Bootstraps or Bailouts? The Hidden Truth of Israel’s Military Power

/1 Comment/in /by

depositphotos 84024600 l

As America continues pouring billions into Israeli defense, the uncomfortable truth is that Israel’s security and strategic position have always depended on outside assistance—contrary to popular conservative claims.

Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro repeatedly boast about Israel’s alleged independence in the face of external foes, arguing that “Israel has bootstrapped its way into military dominance despite all of the internal obstacles” it has faced. However, this claim contradicts the extensive evidence of American and Western support the Jewish state has received since 1948.

From the crucial Soviet arms supplies in 1948 to the unprecedented $38 billion U.S. military aid package of 2016, Israel’s history reveals a persistent dependence on outside aid, belying its image of independence. Israel’s very survival during its founding depended critically on external military support, primarily from an unexpected source: the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union initially backed Israel in 1948 by facilitating arms deals between its satellite state Czechoslovakia and Israel. These arms transfers proved decisive in the War of Independence. As David Ben-Gurion later acknowledged, “They saved the country, I have no doubt of that… The Czech arms deal was the greatest help, it saved us and without it I very much doubt if we could have survived the first month.”

Perhaps most remarkably, Israel’s early survival also depended on support from Jewish-American organized crime networks. Meyer Lansky, more notoriously known as “the Mob’s Accountant,” donated a million dollars to the Zionist cause in 1948, a contribution that proved crucial during Israel’s War of Independence. Lansky, an Ashkenazi Jew born in present-day Belarus, immigrated to Manhattan in 1911. He later used his extensive criminal network to aid the Jewish state, obstructing arms shipments to Arab countries and assisting Jewish settlers.

Lansky’s operations extended beyond just financial donations. He controlled major U.S. ports through his connections with the Italian Mafia and the International Longshoremen’s Association, enabling him to manipulate cargo shipments. Workers and customs officials who feared Lansky’s reputation helped ensure key weapons shipments reached Israel safely while Arab-bound arms mysteriously “fell” from cranes into harbors or were “mistakenly loaded” onto ships sailing to remote destinations, according to a report by JFeed.

In a similar vein, Jewish mobster Bugsy Siegel organized secret meetings in Los Angeles with Jewish businessmen and other members of the criminal underworld to raise donations for weapons smuggling. According to reports, Siegel donated tens of thousands of dollars toward the Israeli independence movement through meetings held with Zionist diplomat Reuven Dafni. Siegel viewed the Zionist struggle as a chance to achieve something of lasting consequence that would endure beyond his lifetime. At a fundraising meeting, he declared, “When Israel is established, I want to know that I had a part in it.”

The Jewish Agency ran a secret arms-purchasing operation from the Hotel Fourteen in New York, where Jewish gangsters from Brooklyn offered their services. According to electronics engineer Dan Fliderblum, who witnessed these meetings, “The mobsters offered to help in any way they could. One of them said, ‘If you want anyone killed, just draw up a list and we’ll take care of it.’”

Beyond the shadows of Brooklyn backrooms, Israel soon secured a lifeline through official state agreements that dwarfed underworld contributions. The 1952 Luxembourg Agreement provided Israel with another source of critical funding during its infancy as a state. In this instance, West Germany agreed to pay Israel $714 million (3 billion marks) over fourteen years for Holocaust reparations. These payments made up 87.5% of Israeli state revenue in 1956 and were instrumental in building Israel’s infrastructure.

In contrast to later massive aid packages, U.S. economic assistance during Israel’s early years was relatively modest. President Harry Truman laid the foundation for U.S.-Israel relations by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan in 1948 for immigrant absorption. Between 1949 and 1973, the United States provided Israel with an average of about $122 million annually, totaling $3.1 billion.

The Six-Day War in 1967 fundamentally altered the trajectory of U.S. foreign aid to Israel. France’s post-conflict arms embargo left Israel scrambling for reliable suppliers, creating an opening for Washington to cement itself as the country’s principal military patron. As a direct result, U.S. military aid skyrocketed from $7 million in 1967 to $25 million in 1968—a staggering 450% increase.

This upward trend in military support set the stage for the next major inflection point. The 1973 Yom Kippur War triggered the largest American airlift in history. Operation Nickel Grass delivered 22,325 tons of military supplies to Israel between October 14 and November 14, 1973. Congress subsequently passed $2.2 billion in emergency aid, increasing military assistance by 800%. This emergency response during the Yom Kippur War established the precedent for massive U.S. injections of military aid whenever Israel faced military challenges that purportedly posed a threat to its national security.

The 1978 Camp David Accords would subsequently establish a new aid paradigm. The United States agreed to funnel $1.3 billion annually to Egypt as part of the peace treaty with Israel. This economic aid transfer effectively purchased Egyptian acquiescence while simultaneously neutralizing Egypt’s military threat to Israel and preserving Israel’s position as the main beneficiary of American aid in the region.

In the decades following Camp David, successive agreements and policy shifts steadily expanded the scale and scope of U.S. assistance to Israel, culminating in a series of long-term commitments that dwarfed earlier aid packages. The landmark 2016 Memorandum of Understanding established the largest military aid package in U.S. history: $38 billion over ten years (2019-2028). This includes $33 billion in foreign military financing and an unprecedented $5 billion commitment for missile defense.

These vast funding commitments have translated directly into advanced weapons acquisitions, enabling Israel to maintain a “qualitative military edge” over its regional rivals. Israel has received thirty-nine of its ordered fifty F-35I “Adir” aircraft as of 2024, with an additional twenty-five advanced stealth fighter jets ordered for $3 billion in June 2024. In 2018, Israel became the first country to use F-35s in combat operations. Additionally, the United States has provided over $1.7 billion for Iron Dome development since 2011, with an additional $1 billion approved in September 2021.

Since the October 7, 2023 attacks, U.S. military aid to Israel has soared to unprecedented heights. By September 2024, Washington had already delivered $17.9 billion in security assistance. The following month, the Joe Biden administration approved an enormous $20 billion arms sale that included F-15 fighter jets and advanced missile systems. The surge continued into President Donald Trump’s second term, with his administration authorizing an additional $3 billion emergency arms package in March 2025.

The United States is still Israel’s leading provider of military assistance, but European states have supplied significant amounts of weaponry as well. Between 2018 and 2022, European Union member states sold arms worth €1.76 billion to Israel. Germany emerged as the largest European supplier, providing 30% of Israel’s weapons between 2019-2023.

The current Trump administration has approved close to $12 billion in military sales to Israel in its first one hundred days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio fast-tracked $4 billion in military aid using emergency powers in March 2025. From 1948 to 2025, the United States has provided Israel with over $300 billion in aid, reflecting decades of sustained support.

This enormous and ongoing flow of financial, military, and economic assistance underscores a simple reality: without U.S. foreign aid, Israel’s ability to maintain its security, economic stability, and regional position would be severely compromised. In practical terms, the nation’s survival and strategic strength remain deeply tied to continued American support.

Those who insist that Israel is fully capable of thriving without American assistance will be confronted with an unwelcome reality. Decades of overwhelming U.S. aid have underpinned Israel’s security, technological edge, and economic resilience. To suggest otherwise ignores the depth of this dependency and vastly overestimates Israel’s ability to maintain its strategic posture independent of Washington.

For those who champion a restrained or non-interventionist U.S. foreign policy, this reality carries a clear implication: Israel represents not merely a fiscal burden but a strategic commitment whose ongoing subsidization no longer aligns with broader American interests. If geopolitical stability and the long-term health of U.S. national security truly matter, it is time to recognize that continued American aid to Israel must ultimately be ended.

Reposted from Libertarian Institute, with permission.

Gottfried Feder on a German state built on national and socialist foundations[1]

/5 Comments/in , , /by

The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation

Gottfried Feder

 

Translated and with a Preface by Alexander Jacob

 

Sanctuary Press, 2019

Gottfried Feder was  born in 1883 in Würzburg and studied engineering at the Technical Universities in Munich, Berlin and Zurich. After the completion of his studies, he set up a construction company in 1908 under the aegis of Ackermann and Co. and undertook several projects in Bulgaria. From 1917 onwards he taught himself economics and political economy, and in late 1918, not long after the proclamation of the Weimar Republic by Philipp Scheidemann in November of that year, Feder wrote a manifesto on usury[2] and sent it to the Kurt Eisner government, though he obtained no response. The Treaty of Versailles signed in June 1919 which determined Germany as solely responsible for the war and liable to reparations caused Feder to fear that Germany was now firmly in the hands of the international financiers. In September of that year, Feder established a militant league (Kampfbund) with a program of ending interest slavery and nationalising the state bank. His anti-capitalism was bound also to racialism insofar as the international financiers were considered to be mostly Jews.

