Australia.

In theory, control of the ABC is in the hands of the Australian public. The taxpayer funds its operation, and the elected government of the day exercises legislative power via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and appoints the ABC board, comprising 5-7 directors plus a managing director. The ABC board is responsible for the operation of its television (and radio) assets, and a strong Jewish presence has been evident on the board over the past three decades. At a high-point in 2009, Jews made up three of the board members: Maurice Newman, who served as chairman from 2006-2011 (also former Chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange), and two banking executives, Steven Skala and Cheryl Bart. Other Jews who have occupied the board are left-wing activist James Spigelman, chairman from 2012-2017, and Ramona Koval, a long-time ABC radio presenter. Indeed from the turn of the century until the retirement of Joe Gersh from the board in 2023, there was a continuous presence of at least two Jews on the ABC board at all times.

In practice, the ABC has been afflicted with much of the same ‘march through the institutions’ seen throughout the West. Even a conservative government hostile to the ABC appears impotent to prevent a left-wing bias in the lower management levels, as occurred during the late 1990s when the ABC board was stacked in vain with conservative allies. During the 1960s and 1970s, Marxist journalist Allan Ashbolt began the institutional capture of the ABC at the staff level, promoting ‘free speech’ and democratic reform, and he built a cadre of young dedicated leftists within his department who would come to dominate the direction of radio and television programming over the coming years.

According to McAdam, the source of many of the radical ideas Ashbolt would launder through ABC programs was his connection to the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies, founded in 1963 by Jews Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet,[2] and Jews make up a handful of his prominent protégés.  Jewish journalists, producers and content creators who have made their mark at the ABC are again too numerous to list out in full. Daryl Karp was head of ABC Factual Programs from 1993–2005. Satirist John Safran created various programs for the ABC (and SBS) skewering religious and racial ‘extremism’, and Andrew Denton’s production company Zapruder’s Other Films has delivered a steady stream of non-fiction content for the ABC for the last two decades, including launching the television career of political satire group The Chaser. Working Dog Productions, co-founded by Michael Hirsch, has also contributed numerous popular comedy and political satire shows, notably Frontline and the now iconic Australian film The Castle (1997), a comedic exploration of land rights in Australia after the Mabo decision.[3]

Neither Channel 9 nor 7 display any significant degree of Jewish leadership or ownership. As of 2024, both networks are owned by publicly traded companies with controlling shares held by individual gentile shareholders or local investment funds. Channel 9 remained within the Packer family for many years under Frank Packer’s son Kerry and grandson James. James Packer became known for his curious “obsession with the Jewish state” and close ties to Benjamin Netanyahu[4], allegedly attempting to convert to Judaism. Since 2010, ownership of the network has been separated from the Packer family with the majority shareholder now Bruce Gordon, a long-time associate of Kerry Packer and a former Hollywood executive who spent 35 years on the board of Paramount Studios. Channel 7 was historically associated with the Fairfax empire and other than a brief period of joint ownership with Jewish private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, West Australian businessman Kerry Stokes has been the controlling force at the network since the 1990s.

As with newspapers, Jewish influences at these two networks are felt more on the producer level, for example Gerald Stone, founder of the Australian edition of the current affairs program 60 Minutes in 1979. In its day a ratings juggernaut for Channel 9, and the most influential current affairs program on a commercial broadcaster, Stone nurtured a generation of the most popular political reporters in the country. Born to Russian-Jewish parents, Stone migrated to Australia in 1962, covering the Vietnam war at The Daily Mirror before migrating to television, first at the ABC (prominently at the flagship currents affairs program This Day Tonight) and thereafter a news director at Channel 9. Later in life, Stone became network head of current affairs for Channel 7 and served on the board of directors of the SBS from 2000 until 2010 (deputy chairman from 2005), rounding out a career at almost every television station in the country.

Since its founding in the 1960s, ownership of Network 10, the third and final station to be given a broadcasting license — and the most financially unstable — has bounded across different owners. Jewish interests in this ownership mix have predominated since the 1980s. Property developer and founder of the Westfield shopping centre empire Frank Lowy briefly owned the network from 1986-1988 and CannWest, a Canadian media group owned by Israel Asper, held a controlling interest from 1992-2009. Jewish community leader Isi Leibler also owned a significant share of the network during the 1990s and in 2017 Network 10 was sold to the American media conglomerate CBS (now renamed Paramount) which is still run by members of the Redstone family (Jewish).