Feder’s nationalist efforts drew him into a close alliance with the anti-Communist activist Anton Drexler (1884-1942) and Dietrich Eckart (1868-1923), the editor of the anti-Semitic journal Auf gut deutsch and later, of the National Socialist organ, Völkischer Beobachter. The three together formed, in January 1919, the Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (DAP).[3] Adolf Hitler joined the DAP in late September 1919 and soon emerged as the leader of the party, which he renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). Hitler had, even before his joining the party, attended Feder’s lectures on economic subjects and wrote later in his Mein Kampf (1925/6):

For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock-exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. …The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital.[4]

In the Foreword to the original 1923 edition of Feder’s work, Der deutsche Staat, Hitler wrote that in this work the National Socialist movement had indeed acquired its “catechism”.

In 1920, Hitler, along with Feder and Drexler, composed the ’25-point Programme’ of the NSDAP. This programme rejected the Treaty of Versailles and called for a reunification of German peoples along with an exclusion of aliens, especially Jews, from national life. In February 1920, Hitler held a rally in which he presented the programme to the German people. Later, in 1927, Feder published a comprehensive version of the programme entitled Das Programm der NSDAP and seine weltanschaulichen Grundlagen.[5] In 1923, Feder offered a further elaboration of his national economic views in the present work, Der deutsche Staat auf nationaler und sozialer Grundlage, which was re-issued in 1932 in the “Nationalsozialistische Bibliothek” series[6]

Feder took part in Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch against the Bavarian government in 1923 but was only fined 50 marks for unlawful assumption of authority since he had acted, for a day, as the new “finance minister”. In 1924, he was elected a representative to the parliament. In parliament, he demanded the confiscation of Jewish property and the freezing of interest-rates. which were key elements of the anti-capitalist programme of the party. In 1926 Hitler entrusted Feder with the editorial direction of a series of books on National Socialist ideology under the title “Nationalsozialistische Bibliothek” (National Socialist Library). In 1931, Feder was appointed chairman of the economic council of the NSDAP. But gradually, under pressure from big industrialists like Gustav Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emil Kirdorf, Hitler decided to distance himself from Feder’s socialist ideas.[7] With Hitler’s strategic alliance with big industrialists and capital, even foreign capital, for his intended war on Bolshevism, Feder lost most of his influence on the party, since foreign banks especially would not have supported Feder’s plans for a nationalised interest-free banking system. The loss of interest in Feder’s economic policies among the party members is evidenced in Hans Reupke’s book Der Nationalsozialismus und die Wirtschaft (!931), where the author stated that it was no longer necessary to deal with the “breaking of interest slavery” in “the extreme form in which it first emerged”.[8]

Thus, when Hitler assumed power in 1933, Feder was not named Economics Minister but rather only State Secretary in the Economics Ministry. However, in 1933 Feder published a collection of his essays entitled Kampf gegen die Hochfinanz as well as a book on the Jews called Die Juden. In 1934, the influential banker Hjalmar Schact was made Economics Minister since his contacts with the big industrialists made him more useful to Hitler in his rearmament aims than Feder with his stark anti-capitalist doctrines. Feder’s subordination to Hjalmar Schacht was indeed a concrete sign of his fall from grace.  After the Knight of the Long Knives in 1934, when left-wing nationalists like Gregor Strasser were assassinated, Feder withdrew from the government. In 1936, he was given a new job as professor at the Technical University in Berlin which he maintained until his death in 1941.

*   *   *

Feder’s Deutsche Staat is indeed one of the most important treatises on National Socialist economics.[9] However, it has a precedent in the Austro-Hungarian Bohemian German, Rudolf Jung’s work, Der Nationale Sozialismus (1919). Rudolf Jung (1882-1945) was a civil engineer from Jihlava (in the current Czech Republic and former Austro-Hungarian Empire) who joined the Bohemian Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (DAP) in 1909. The DAP was founded in 1903 in Aussig (now Ústí nad Labem in the Czech Republic) by Germans threatened by the increasing Jewish and Czech influence in the empire. It was renamed Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiter Partei (DNSAP) in 1918. Jung’s work Der Nationale Sozialismus: seine Grundlagen, sein Werdegang und seine Ziele (1919) was intended as a German nationalist answer to Marx’s Das Kapital.[10] The work is divided into two parts, the first dealing with ‘The Foundations of National Socialism’ and the second with ‘The Development and Goals of National Socialism’. Jung’s nationalism focusses on social and economic questions and, exactly like Feder, Jung stresses the difference between income derived from real work and that arising from interest.[11] His strong socialist and anti-Jewish viewpoint is  evident throughout this work: 

All non-socialist parties are based in the main on “individualism”, i.e. the demand for the greatest possible freedom and lack of constraint of the individual. Economically it is expressed in Manchester liberalism and, further, in Mammonism. The ruthless ruler who is tormented by no pang of conscience is the goal, the weaker man falls thereby under the wheels. Now, since the Jew is the most ruthless, he can fare best thereby. Thus all non-socialist anti-Jewish orientations unwillingly support the rise of Jewry to world-rulership.[12]

Further, democracy itself is the vehicle of Jewish international capitalism:

If we were to sum up, we might say that the entire international democracy whose alleged ideals the major press and parties represent and on whose flag they swear, is nothing but the political crystallisation of the Jewish spirit and, in the final analysis, serves no other goal but the establishment of the world-rule of Jewry.[13]

Another writer who contributed to the exact identification of the Jewish constitution of international high finance was Heinrich Pudor (1865-1943), who also wrote under the pseudonym Heinrich Scham (the German translation of the Latin “pudor”). Pudor was a vegetarian and naturist who, from 1912, published several anti-Semitic pamphlets and books including an extensive series on the international connections between the various Jewish high financiers.[14] Feder refers sympathetically to Pudor in the present work. However, Pudor’s magazine Swastika was banned in 1933 by the National Socialists for its criticisms of the National Socialist leadership and the regime’s surprising toleration of Jews. Further, five issues of the series on Jewish high finance were banned including no.13, Neues über Br. Roosevelt und seine jüdischen und Kommunistischen Verbindungen (News about Brother Roosevelt and His Communist Connections) and no. 49, Judendãmmerung. “Juden unerwünscht” Keine jüdischen Rechtsanwälte mehr. Ende der Judenfinanz in Deutschland ((Judendãmmerung. “Jews Unwanted.” No more Jewish lawyers. End of Jewish finance in Germany). The pamphlets were banned on account of what a state official, Raymund Schmidt, described as Pudor’s “no longer opportune polemical methods” which were indeed exploited by the English for the purpose of counter-propaganda.[15]

*   *   *

Feder’s treatise on national economy, like Rudolf Jung’s, is remarkable for its strong moral foundation and its formulation of National Socialism as a movement for social justice as well as for national regeneration. Unlike capitalism with its “soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life” (p.31)[16] and unlike Marxism, which insists that everything should belong to the One, which might be either the State or Mammon controlling it, National Socialism wishes to revert to the mediaeval and Prussian dictum of “suum cuique”, ‘to each his own’, whereby each person will earn as much as he deserves according to his performance of work, with the fullest possible responsibility, as a duty. Economically, this moral doctrine is translated into the doctrine of serving “the public interest” before self-interest. Not profitability but fulfilment of demand is the National Socialistic basis of the economy.

Unlike Marxism, National Socialism will not prohibit private property but respect it as the privilege of the creative and productive Aryan man. On the other hand, the mobile Jewish mind has no deep connection with the land but rather exploits the production and property of the natives financially through all sorts of legal claims, bonds and mortgages, whereby “property” is turned into a profitable “possession” (p.14). In order to counter these avaricious strategies of the Jews, the National Socialist state will enforce limitations on the right to property, personal or commercial, so that in all cases the welfare of the whole, the nation, rather than of individuals will be first served. In Feder’s discussion of the party’s programme in Part II, we note that, since the social policy is “the welfare of the whole”, the financial policy of the National Socialist state is accordingly directed against those financial powers who tend to develop “a state within the state” (p.29). As he puts it:

In the last and deepest analysis, it is a matter of the battle of two worldviews that are expressed through two fundamentally different intellectual structures — the productive and creative spirit and the mobile avaricious spirit. The creative spirit rooted in the soil and yet again overcoming the world in metaphysical experience finds its principal representatives in Aryan man — the avaricious, rootless commercial and materialistic spirit directed purely to the this-worldly finds its principal representative in the Jew (p. 31).