Multicultural Broadcasting

As readers would no doubt suspect, Jews have been integral to the founding and modern alignment of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster SBS. Launched in 1978 as a supplement to the ABC, the SBS was designed to counter the forces of assimilation and explicitly promote multicultural values. The bread and butter of the SBS was once world news and its foreign language news services, though in recent years it has expanded well beyond these confines into more commercial ventures through a partnership with Canadian media group Vice News.

The origins of the SBS lie in 1975 with the new-left Whitlam government, which set up two ethnic radio stations as part of the newly minted policy of multiculturalism (2EA in Sydney and 3EA in Melbourne). Members of the Ethnic Radio Experiment Committee which oversaw the two stations that later became the SBS included Walter Lippmann. The inaugural chair of the SBS was Russian-Jewish migrant Grisha Sklovsky, who guided the early years of multicultural radio and the launch of multicultural television in 1980. A chemist by trade with seemingly no experience in the TV or radio industry, explaining Sklovsky’s prominent position at the SBS requires an understanding of the war the organised Jewish community had waged against public access radio in the mid-1970s.

Alongside ethnic radio, the Whitlam government had also launched two experimental public access stations, 3ZZ and 3CR, the former being hijacked by multiculturalists and turned into ethnic broadcasting[5]. With no Jewish presence, the results of this experiment began to alarm the Jewish community and threatened to jeopardise the multicultural cause. The unmoderated nature of both stations saw a flourishing of far-left and pro-Palestinian rhetoric, and they became mired in ethnic tensions as ethnic communities (in particular Yugoslavs) used the broadcasting facilities for the airing of longstanding political disagreements. A pressure group led by Isi Leibler was successful in shutting down 3ZZ and censuring 3CR.[6] Once moves were made to formalise ethnic radio, it was clear to the Jewish community that a strong Jewish presence was required to prevent such further hijacking of multicultural broadcasting.

After 1996, the SBS found itself in the crossfire of the Coalition government hostile to its multicultural charter. Whilst failing to shut the network down, by the mid-2000s the SBS had become a politically neutered institution. More and more commercial programmes were replacing LOTE content, and the station was widely mocked for its predictable rotation of World News, Soccer, and racy European films. The saviour of the SBS came in 2009 in the form of Jewish investment banker Joseph Skrzynski who undertook sweeping reforms within the institution. Under Skrzynski’s chairmanship, the SBS secured a large increase in federal funding and was revamped into an aggressive vehicle for promoting diversity and multicultural rhetoric via the commission of new current affairs shows and documentaries:

SBS repositioned itself under the Skrzynski board in three key complementary arenas. The board insisted that SBS would not be a “neutral” broadcaster (and increasingly irrelevant and dull as it had been during the Howard years), but rather would be an advocate of a human rights-based exploration of Australian cultural diversity. SBS would become riskier and more investigative, building a body of media productions that tested the limits of where Australians were going in this increasingly multicultural nation.[7]

This ‘riskier’ SBS found expression in local television programs such as Immigration Nation and Go Back to Where You Came From, programs that pushed the button on the refugee and immigration debate. Changes also came to the SBS Radio division, which broadened out from its European base to introduce languages from Africa and the Asian subcontinent, and in 2012 the network launched the National Indigenous Television channel (NITV).

Skrzynski‘s multiculturalist television credentials go as far back as the 1980s during his time as chief executive of the Australian Film Commission, involved in the production of the 1984 SBS documentary series The Migrant Experience. The 6-part series aimed to reposition the centre of the Australian experience from British settlers to the post-war migrants, and presented assimilation as a harsh and undesirable policy. Produced and directed by Jews for the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs[8], the series was intended to be shown in school classrooms and exemplified the early use of the SBS by Jews for spreading the multiculturalist message to wider Australia.

Skrzynski’s tenure at SBS came to end in 2014, but he left the broadcaster a changed organisation, now empowered to further the cause against White Australia. Current Jewish leadership at the SBS includes two Jews on the board of directors — Christine Zeitz as Deputy Chair alongside Jewish community activist Vic Alhadeff as Managing Director — and a number of other Jews dotted throughout lower management levels.

Radio

Like television, radio broadcasting in Australia is split between the government channels of the ABC and SBS, and privately run commercial broadcasters. Commercial radio in Australia is dominated by a handful of publicly traded companies who own most of the ‘hit’ stations across the country.  Other than occasional commentary from hosts or the hourly news bulletins, these commercial radio stations are not of an explicitly political nature, the exception being the talkback radio stations. Talkback radio remains arguably the most conservative and right-wing medium in Australia[9] and is regularly the scene of politically incorrect controversies and incidents. Accordingly, one struggles to discern any degree of direct Jewish influence over this medium.

Turning to public radio, Jewish influence at the board level and elsewhere at the ABC and SBS has been covered in the section above. Of further note is ABC radio in Melbourne, perhaps the most Jewish of the regional networks at the level of presenters.  For more than two decades, Jon Faine was a staple of Melbourne’s airwaves, hosting the morning program from 1996 to 2019. Fellow tribesman Raf Epstein rounded out the Jewish face of Melbourne’s public radio broadcasting, hosting the drive-home program from 2012-2023 until he took over Faine’s old position on the morning broadcast. Since 2022, ABC radio’s Australia-wide PM news program has been presented by David Lipson.

At the top of the local music industry, Dan Rosen serves as current President of Warner Music Australasia, taking on the role after a decade as CEO of the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).

The Murdoch Empire

Keen observers may have noticed a conspicuous absence in the above analysis of Australian newspapers and television, a certain Murdoch-shaped absence. The empire of Rupert Murdoch covers so large a cross-section of the Australian media that it ultimately deserves its own segment. Looking deep into the past, the origins of the Murdoch press can in fact be attributed to Jewish lawyer and newspaper proprietor Thedore Fink (mentioned previously), who appointed journalist Keith Murdoch as editor of The Herald in 1921 and fostered Murdoch’s rise to a major figure in the Australian media in his own right, long before his world-conquering son took over the family business upon his death in 1952.

Murdoch’s Australian media interests, contained under the News Corporation umbrella, have grown to the point where he owns the tabloid press in almost every major city in the country, totalling upwards of 50 percent of Australia’s entire print market readership. New Corp. also publishes the nationwide paper The Australian, online news sites Daily Mail Australia and News.com.au, the NOVA radio network, cable TV network Foxtel and the television channel Sky News Australia.

Though Murdoch’s biography is hardly a secret, the ideological contours of the man once known as ‘Red Rupert’ during his time at Oxford (due to his fondness for displaying a bust of Lenin in his room) are far less understood by the general public. Many have been misled by attempts to classify Murdoch — an opponent of the British Monarchy whose tabloid papers ran soft-core pornography — as some kind of conservative. Whilst the left-wing radicalism of his youth that once so upset his father has subsided, Murdoch has never lost his sense of anti-elitism and his hostility to the cultural mores of the long since vanquished ‘stuffy narrow-minded men’ who once comprised the British and Australian elite.

Murdoch’s political trajectory from youthful socialist to neo-liberal Reagan-booster is an altogether familiar one. Accordingly, the editorial positioning of Murdoch’s papers (which Murdoch has always taken a hands-on approach in fashioning) has been aligned with the neo-conservatism of Irving Kristol and Co. since the Thatcher/Reagan era. Critics pinpoint the beginning of Murdoch’s intimacy with Jewish power to his entrance into the American media scene in 1973. For a power-hungry businessman looking to make a splash in the USA and disrupt the old establishment, the benefit in aligning with America’s then emergent elite faction is obvious.

In short, whilst Murdoch and his family are not Jewish[10], his media empire has perfectly dovetailed with the organised Jewish community for the past five decades. Murdoch embodies the word philo-Semitism, and for his efforts he has been rewarded with all the symbols of a ‘Righteous Gentile’. His accolades include the ADL’s International Leadership Award (2010), a Simon Wiesenthal Humanitarian Laureate Award (2006), a Museum of Jewish Heritage Award (2012) and an American Jewish Committee National Human Relations Award (2009) given in a ceremony where Norm Podhoretz personally thanked Murdoch for his help in keeping Commentary magazine alive.

In Australia, the Murdoch press that once supported the new-left Whitlam Labor government and its program of social and cultural radicalism has become almost inseparable from the Liberal Party of Australia. His newspapers incorporate weak, multiracial civic-patriotism for Australia with an iron-clad support for Israel as an ethnically Jewish state. Murdoch appointed a number of Jews to prominent positions at his Australian newspapers in his early years, including Solomon Chandler, a Fleet Street veteran whom he hired to launch The Australian. Lithuanian-born Zell Rabin (Rabinavicius), edited Murdoch’s The Daily Mirror in the mid-1960s, the only major Australian newspaper to oppose the Vietnam war.[11]

Within Murdoch’s local television ventures, Foxtel was primarily for American television shows and the latest Hollywood movies still inaccessible on free-to-air television. Sky News, a 24-hour news station, is known for its ‘After Dark’ rotation of right-wing commentators akin to the evening lineup of Fox News in America, including breakout Jewish star Sharri Markson. All Sky News commentators are vocal Zionists who rally against ‘wokeness’ and predictably reject any form of White racialism.