The strength of Germany before the war was due to its unity under Bismarck and its efficient industrial sector. This advantage was undermined by the dependence of the economy on the credit system of the banks and “the inventors and bearers of the modern credit system” are the Jews (p. 36). The mediaeval system of credit was based on the belief (“credo”) of the creditor that his money could be used to greater economic advantage by the debtor whereby the debtor, if successful in his enterprise, may return a share of his profits in gratitude to the creditor. Standardised interest, on the other hand, was forbidden by the Church as usury (p. 45). Feder advocates a return to the conception of money as a token of “performed work” or of a product so that money cannot, independently of any work, be hoarded for the purpose of being lent out later at interest.

Feder further points out that it is the stock-market that lies at the basis of the alienation of capital from work:

Anonymisation — the depersonalisation of our economy through the stock-marketable form of the public limited company — has to a certain degree separated capital from work, the shareholder knows in the rarest instances something of his factory, he has only the one-sided interest in the profitability of his money when he has invested it in the form of shares (p.36)

Apart from the indifference of the shareholder to the quality of the goods produced by the company in which he invests, the market in general has diverted production from its legitimate task of fulfilling real needs to that of stirring up — through the Jewish market-crier’s technique of advertising — artificial needs among the public that will bring in greater profits. This fundamental transformation of national economics has been supported in academic circles by Jewish scholars who restrict their economic analyses to descriptions of the current economic system rather than investigating its social and political legitimacy. This sort of intellectual subversion is further continued by the Jewish intelligentsia in the fields of art, entertainment and the press.

The major source of the current distress of Germany is indeed the interest owed to large loan capital. The burden of interest has indebted entire nations to international high finance and forced them to become interest-collectors for the latter which they do by taxing the working people ever harder. Feder calls this false economic process an “international fraud” (p. 53). The power of international finance has however grown so great that it was able to encircle Germany as soon as it perceived that its currency was rising in strength and independence. Once they succeeded in militarily defeating Germany, the international financial powers then enforced further enormous debt burdens on it through the Treaty of Versailles. Feder therefore proposes the cancellation of the payment of the interest on these debts to the Allies (p. 97). Indeed, the remedy to the interest burdens of all nations to international finance is the legal abolition of interest (p. 94). And this is simultaneously the solution to the Jewish question itself:

The solution of the interest problem is the solution of the Jewish question. The solution of the interest problem in the sense of our explanations is the breaking of the Jewish world-rule, because it smashes the power of world Jewry — its financial power.

The fullest representation of the socio-economic interests of a nation should be the state, and its industries should be models of efficiency and commercial success. One example of such an industry in Germany is indeed the transport industry and especially the German railways. Unlike Bolshevism, which seeks to control all production, the National Socialist state will, through the establishment of storage and distribution cooperatives under state supervision (p. 917), remove only the avaricious interference of private commerce between production and consumption. As the means of exchange necessary for the exchange of goods, money will be under the control of the state through a nationalised state bank.

Instead of borrowing money from private banks, the state should, in the case of all large public works projects, finance the latter though the issuance of interest-free notes of its own. The Reichsbank’s sovereignty of issuing notes must be regained through nationalisation (p. 72). Freed of interest-burdens to banks, the state will ultimately be able to operate in a mostly tax-free manner (Ch. 22, ‘The state without taxes’). Taxes will be restricted to the coverage of non-productive tasks such as the administration of justice, the police system, medical and educational systems, if the commercial enterprises of the state such as the railways, post and telegraph, mining and forestry do not present surpluses wherewith to pay for these tasks (p. 92). International transactions should be conducted through a clearing system rather like that of the international postal union “without the international finance benefiting two or three times in all these simple mercantile operations and becoming big and fat at the cost of the productive nations” (p. 77).

But the state must be powerful if it is to effect any reforms. Unfortunately, the Weimar Republic has abjectly accepted the monstrous burden of guilt after the war with the result that “the members of the Chosen People can, on these reparations, forever lead a glamorous work-free life in all the countries of the world at the cost of German work.” (p. 19). The crisis faced by Germany after the war was facilitated by parliamentarianism and Mammonism. The “great democratic lie of the capacity of the people for self-government” is to be combated along with the real capitalistic rulers of democracies. Marxism likewise is a sham socialist system that employs the dissatisfaction of those exploited by Mammonism for the benefit of the “handlers for international capital” in order to “divert from themselves the hatred of the exploited” (p. 25).

The majority of the principal Marxists as well as Mammonists are Jews, and so “The Jewish question is becoming a world-question on whose solution the welfare and woe of the nations will be dependent” (p. 26). The solution of this question cannot be through violence since “indeed one cannot kill the plague bacillus individually, one can only eradicate it by cutting off its life necessities from it” (p. 26). A suggestion of what might be done to reduce their ill-earned gains is contained in point 17 of the party’s programme which envisages

creation of legal possibilities of confiscating if necessary land that was acquired in an illegal way or not administered according to the viewpoint of the welfare of the people. This is directed thus mainly against the Jewish land speculation companies. (p. 47)

Further, removal of Jews from all public positions will cause no difficulty to the nation since “the real vitally important productive activity in industry and agriculture, in the professions and administration, is almost entirely free of Jews” (p. 38). Concomitant with the removal of Jews from the “national body” is the enforcement of new citizenship laws whereby the citizenship rights will be “acquired” by the citizens and not merely granted to them. Thus only those who pledge themselves to the German community and culture and do not continue an adherence to another nation can obtain these rights (p. 39).

The National Socialist state will be a strong state that includes all the German tribes, and its power will be concentrated in a strong leader, or autocrat, who embodies “the highest responsibility” (p. 22)[17] since the German people have traditionally wanted a strong leader, and monarchs are not always to be relied upon. The leader of the National Socialist state, on the other hand, is not envisaged as a permanent ruler but one chosen only for the re-establishment of order and the prosperity of a debilitated nation. After he has accomplished his goals, he may step aside to let other rulers take his place under the constitution. Indeed, the National Socialist state may be characterised as a constitutional autocracy (p. 31). The constitutional aspect of the state will be used especially to ensure an effective labour law and social insurance (p. 23). Obviously, in a German national state, no members of foreign races can assume the leadership of state affairs (p. 22).

Feder is aware of the adverse reaction of the international financiers to such autarkic measures, but he believes that a transformation of interest-bearing bonds into interest-free bank assets or postal cheque accounts (p. 96) whereby foreign creditors can be paid will avert the wrath of the latter. He also suggests that boycotts can be overcome through transactions with neutral countries. As for military action, he believes that it is not likely to be pursued by the foreign creditor nations since

if the German people saw the French or Jewish tax collector sitting in every tax- and pension office, and if the best cows were taken from the stalls of the farmers by these foreign oppressors — then the anger and indignation would perhaps become soon so strong that one night would sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom and free Germany. (p. 97)

*   *   *

We see that, in spite of the lucidity of his economic doctrines, Feder rather underestimated the unforgiving nature of the Mammon that he was striving against. In keeping with Feder’s doctrines, the Nationalist Socialist state officially cancelled the war debt to the Allied nations and sought, from 1933 on, to combat the cumulative deflation by the creation of money and work.[18] Work was created by increasing public works activity, such as notably the building of superhighways, and other construction and agricultural projects. These projects were financed, as Feder had recommended, by the issuance of government bills.[19] The production of armaments especially was spurred by the use of the so-called ‘Mefo’ bills — named after Schacht’s Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Mefo), which served as a government holding company.[20] These bills were used by government contractors for payment of their needs and were valid as a form of currency. As Overy notes, as a result of these economic strategies, “the banks increasingly became mere intermediaries, holding government stock and helping in the job of keeping bills circulating in the way that the government wanted.”[21] Tax levels were simultaneously reduced for farmers, small businesses and heavy industry through the “remission of taxes already paid”.[22] However, Hitler was also dependent in his ambitious rearmament plans on foreign finance, which certainly would not have accepted Feder’s insistence on an abolition of interest.[23]

The National Socialist economy was an increasingly state-controlled one that sought to avoid inflation by controlling prices and wages and foreign trade. Autarkic restrictions on imports were offset by bilateral barter agreements. Whether the war that began two years after the 1937 edition of Feder’s work was, as Feder’s view of the role of international finance in the first World War would suggest, another effort to punish Germany’s financial independence under National Socialism or whether it was indeed secretly willed by the international financiers for their own geopolitical ends, the increasing losses suffered by Germany in the course of it certainly provoked Hitler into attempting to “sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom”, as Feder had predicted.

But neither Feder nor Hitler may have foreseen the severity of the revenge — more cruel since more lasting than that after the First World War — that the international Jewish interests would take on Germany after its defeat in 1945. While Feder hoped that other nations of the world will also eventually follow the German example and  “mankind, freed of the Jewish oppression, will experience an age of unprecedented prosperity — and, above all, Germany — the heart of the world”, the opposite of that indeed has occurred, since most of Europe has been turned into “a slave, fellaheen, bondman and servant of the all-Jewish world-power” (p. 35). And the heart of Germany itself, drained by a tyrannical psychological control of its population, has virtually stopped beating.

[1] This article is taken from the Preface to my edition of Gottfried Feder, The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation, Sanctuary Press, 2019.

[2] Manifest zur Brechung des Zinsknechtschaft des Geldes, Diessen vor München: Joseph C. Huber, 1919; cf. The Manifesto for the Breaking of the Financial Slavery to Interest, tr. Alexander Jacob, History Review Press, 2012; Sanctuary Press, 2019.

[3] Another major early member was Karl Harrer (1890-1926), who joined the party in March of 1919. Harrer, like Drexler, was a member of the occultist Thule society in Munich, which was an off-shoot of the Germanen Order founded in 1912 by Theodor Fritsch. Eckart too was influenced by the doctrines of the Thule society.

[4] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. James Murphy, London: Hurst and Blackett, 1939, pp.168,171.

[5] This work was translated by E.T.S. Dugdale as The Programme of the NSDAP and its general conceptions, Munich, 1932.

[6] I have for my translation used the 1932 edition, vol.35 of the “Nationalsozialistische Bibliothek” series.

[7] For the part played by big industries in Hitler’s rise to power see G. Hallgarten, “Adolf Hitler and German heavy industry 1931-1933”, Journal of Economic History, 12 (1952).

[8] H. Reupke, Der Nationalsozialismus und die Wirtschaft, Berlin, 1931, pp.29ff.

[9] The closest to National Socialist economics is the Social Credit movement founded in Britain by C.H. Douglas (1879-1952), whose work Economic Democracy was published in 1920 (see F. Hutchison and B. Burkitt, The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism, London: Routledge, 1997). Douglas influenced Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the thirties (see Kerry Bolton, “Breaking the bondage of interest, part 2”, Counter-Currents, August 11, 2011, http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/breaking-the-bondage-of-interesta-right-answer-to-usury-part-2/

[10] It was on his suggestion that Hitler changed the name of the German branch of the DAP in 1920 to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

[11] Feder’s manifesto on interest-slavery was interestingly published in the same year as Jung’s work on National Socialism.

[12] Rudolf Jung, Der Nationale Sozialismus, Munich, 1922, p.187f.

[13] Ibid., 53f.

[14] The pamphlets that he self-published (in Leipzig) in this series, “Die internationalen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen der jüdischen Hochfinanz” (The international kindred relationships of Jewish high finance’), between 1933 and 1940 present short historical accounts of the different branches of Jewry in various countries of Europe as well as in America. For instance, the first pamphlet is on Das Haus Rothschild, numbers two to four on Ginsberg und Günsberg und Asher Ginzberg, five to eight on Jakob Schiff und die Warburgs und das New Yorker Bankhaus Kuhn, Loeb & Co., nine to ten on Amsterdamer und Oppenheimer Juden, eleven on Französische Finanzjuden, twelve on Tschechoslowakische Finanzjuden, fourteen on Rumänische Finanzjuden, fifteen on Lessing und Moses Mendelssohn und das Bankhaus Mendelssohn & Co., seventeen on Polnische Finanzjuden, eighteen on Schwedische Finanzjuden, nineteen on Holländische und belgische Finanzjuden, twenty on Frankfurter Finanzjuden und die I.G. Farben, twenty-one to twenty-three on Englische Finanzjuden, thirty-four to thirty-eight and forty-three to forty-four on Tshechische Finanzjuden and thirty-nine to forty-two on Ungarische Finanzjuden. In addition, he published, in Halle, a similar work on Amerikanische Finanzjuden (1936).

[15] “nicht mehr zeitgemäßen Kampfmethoden, die sogar von den Engländern in jüngster Zeit zum Zwecke der Gegenpropaganda ausgeschlachtet wurden” (see Gerd Simon, “Chronologie, Pudor, Heinrich“, http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/gerd.simon/ChrPudor.pdf, p.19f.)

[16] All page-references are to my edition.

[17] The “Führer principle” was championed also by Rudolf Jung in his Nationale Sozialismus, p.177f.

[18] See G. Senft, “Anti-Kapitalismus von Rechts? – Eine Abrechnung mit Gottfried Feders ‘Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft’”, Zeitschrift für Sozialökonomie, 106 (1995), pp.18-32.

[19] According to Henry Liu: “through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German economic miracle,” Asia Times Online, 24 May 2005, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.html).

[20] Hitler’s eagerness to rearm Germany is not surprising in the light of the eastern expansionist and anti-Bolshevist foreign political aims outlined by him already in Mein Kampf, Vol.II, Ch.14.

[21] R.J. Overy, The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.43.

[22] Ibid., p.38.

[23]See the web-log by “Scanners”, “Gottfried Feder und das zinslose Geld”, http://www.utopia.de/blog/umweltpolitik/gottfried-feder-und-das-zinslose.The western financial powers may have partly supported Hitler’s effort to check the westward spread of Bolshevism. For American involvement in National Socialist finance, for example, see Anthony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler, Sudbury: Bloomfield Books, 1976.

Tsar Wars

/9 Comments/in /by

The on-again off-again meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is set to take place in Alaska this Friday. This formerly Russian possession is a most symbolic setting if indeed territorial exchanges are to be discussed. The form guide, however, suggests that it will be mostly a publicity stunt — a summit of mutually unrealistic expectations, as impossible to make real progress as it would be to make roasted ice cubes. The Russians are now beginning to capitalize strongly on their frontline momentum, and they still regard the conflict as something existential to their security and sovereignty. On the other hand, Trump salvaging something from project Ukraine seems to be an existential matter for his imperial ego.

What a difference a few months makes; Trump’s pendulous politicking has gone from ending the war in 24 hours to saber-rattling various sanctions and nuclear submarines through a battery of deadlines. Analysts are still at a loss to explain Trump’s change of heart and his decision to add Biden’s War to his own portfolio — the only official statement coming in June when Melania was watching a news report of some apartment blocks getting hit in Kiev. It’s deja vu for people who recall the first Trump term, where it was Ivanka’s tears for Syria that forced Trump to reverse course on that as well.

The MAGA faithful are decidedly livid at what is yet another betrayal of the America First credo. The base has long known of Trump’s weakness for Israel, but Ukraine is a bridge too far and a clear broken promise along with the Epstein List release. Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Matt Gaetz and the rest of what could be called paleo-MAGA are right to assume that the neocons have won again, while even Marjorie Taylor Greene is questioning her place in the party. Perhaps Bannon and friends need to work on their golf game more, because it is currently warmonger Lindsey Graham who has regular access to probing the president over 18 holes.

Another issue that’s proved a deal-breaker for America Firsters is the freedom to protest Israel, which Trump first infringed through the universities and is now threatening to withhold natural disaster relief to any states or cities that boycott Israeli companies—what is fundamentally a First Amendment right. If there is a single moral to the story of AIPAC’s influence, it is that Jewish and Israeli lobbies are unnatural disasters on American civil liberty.

Not since William Buckley’s infamous neocon circumcision has a de-facto W.A.S.P. aligned so strongly with Israeli interests and against public opinion. Trump seemed genuinely taken aback that so much of his base now identifies as suffering Israel-fatigue — but if you want blind loyalty, get a guide dog. The only other head of state whose manic chauvinism for the Jewish state is comparable to Trump’s is that of eccentric Argentine Javier Milei, a man who takes the Wailing Wall name a little too literally, while also claiming to be the reincarnation of a gladiator from ancient Rome.