Magazines and Periodicals

The political magazine and periodical industry in Australia is dominated by Schwarz Media, owned by property developer Morry Schwarz. This outfit produces The Monthly, Australia’s leading current affairs magazine[12]; The Saturday Paper, a weekend newspaper focusing on politics and current affairs; Quarterly Essay, a political journal; and Australian Foreign Affairs, Australia’s leading foreign policy journal. Visit any newsagency in Australia and Schwarz’s publications will be your most obvious choice for local political reading. Though ostensibly left-wing products, Schwarz’s Zionist views have long created a cordon-sanitaire around espousing pro-Palestine perspectives within his publications.[13]

On the other end of the political spectrum, usually sitting alongside The Monthly and Quarterly Essay, comes Quadrant magazine, a solidly kosher-conservative outfit that has for its entire existence held the line against racialism and anti-Semitism. Founded and overseen by Czech-Jewish migrant Richard Krygier in 1956, Quadrant was the Australian venture of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a Jewish-led anti-communist group later discovered to be funded by the CIA.[14] Jewish editors and major contributors abound in Quadrant’s history, from anti-communist firebrand Frank Knopfelmacher, television journalist Sam Lipski, to the neo-conservative academic Robert Manne, whose editorship from 1990 began to draw the magazine towards a more progressive position, in particular on the Indigenous question, until an internal revolt eventually forced him out in 1997. Critics have decried Quadrant’s supposed recent descent into “right wing extremist material”, but with a new Jewish editor-in-chief appointed earlier this year (Rebecca Weisser), racialism and critical discussions on the Jewish question, let alone any significant criticism of Zionism, remain predictably off-limits.

When it comes to lifestyle and special interest publications that have a degree of political character (such as women’s or scientific magazines), the Packer family’s Australian Consolidated Press was the main player in Australia. Once again Jews have come more into leading positions as editors: Nene King at Woman’s Day and The Australian Women’s Weekly; Bernard Leser, founder of Vogue Australia; and Alan Finkel, co-founder and editor of science publication Cosmos Magazine. As of 2024, this dying market has been under the management of gentile-controlled private equity firms that every year wrap up publication on yet another magazine that was once a staple of Australian light reading. As to pornographic magazines, I have previously written about the Jewish component here.

Publishing

For the sake of brevity, I have limited my analysis of the publishing industry to wholly Australian-owned and controlled publishers who are primarily known for producing non-fiction works —  publishers which can thus be seen to have an overtly political intent. Schwarz Media comes to the fore again with their publishing outlet Black Inc. Founded in 2000, Black Inc. is the publisher of choice for left-wing political writers in Australia and its imprints also include the university publisher La Trobe University Press.

Scribe Publications, founded in 1976 by Henry Rosenbloom, holds another large catalogue of local non-fiction works. Melbourne University Publishing, founded in 1922, is Australia’s largest and oldest university press. For the better part of the last two decades, MUP was under the stewardship of Jewish CEO Louise Adler, whose tenure introduced many commercial titles into what was once a primarily academic press. Adler departed from MUP in 2019 after a 16-year stint to become publisher-at-large for Hachette Australia.

Australia’s largest online bookseller Booktopia, which also operates its own publishing arm, was founded and run by Tony Nash (Nachemstein) and Steve Traurig, and in 2015 it acquired the book retailer and publisher Angus & Robertson.

New Media

The term New Media encompasses the new generation of news outlets, websites and political magazines that have no physical presence away from the online world. Such outlets benefit from a lack of overhead tied up in large offices and printing presses and have grown in popularity over the last decade with the decline of traditional newspapers and free-to-air television. Given the novelty of the medium and lack of institutional barriers, Jews have founded many of the prominent Australian ventures, covering everything from feminist blogging to youth-orientated news websites.