The cult of personality is not something to be ignored in times when the political process itself is part of the bread and circuses. Indeed, mavericks and outsiders would likely have never come to power without it, while the flipside usually means the people must bear a leader of tempestuous rule, self-admiration and overconfidence. Benito Mussolini famously wanted to straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa — Trump wants to put the cane sugar back into Coke, but to each his own. There are a number of figures from antiquity who could be seen as historical analogues to President Trump, but the likeness is probably most congruent with Emperor Commodus. This was a man born in the purple yet obsessed with his public image and popularity among the plebeians, resorting to such ploys as artificially lowering the price of grain and performing as a gladiator in the Colosseum, slaying countless exotic beasts and crippled opponents.

It wasn’t so long ago that Trump’s supporters were merchandising the God Emperor meme online in his honor. But with Lyndsey Graham as the new First Buddy in this annus horribilis, MAGA looks to be dying — quite literally with the passing of mascot Hulk Hogan — and if Trump doesn’t reverse his heel turn soon, he can call The Undertaker for the midterms because the base has had enough. Once bitten, twice shy as Trump’s Republican predecessor used to try to say. It’s slowly dawning on people that what one Mayorkas can do in damage will outweigh what several Trumps can attempt to ameliorate, meanwhile Trump is choosing to relitigate the Russia hoax conspiracy (well past the statute of limitations). All the America First movement wanted was a genuine non-interventionist and immigration patriot, but after two fresh starts in office, Trump is yet to cross that Rubicon — rather it’s looking like he has once again just conned the rubes.

One group that hasn’t fallen for Trump’s bluff and bluster includes the leaders of India, Brazil and China, who stood firm in the face of tariff threats. Putin’s Russia was the mastermind behind the BRICS alliance and continues to be its galvanizing force. Should we have expected any less from the home of Tetris?

The current situation on the frontlines is likewise comfortably in Russia’s favor, as panic and desperation set in for the NATO powers. Last week, ZeroHedge reported that the Zelensky regime will now allow men and women over the age of 60 to enlist, adding to the forced mobilizations of young men, disabled men and even people with Down syndrome. At a time when the regime is short on supplies, manpower and even funds to pay active duty soldiers, the only thing growing is the Ukraine crazy train. In a move reminiscent of the ninth-century trial of Pope Formosus, a Ukrainian court has decided to indict Russian nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky for supporting the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, in spite of the man being dead for three years. Ukraine “cannot be counted among civilized countries,” opined Hungarian foreign minister Peter Szijjarto.

Russia, by contrast, presents a picture of confidence in light of its heavily sanctioned economy spurring domestic innovation and resolve. Russia is going to win the war, and the people know it. Putin’s approval now stands at 86%, which is just shy of his peak 88% rating from the year 2000. Russians are a pragmatic and results-oriented people, so it’s probably not of too much concern that a number of corrupt officials and incompetent generals fell from high places — it evidently led to rapid reform within the military and to battlefield success. A popular Russian anekdot on Putin’s ruthless efficiency that one is likely to hear from haters and supporters alike is as follows: Stalin appears to Putin in a dream and tells him, “I have two bits of advice for you: kill off all your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue.” When Putin asks, “Why blue?” Stalin responds: “I knew you wouldn’t object to the first instruction.”

Even abroad, Putin maintains his popular appeal, especially in the Global South where his unapologetic masculinity, traditional values and opposition to Western hegemony is admired. Whether he is a dictator by democratic consent or not is ultimately a matter for the Russian people, but various gripes about his alleged tsarist ambitions are something that can be dismissed by merely looking at who cast such aspersions. It is invariably the neoliberals and neocons, the biggest imperialists of them all, with might is right as their doctrine and a unipolar world as their vision. Trump’s tariff policies have already taken executive privilege to an unprecedented level, and the neocons would have no issue if such executive overreach was channeled into their bellicose global leadership agenda.

Possible sabotage of the peace talks in Alaska is a concern of several pundits who note the mismatched momentum of the two sides coming in. Analyst Brian Berletic considers the summit an unfathomable risk for the Russians to be taking given the recent sneak attack assassinations that the Americans carried out under the pretense of negotiations with Iran. However, there is another possibility that involves Putin sending a body double to Anchorage. Folks may recall the 2018 Singapore Summit in which a doppelganger stood in for Kim Jong-Un. Nobody even remembers why tensions with North Korea were at breaking point, but they soon subsided and Trump happily bagged the good publicity. It’s highly unlikely that Trump has any qualms about partaking in such charades for the cameras. His own political theatre seems to operate on a weekly cycle, as if naturally in sync with TV scheduling. As Jeffrey Sachs likes to say, “Russia plays chess, China plays go and the United States plays poker.” Trump is the epitome of this syllogism, while his counterparts focus on the long game.

Other pundits are similarly making mention of the mismatch in negotiation prowess — the Russians have Lavrov, Ushakov and Ryabkov, while the Americans have former property developer Steve Witkoff  (who has already undermined negotiations by supposedly misinterpreting a translator’s message). What use are envoys of Russian-Jewish ancestry if they haven’t preserved at least a smattering of the mother-tongue? Not since Education Secretary Linda McMahon referred to A.I. as “A1” has the Trump administration been this embarrassed by a miscommunication, although it can’t be easy when you work for a man who oscillates between hyperbole, superlatives and sarcasm.

Those who have dealt with Trump in a professional capacity often attribute his erratic decision making as a negotiation tactic, akin to good cop-bad cop. The less charitable view is that Trump’s train of thought resembles a Mobius strip, where the mere passage of time returns him to the same initial position but now having the opposite view. It’s generally agreed that the Americans hold practically no cards as far as Ukraine is concerned, but there are other things on the table. The optimist’s view is that, at the very least, the summit in Alaska will work toward a new treaty on nuclear arms, and that the US and Russia will cooperate in the Arctic. The pessimistic outlook is that Project Ukraine drags on for much longer, and that Trump tries to ban Russia from the 2028 Ozempic Games in Los Angeles.

It’s worth remembering that Putin has war hawks in his orbit as well who are now especially excited by the sight of wounded prey and wanting the quarry whole — rare earth minerals and all. In this context it may actually be Trump and Putin, the wasp and cagey bee, who are the cooler heads that prevail. The spy agencies and military-industrial complex will remain the chief obstacles to this process. My own prediction is that a partial ceasefire will be agreed and some constructive dialogue is reached before a second round of talks take place in St. Petersburg, Russia. Perhaps even firebrand Dmitry Medvedev will make an appearance and trade shot glasses with DUI-hire Pete Kegsbreath on the undercard. For now the war still has life left in it, indeed Trump needs more time to build one of his hotels on the Gaza Riviera and offer Zelensky residency. His philistine ways should have seen him expelled there long ago.

The English Are Sick of Being Polite. They Are Making Clear Who’s One of Them

/25 Comments/in /by

There is a fascinating new debate taking place in England over what it means to be English. Until post-War non-White immigration, this didn’t even need to be discussed. To be English was to descend from the Anglo-Saxons – Angle-land – who settled in what is now England after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Some pub bores would insist that there is a degree to which, in the west of the country, the Anglo-Saxons interbred with rather than simply replaced the Celts, meaning that those in the west were a Saxon-Celtic cline. This is true, but they are still descended from the Saxons and this is so even if there was an incursion of Normans, Vikings and Danes. As Frank Salter has shown in On Genetic Interests, the native English make up a distinct genetic cluster, two random English people are more genetically similar to each other than an Englishman and Frenchmen. On average, two random English people are twelfth cousins and they all descend from King Edward I, due to the way in which those of high status used to have higher completed fertility.

Multiculturalism has forced people, out of politeness and out of a desire for equality, to attempt to overturn this; to completely redefine what it means to be English. Such that Black and brown people can be included, and such that any sense of English identity and attachment to the pre-Multiculturalism past can be obliterated, opinion-formers have attempted to redefine Englishness. This process may have started as far back as the 1980s. There was a political advertisement by the Conservative Party in which was a Black man. Beneath him was the slogan: “Labour Say He’s Black. Tories Say He’s British.” Except most of them didn’t: “British” meant you were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Therefore, very few people thought he was British, let alone English. In the 1980s, Black football players would be regularly booed and subject to monkey noises at matches.

The new definition of English, or British, is simply that you are born in the country. The ludicrousness and tendentiousness of such a definition is brought into stark relief if we ask, “If a White person was born in Bengal, does that make him Bengali?” As the Prime Minister and military leader the Duke of Wellington, whose Englishness was questioned because he had been born in Ireland, put it: “Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.” But this was something that, until relatively recently, prominent people simply didn’t say.

We English all knew that Englishness was a matter of blood; we were an extended genetic family based around shared ancestors. But, being English, we tried to be polite and to not publically talk about such things. However, as I have pointed out in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, the Woke appear to be accelerationists. They have manifested because, with the collapse of harsh Darwinian conditions since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a huge build-up in mutation. Prior to that. we were selecting for mental health, physical health and group-orientation to better win the battle of group-selection (conservatism). But now there has meant a build-up of mentally unstable, left-wing, selfish people who virtue-signal to the point of anti-natalism: feel bad for being White, feel bad for being human, abort your offspring, do not have children, White people are evil. . . . This eventually creates a situation where the only survivors are the genetically conservative and it creates a conservative backlash before it’s too late.

These mutants have now taken over the culture and have become so tyrannical that conservatives have found themselves utterly excluded and having the feeling of being “in the world but not of the world” that fundamentalists have. Conservatives have been forced to find each other and they strongly bond with each other over shared adversity. In other words, Wokeness has created polarisation and once you are in the “conservative” camp, and understand that people will back you up, you dare to state your genuine opinions and you also conservatism-signal, such that the long-buried are reawakened. Further, Wokeness is, a sense, the new Church: it is, effectively, inviting young people to rebel against it. Conservatism is, ironically, now edgy, rebellious and cool, at least for a portion of young people. Remember the 1990s cartoon Daria? If she’d been born in the year 2000, I’m fairly sure she’d be “trad” and her sister would be Woke. And naturally, the English were pushed even further when, in 2022, they found themselves with an Indian Prime Minister and, in fact, all senior government positions occupied by non-British people. The English are also constantly being pushed further by unrestrained non-White immigration and the attendant crime, including the rapes of little girls. Serious politicians are, therefore, discussing remigration.

Sensing the way the wind was blowing, in February 2025, the right-wing Conservative former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who was born in the UK but whose family are from Goa, declared that though she was British she was not English, as this was clearly an ethnicity, like being Bengali. In a Woke context, only a brown person could dare to say this, and, in so doing, she was likely trying to make herself likeable to the increasingly angry English population. The comedian Nick Dixon joked on Twitter, in response: “I’ve always liked Suella Braveman and I will be sad when she is deported.”

In August 2025, a journalist called Robert Tombs wrote in the Daily Telegraph that Englishness didn’t really exist and, if it did, it was a culture that could be learnt. Naturally, this was met with derision. Did he think that cultures fell out of the sky like thunderbolts and randomly hit groups of people? Of course, there is a genetic component to Englishness. The previous month, at a public debate entitled “How to Save England,” Tombs had made the same assertion. It was met with gasps of disbelief from the (young) audience, with people insisting that Englishness was a matter of ancestry. Tombs, it should be said, is part-French, so not fully English.

For many years there has been a debate among feminists over what it means to be a woman. The typical Cluster B Personality Disorder, virtue-signalling “activists” have screamed as loud as they can that “Transwomen are real women.” This is important, because to say otherwise might hurt the feelings of victim-signalling men who are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman. Other women would regard it as “mean,” and women, being highly socially anxious, must seem “kind” in front of other women; in front of people whose friendship system is based around finding alloparents for their hypothetical children.

So-called “TERFs” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) insist that sex is biological; you cannot change sex and, in that sex is a matter of your chromosomes, they are obviously correct. Tranwomen are simply deluded men who are trying to make us take part in their delusion.

The same debate has now arrived in the world of Englishness. Some people seem to believe that you can be trans-racial or trans-ethnic. This is palpably absurd. What we mean by “English,” as English people, is a person who is a member of our genetic family; a person who shares our ancestors, the founding ancestors who occupied our piece of land for a very long time. And it is Woke tyranny that has forced the English to be so impolite as to say this. We are fed up of being polite. A growing body of us are FERNs (Foreign Exclusionary Radical Nationalists) and, like ferns, we know our roots, deep in the primordial forest.

The STEMACI Theory of National Power

/6 Comments/in /by

There are numerous factors that can go into what makes empires rise or fall or nations grow or decline in power, wealth, and influence vis-a-vis other nations, and it is not my goal here to discuss all of them; rather, what I hope to do is focus on just two of the biggest and most important ones — ones that dwarf virtually all of the others, those being the quality of a nation or empire’s human capital and its cultural institutions, which together largely determine to what extent that human capital can live up to its full potential. As my STEMACI (STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] and cultural institutions) theory of national power shows, these two elements largely determine national or imperial power. Not that such power is everything—this theory in no way argues that it is—but since here on earth, power is ultimately what determines whether or not a country will survive and in what form, it’s hardly something even we, who care about the long-term preservation of our people, can neglect.

In the history of empires, the rise of the British Empire provides the best illustration of the power of high-quality human capital (for which STEM-level IQ scores serve as something of a proxy). That a tiny Island nation could bring such a large percentage of the world’s landmass under its rule is remarkable: most empires throughout history (the Persian, the Khazar, the Aztec, etc.) never managed to place under their rule an amount of land that was so much greater than that controlled naturally by those who served as the empire’s ethnic core. But technology is a force multiplier, and the British, who were the first nation on earth to industrialize, had enough of a technological advantage to multiply their power far beyond what any empire had before. Just a few of the major battles between Brits and non-White natives attest to this:

Battle of Kambula: Part of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War, the battle marked the end for determined military resistance to British rule—hardly surprising, given how badly the Zulus were defeated: despite having an absolutely massive army of around 20,000 warriors (compared to 2,086 for the British), they not only lost but sustained casualties of anywhere from over 700 to 2,000 killed, while their White enemies only lost 29 (and only 54 were wounded).

Battle of Assaye: Fought in 1803 during the Second Anglo-Maratha War in India, it witnessed the badly outnumbered army of the East Indian Company (which had both British and Indian soldiers) under the command of the Duke of Wellington (yeah, the guy who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo) overcome the massive army of the Maratha Confederacy: despite the latter having over 10,000 European-trained Indian infantry, plus 10-20,000 irregular infantry, plus 30-40,000 irregular cavalry, compared to a total force of 9,500 for the Brits and their Indian allies. The Maratha Confederacy suffered 6,000 casualties while its enemies incurred only 428 dead, 1,138 wounded, and 18 MIA.

Battle of Abu Klea: Immortalized in Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Fuzzy-Wuzzy” which depicts a British common soldier’s admiration for the suicidal bravery of the attacking Mahdists (those supporting the self-proclaimed Mahdi—an end-times figure who, according to Islamic eschatology, will appear and rid the world of evil before Jesus makes his return). During this 1885 battle in Sudan the Mahdists briefly managed to break the square formation of some British infantry before being defeated; despite their bravery (or foolhardiness) and their outnumbering the British 3,000 (14,000 if you count the total that could have engaged the Brits) to 1,400, they ended with 1,100 killed and an unknown number wounded vs the British suffering only 76 killed and 82 wounded.

And to be clear, I am not saying here that technological supremacy was the only thing making the British soldier (and Western man in general) victorious on the battlefield. There is also courage, stamina, individual intelligence, and discipline, which Western soldiers in general and (at least at that time) British ones in particular possessed in relative abundance; contrast them with the 20th-century revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s observation about the state of so many African soldiers (he had traveled to the Congo to try to jump-start a communist revolution there, but gave up in disgust for obvious reasons after less than a year[i]):

[C]amp life for the men meant carrying out no military operations or even undergoing training, confident in the enemy army’s inactivity and relying on the peasants for supplies. The peasants had to bring them food and were frequently humiliated and mistreated. The fundamental character of the People’s Liberation Army was that it was a parasitic army that did not work, did not train, did not fight, and demanded provisions and labor from the local population, sometimes with extreme brutality. The peasants were at the mercy of groups who came on leave from the camps to demand extra food, and who repeatedly consumed their poultry and little luxury food items they kept in reserve.[ii]

However, it is unlikely that the British alone should have risen to the imperial heights that they did relative to both non-Whites and their fellow Europeans without the technological advantages they enjoyed in time and in degree relative to them, as can be seen from the very non-lopsided casualty figures in European vs European wars, such as the Second Boer War in which the British, despite utilizing hundreds of thousands of troops, suffered about 99,000 casualties compared to about 51,000 for the Boers; in fact the only reason the British were able to defeat the indomitable Boers was that British economic and technological superiority combined with huge numbers of non-British auxiliary troops that their empire provided to gradually wear them down. That that same empire would later have to call on America’s help to overcome the might of highly industrialized Germany in both World Wars is only further proof of that truth.