The Conversation, an academic current affairs website which has launched editions across the globe, was co-founded by American Jack Rejtman. Mia Freedman, the daughter of anti-apartheid activists, founded the women’s media group Mammamia. Quilette, owned by gentile Australian Clare Lehmann, has positioned itself as a hub for the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’, a grouping of disaffected anti-woke Jewish writers and academics. Youth news website The Daily Aus was launched in 2017 by Sam Koslowski and Zara Seidler and the recently launched investigative journalism website Declassified Australia was co-founded by Antony Loewenstein. Finally, ADH TV a video news channel launched in 2021 with a roster of popular conservative commentators, was founded and chaired by Maurice Newman. 

Film

As far as the film industry is concerned, the obvious predominance of Hollywood in the Australian market need not be further elucidated. As detailed by Neal Gabler in his 1988 book An Empire of their Own, it is insufficient to say that Jews “run” or “control” Hollywood. Rather, Hollywood is their own creation, an institution founded and built from the ground up by Jewish filmmakers and entrepreneurs who had fled to California to escape the legal reach of the Edison Trust. To separate Jews from the history of Hollywood is as futile as separating the history of Salvation Army thrift stores from the Methodist Church.

Australia briefly had a native film industry prior to the advent of Hollywood, one quickly destroyed by mismanagement and political interference. The government banned the popular and financially lucrative Bushranger genre for fear of it encouraging criminality, and by the 1930s the Australian film industry had been completely swallowed up by Hollywood through local Jewish entrepreneurs like Nathaniel Freeman. As Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s first managing director for Australia and New Zealand, Freeman “led the local industry from the 1930s to the 1960s, presenting such landmark attractions as Ben-Hur (1927), Gone with the Wind (1940) and Dr Zhivago (1965).”[15]

In the hideouts that the American film industry does not reach into, Jews have also played prominent roles in the establishment of local film festivals and independent cinema operators, leaders of government film bodies and CEOs of Australian-based film production companies.

Conclusion

Whilst Jewish influence is significant, this review of the major components of the Australian media shows that it is far from the direct organisational stranglehold held by Jews over America’s media. There is still a fair degree of gentile ownership, in particular at the newspapers and television networks operating in country. But even though Australians are still in charge of large portions of their own media, this media appears universally hostile to the interests of the White Australian majority. Above and beyond direct ownership or editorial control, other methods are utilised to keep Australia in check, in particular on the question of Israel.

The most politically brazen of these is the Rambam Israel Fellowship program founded in 2003 (but ongoing since the early 1980s) by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. The program involves shepherding a group of Australian politicians and journalists on a lavish and tightly controlled tour of Israel, one designed to inculcate a pro-Israel perspective and “broaden their knowledge” on the right of Israel to defend itself. The most recent compilation of people who have taken part in a Rambam trip is a who’s-who of Australia’s top journalists, with a particular focus on members of the Murdoch press.[16]

Where a journalist or media figure has not been directly compromised through a Rambam fellowship, broad institutional pressure exerted by Jewish and Zionist groups is almost always successful at ‘cancelling’ and pushing oppositional journalists out of their job. Australia’s media is highly concentrated, with one of the lowest levels of media diversity in the western world. Two media conglomerates, News Corp. and Nine Entertainment, account for the lion’s share of private media ownership, making the institutional targeting of a journalist a straightforward task. Countless examples can be found over the last 30 years, the most recent being Lebanese-born ABC journalist Antoinette Lattouf, sacked from her job at ABC Radio Sydney after Jewish pressure groups took issue with her social media posts critical of Israeli actions in the ongoing Gaza war.[17]

Where cajoling with all-expenses-paid Israel trips and pressure on an institutional level does not work to silence critics of Israel, Jewish behaviour or the racial status quo in general, the final step of recourse is the legal system. Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, introduced under heavy Jewish lobbying, is designed for only the most recalcitrant opponents. Mainstream journalists and media figures rarely fall afoul of this extreme measure. Instead, it hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the head of anyone in Australia who contemplates a public violation of the taboos of the 21th century. Rare victims of Section 18c, such as journalist Andrew Bolt in 2009, will quickly find Jews working together to ruthlessly censure their target. As of June 2024, Jewish Attorney General Mark Dreyfus is in the process of drafting new and even more forceful ‘hate speech’ laws that are purported to include custodial sentences.

As with so many other questions of political influence in Australia, the state of the Australian media must always be placed squarely in the context of Australia’s position as a colonial outpost of the American Empire. Most of the above-mentioned media outlets, in particular television, struggle with audiences shifting towards American media. The average Australian under the age of 35 is more likely to spend their time watching a product on Netflix or Disney+ than tune into a drama series on the ABC or a commercial network. They gather their news from Instagram, X and YouTube rather than radio broadcasts or newspaper articles. They listen to playlists on Spotify rather than tune into youth radio stations. Accordingly, the question of who owns and directs the media in America is no less relevant for finding out who influences the minds of Australians.