And the reverse, though less obviously, is equally true, as the genetic history of the Roman Empire shows; as Edward Dutton, Emil Kirkegaard, and Davide Piffer reveal in their analysis of the genetics of skeletons from the Roman heartland in Italy through the various periods:

We analysed 127 Ancient Roman genomes with a view to understanding the possible reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Taking the polygenic score for educational attainment . . . as a proxy for intelligence, we find that intelligence increased from the Neolithic Era . . . to the Iron Age . . ., declines after the Republic Period and during the Imperial Period . . . and increases in Late Antiquity . . . and is approximately at the same level today. . . . We show that this is congruent with a cyclical model of civilization based around intelligence, with the documented history of Rome, and also with patterns of immigration into Rome.[iii]

In other words, the average IQ of the general population increased from the earlier ages up to the time of the Iron Age and the Republic, then decreased during the imperial period, before recovering in later ages following the Western Roman Empire’s fall.

Furthermore, historical documents (many of them cited by the authors) basically convey the same message, albeit more indirectly. From Ovid’s comment on rich young men not fathering children, to Caesar Augustus’s attempt to tax the childless among the upper classes to compel them to have more children (which didn’t work, as large numbers simply paid the tax), there is ample evidence that during the imperial period the smartest Romans were having fewer children relative to their less cognitively gifted brethren (to say nothing of the non-Romans coming to the Roman heartland as slaves or workers) and that this decline in all likelihood contributed to the destruction of the empire renowned in the ancient world for its siegecraft, civil engineering feats (aqueducts, roads and the like), and other signs of mastery of high (for the time) technology.

As two of the godfathers of intelligence research Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen show in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, there is a strong correlation between a nation’s average IQ and its wealth per capita. As they write in Chapter 4, Section 3. Intelligence and Per Capita Income across Nations:

From these studies showing that intelligence is positively and causally related to earnings among individuals, it can be predicted that this association should also be present across nations. The earnings of nations are generally expressed as per capita income. The results of studies confirming that national IQs are positively related to per capita income are summarized in Table 4.3.[iv]

George Mason University professor Garett Jones is not brave or foolhardy enough to openly endorse the race realism of a Lynn or Vanhanen—though he never denies that heredity plays a part in determining a person’s IQ. Jones gives far more weight to environmental factors than most Dissident Right types ever would (though this hardly matters, given that he’s measuring the effects of national IQ levels, not the ultimate causes of those levels), but he comes to basically the same conclusion in his book Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own, in which he shows that while for individuals an increase of 1 IQ point would lead to on average about 1% higher wages, for nations an increase of 1 point in average IQs leads to a 6% increase in GDP.

What are the implications of this for the US? Well, let’s consider a hypothetical situation. The average IQ of America is currently 98,[v] and its demographic makeup is, according to the United States Census Bureau’s 2022 estimate, 59.3% non-Hispanic White,[vi] and its GDP in 2022 was $25.74 trillion.[vii] Yes, I know the numbers can be pretty skewed for political purposes, but that doesn’t affect my example.

How much higher would that number be (remember, the proportion holds even if that nominal GDP figure is not the true amount) if the US were as White as it was at the height of its wealth and power, say the eve of World War II? Well, let’s find out!

Going by the numbers from 1940, the country was 89.8% White—which we’ll round up to 90% for our example. What U.S. states are about that White still? Well, let’s go with the current ten Whitest states:[viii]

Maine: 93.0%
Vermont: 93.8%
West Virginia: 92.8
New Hampshire: 92.6%
Idaho: 92.6%
Wyoming: 92.3%
Utah: 90%
Iowa: 89.8%
Montana: 88.7%
Nebraska: 87.5%

We see that their percentages average 91%, or very near what the entire US was in the early ‘40s. Now let’s average their IQ levels: when we get the average of all of them:[ix]

Maine: 103.4
Vermont: 103.8
West Virginia: 98.7
New Hampshire: 104.2
Idaho: 101.4
Wyoming: 102.4
Utah: 101.1
Iowa: 103.2
Montana: 103.4
Nebraska: 102.3

It comes to 102.39, which we’ll use as our estimation of what the nation’s average IQ would be if it were that White. The difference—4.39 (102.39 minus 98)—shows how much higher our GDP would be, were we still as White as we had been in those prewar days.

So, since it’s about a 6% increase per IQ-point increase, and since GDP is nominally currently (that is, in the first quarter of 2025) $29.98 trillion:

At 99 points, it would be: (.06 x $29.98 trillion) + $29.98 trillion = $31.78 trillion.
At 100 points, it would be: (.06 x $31.78 trillion) + $31.78 trillion = $33.69 trillion.
At 101 points, it would be: (.06 x $33.69 trillion) + $33.69 trillion = $35.71 trillion.
At 102 points, it would be: (.06 x $35.71 trillion) + 35.71 trillion = $37.85 trillion.

Taking our 37.85 trillion figure as our new GDP, let’s see what avenues would open up for the US were its demography to improve to that level, driving its economy to follow suit; that is, what intelligent uses the US regime could put that money to? I say could, as there’s no guarantee that the average intelligence of the US ruling class will improve, though it might, given that smarter people are less likely to be fooled by fantasy promises than dumb ones.

Let’s start by talking about the national debt. Currently, it stands at about 36 trillion, or 121% of GDP.[x] Were the economy to become as productive as a 102-IQ population would allow, that figure (assuming for the sake of argument it didn’t increase in the interim) would shrink to being only about 95% of GDP. Beyond that, interest on the debt would become far easier to service: last year the US spent $881 billion on interest payments alone, equivalent to about 2.9% of GDP; had US GDP been at our 102 IQ figure, that payment would have constituted 2.3% (still not good at all, but less horrific). Moreover, in 2024 the federal government’s tax-revenue-to-spending stood at $4.92 trillion vs $6.75 trillion (and thus a deficit of $1.83 trillion): in other words, that year it was able to collect 16.4% of GDP in tax revenue; and thus if GDP then had been at our calculated levels, revenue collection of 16.4% would have brought in $6.21 trillion and the deficit would have been only $54 billion (again, not good, but far, far less horrific than $1.83 trillion).

And before going on, let me make one thing very clear: I am in no way whatsoever defending the current level and specifics of the feds’ spending; it is beyond wasteful, being outright counterproductive, given that most of it comes from smart productive Whites (the genetic seed corn) of a strong economy, while an inordinate amount goes to a relatively small numbers of dumb Whites (White trash, if you will) and a large number of feral Blacks. As with the Roman Empire discussed earlier, which toward the end had a welfare state almost as bad as our own, we are destroying ourselves by paying the dumbest (and in the case of Blacks, the most violent as well) to breed, which further hurts the birthrates of the intelligent via the higher taxes needed to pay for the welfare state. That said, I am merely trying to demonstrate the economic power of eugenic policies in terms that even a brain-dead bureaucrat can understand.

And, of course, that power is not economic only, since such intellectually driven economic power is the key to long-run military power—whether that power be used for purely defensive purposes or for (as is our case) imperial purposes is another matter altogether. But it’s indisputable that all peoples, being fallible, evil-prone mortals, have the temptation toward avarice and empire, and thus it is critical that all those who wish to remain free be at least able to fight a great war, if only to defend themselves. This is doubly true for nations without large amounts of natural resources such as Japan, whose GDP figures are predominantly the result of advanced production techniques: the more you siphon off from your normal production into military tech, the less you have for other purposes, as the huge shortages of consumer goods in the U.S. during World War II vividly illustrate.

Speaking of World War II, let’s give an empirical illustration of the formula behind how it can be the case that average IQ/STEM numbers = economic power = military power at work. Consider that from 1941 through 1945 (inclusive), the US spent through the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 a total of $11.3 billion,[xi] or 1.19%[xii] of GDP total for those years, on creating the vast war machine that saved the Soviet Union, as Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov admitted; “[Stalin] stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.”[xiii] Zhukov stated that “the Americans sent us material without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war.”[xiv] As the Louis Simpson poem about America’s industrial war-might put it, “For every shell Krupp fired/General Motors sent back four”)[xv] Regarding the defeat pf Germany, I should mention the great sorrow of those who know the true history of World War II and how Germany’s defeat led to our present evils.