In all, the anti-White tone evident across the media is a note-for-note recreation of the anti-White perspectives that encompass the thoroughly Jewish media landscape in America. Putting aside even the significant degree of Jewish influence outlined in this essay, which is utterly disproportional when considering their population size, Australia has long been downwind of the political climate of the United States. None of the decisions of America’s ‘thought-makers’ exist in a vacuum, and they always seem to find their way Down Under. When all attempts at presenting a public defence of the Australian people from the threat of racial obliteration are either self-censured or inevitably result in censorship or legal retribution, can one honestly say that Australians control their own media? Clearly true control lies elsewhere.

SELECT SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Inglis, K.S 1983 This is the ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne: Australia.

Lyons, J 2021 Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s Toughest Assignment, Monash University Press, Melbourne: Australia.

Stone, G 2000 Compulsive Viewing: The inside story of Packer’s Nine Network, Viking O’Neil, Ringwood: Australia.

Young, S 2019 Paper Emperors: The rise of Australia’s Newspaper Empires, NewSouth Books, Sydney: Australia.

[1] All five broadcasters can be freely accessed by anyone with a television and a digital connection, with no subscription or payment required. In the case of the ABC, the broadcasting is taxpayer funded and the commercial networks, whilst subsidised, operate on advertising revenue. The SBS employs a hybrid model of advertisement plus government funding.

[2] McAdam, A 2014, ‘The ABC’s Marxists’, Quadrant Magazine, retrieved from: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/opinion-post/abcs-marxists/

[3] A landmark indigenous land rights case, one largely engineered by Jewish lawyers.

[4] Holmes, O & Butler, B 2021, ‘James Packer’s ties with Israeli PM and spy chief became ‘national risk’ – report’, The Guardian Australia, Friday 7 May, retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/07/james-packer-ties-israeli-pm-spy-chief-national-risk-report

[5] Lopez, M 2000, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics: 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, p.402–403.

[6] See Rutland, S 2021, Lone Voice – The Wars of Isi Liebler, Hybrid Publishers, Melbourne Australia.

[7] Jakubowicz, A 2014, ‘What’s on for SBS in the fight for public broadcasting’s future?’, The Conversation, April 28, retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/whats-on-for-sbs-in-the-fight-for-public-broadcastings-future-25762

[8] Produced by Malcom Smith, who lived with his family on a Kibbutz in Israel for 3 years and would later go on to become head of the ABC Drama department, and co-directed by Ben Lewin — Australian Jewish News 1995, ‘Malcom Smith A Renaissance Man’, 5 May, p.33.

[9] Historically, talkback radio saw some of the last defenders of White Australia allowed in the public sphere in the form of presenters such as Norman Banks and Ron Casey.

[10] Dissident commentators have often falsely hinted at a degree of Jewish heritage from Murdoch’s maternal side, a rumour that originates from the somewhat Jewish-sounding surname of his Irish-descended maternal grandfather.

[11] Milliken, R 2006, ‘Zalmenas (Zell) Rabin (1932–1966)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, retrieved from: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/rabin-zalmenas-zell-11474

[12] The first edition of The Monthly in 2001 was headlined by Robert Manne, publishing ‘In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right.’

[13] Sanderson, B 2016, ‘The Jewish War on White Australia: Refugee Policy and the African Crime Plague, Part 2’, The Occidental Observer, June 8, retrieved from https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/06/08/the-jewish-war-on-white-australia-refugee-policy-and-the-african-crime-plague-part-2/

[14] See Saunders, F.R 1999 Who Paid the Piper?: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Granta Books, London.

[15] Greenberg, J 2007, ‘Sir Nathaniel Bernard Freeman (1896–1982)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, retrieved from: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/freeman-sir-nathaniel-bernard-12513

[16] Saeed, D 2023, ‘Which Australian journalists and politicians have gone on trips to Israel and Palestine?’, Crikey, November 3, retrieved from: https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/11/03/australian-journalists-politicians-trips-israel-palestine/

[17] Bachelard, M & Jaspan, C 2024, ‘Secret WhatsApp messages show co-ordinated campaign to oust Antoinette Lattouf from ABC’, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 16, retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/secret-whatsapp-messages-show-co-ordinated-campaign-to-oust-antoinette-lattouf-from-abc-20240115-p5exdx.html