Now we take our estimate of how much higher the current US’s nominal GDP would be if the entire nation were White and use that difference in inverted fashion. (again, I’m well aware these numbers can be manipulated). That is, use the percentage difference to estimate how much lower total US GDP would have been for 1941 to 1945 (inclusive), the years during which the US gave the Soviet Union $11.3 billion under the Lend-Lease Act, had the country then been 59.3% White as it is today with an average IQ of 98 (see note 5, above), we can estimate that GDP then would have been only $168.67 billion[xvi] rather than $190.16 billion (average of 1941/129.3; 1942/166; 1943/203.1; 1944/224.4; 1945/228).[xvii]

Assuming the percentage which the US spent to prop up Russia’s war machine was the maximum it could afford to (1.19% of GDP), its new Lend-Lease figure would be only $10.03 billion (1.19% of 843.34 billion) rather than the actual $11.3 billion (1.19% of 950.8 billion); or 91% of the actual $11.3 billion sent. What kind of changes would that make? Well, let’s look at what that original figure bought; in the course of the war, the US sent to Russia under Lend-Lease:

As the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Russia puts it on its website:[xviii]

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food

Had its people been that much less White and its economy that much weaker, those figures would have been 70% of the actual number sent (for the sake of argument, we’re assuming that the proportion of each type of war hardware would be bought):

280,000 jeeps & trucks
9,800 airplanes
5,600 tractors
9,100 tanks
1,050,000 blankets
10,500,000 pairs of army boots
74,900 tons of cotton
1,890,000 tons of petrol products
3,150,000 tons of food

How would that have affected the outcome of the war? Well, let’s take a look at one of the pivotal battles, the Battle of Kursk, which along with the more famous Battle of Stalingrad was one of the most pivotal in the entire war. (I chose to use the former rather than the latter for my example since at the time of Stalingrad the full flow of US Lend-Lease money and equipment had yet to take effect; by the time of the Battle of Kursk it had.) During that titanic battle, which lasted a full month, two weeks, and four days and was the largest and deadliest in human history, both sides threw everything they had into the fight, making use of record numbers of men and weapons of all kinds:[xix]

Germany:

2,928 tanks
7,417 artillery pieces
1,800 aircraft

USSR:
5,000 tanks
31,000 artillery pieces
3,500 aircraft

Had Lend-Lease been from a less-White America and Britain (the only nations lending the USSR large amounts of war equipment), those numbers would have been 30% less; that is, if the US and Britain had had the capacity to produce, and thus to lend—though diminished by the amounts calculated above—they would have been able to send in the course of the war only 6,720 artillery, 8,103 tanks, and 13,127 airplanes: according to official Soviet historians (whose figures seem to largely line up with US numbers). On its own the USSR produced during the course of the war “489,900 artillery pieces, 102,500 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 136,800 aircraft”[xx] while receiving from the US and Great Britain “9,600 guns, 11,576 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 18,753 aircraft”[xxi]; and thus if the US/British proportion of the total were only 70% percent of what was in reality sent, their absolute totals of internally produced weapons plus Allies-supplied ones would have been 496,620 artillery guns, 110,603 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 149,927 airplanes or 99.4%, 97%, 96.3%, respectively, of what was actually sent.

If we assume a proportionate reduction of such equipment at Kursk, the new German/Soviet figures would be:

Germany:
2,928 tanks
7,417 artillery pieces
1,800 aircraft

USSR:
4,850 tanks
30,814 artillery pieces
3,370 aircraft

Would that change have been enough to affect the battle’s outcome? Most likely not, given that the Soviets had such an overwhelming numerical advantage that the reduction barely brought the two sides into an equality of force. But what if Russia itself had been that much less White and that much more filled with low-IQ non-Whites, such as from, say, Chechnya? For although the USSR as a whole had large amounts of non-White peoples, the Russian heartland where the engineers designed and the factories churned out supplies for the war was overwhelmingly White. Just assuming for the sake of argument that the USSR had the same reduction in its White population and economic power that we’ve calculated with regard to the WWII-era US (that is, a 30% reduction in war output). Would that have affected the outcome of Kursk? Well, let’s figure it out.

Let’s assume both the US/Britain and the USSR suffer the same White/production loss, bringing the absolute totals of their war implements to: 349,650 artillery (342,930 in house + 6,720 from US/Brits), 79,853 tanks and self-propelled guns (71,750 in house + 8,103 from US/Brits), and 108,887 airplanes (95,760 in house + 13,127 from US/Brits)—or 70% of the original figures in all cases. This would mean that the new proportionate numbers for Kursk would be:

Germany:
928 tanks
7,417 artillery pieces
1,800 aircraft

USSR:
3,500 tanks
21,700 artillery pieces
2,450 aircraft

As you can see, although the USSR still has a numerical advantage, it’s no longer particularly huge. In fact, given the relative casualty rates in the most important German/Soviet battles of the war, for example, at Kursk, according to Sky HISTORY:

Although specific numbers are still debated amongst historians, it’s estimated the Battle of Kursk caused around 800,000 Soviet casualties and 200,000 German casualties.[xxii]

And Stalingrad, of which Encyclopedia Brittanica writes:

The Soviets recovered 250,000 German and Romanian corpses in and around Stalingrad, and total Axis casualties (Germans, Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) are believed to have been more than 800,000 dead, wounded, missing, or captured. Of the 91,000 men who surrendered, only some 5,000–6,000 ever returned to their homelands (the last of them a full decade after the end of the war in 1945); the rest died in Soviet prison and labour camps. On the Soviet side, official Russian military historians estimate that there were 1,100,000 Red Army dead, wounded, missing, or captured in the campaign to defend the city. An estimated 40,000 civilians died as well.[xxiii]

Thus, in all likelihood the Germans would have won both the Battle of Kursk and the war itself, at least on the Eastern Front, which in turn would have allowed them command of the resources and territory that might have made possible, if not likely, their ability to continue the war until war-weariness would have induced the Allies to offer them a non-Carthaginian peace. Extremely ironically, this might have prevented the US and Europe from become as non-White (and their regimes as anti-White) as they are today: if Germany had de facto won, the history books would not be filled with tales of inhuman Nazis killing lamb-like Jews via roller coasters of death and other implausible Rube Goldbergish methods; in fact, had all that blood and treasure not been spent in vain (on nothing more than a negotiated peace), US citizens might have turned inward, subjecting their lying leaders to extreme scrutiny and thus been able to see just how little the World War II propaganda differed from the lies peddled to get them into World War I. A hypothetical reality in which Germany fought the Allies to a standstill would likely also have witnessed Jewish propaganda being intellectually shredded and Jewish control being upended. In that way, a German victory might have spared the collective West the pains that it has suffered since. Such is the power of economic might and such is the power of the demographic as well as cultural (but that’s a story for our next essay)—reality that underlies it. For that matter, Western victory in a future (defensive, hopefully) war that it might find itself in depends heavily on those same factors.

And for those of you who might be inclined to argue that the nature of war has changed since then, that nuclear weapons and the emphasis on smarter, deadlier weapons over number of weapons—quality over quantity, as it were—make my example nonrepresentative, let me point out something: war and its evolution is always and everywhere essentially the same, best described as a kind of lion vs unicorn series of alternations between the triumph of quality and the triumph of quantity. While an advanced weapons technology might give a nation a decisive advantage for a time, the ability of other nations to partially catch up or steal that technology means that the tech-creator nation will maintain its advantage only if it can either move on to an even newer and better technology (the quality solution) or use superior economic power to produce the same tech in numbers its rivals could not match (the quantity solution). Beyond that though, even weak and outdated subsonic missiles can overcome the most advanced missile defense systems in the world if you throw enough of them at the enemy to simply overwhelm those systems: quantity has a quality of its own, as Stalin pointed out. In either case, high-quality human capital in large numbers is the sine qua non to maintain that edge.

Hence, the greater their production ability, the smaller the amount of their economy a nation would have to subtract from their export industries and/or their own consumption while maintaining the same amount of military power. Thus, it can be said that the higher the average IQ of the nation (and, hence, the more STEM types per capita it has), the more powerful a military it can maintain without straining its economy and impoverishing its citizenry—other things being equal, of course, which brings us to the second part of our STEMACI theory: the CI (cultural institutions) component, which will be the topic of the next and final essay in this series.

[i]Newsweek Staff. “How Che Saw Kabila.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 13 Mar. 2010, www.newsweek.com/how-che-saw-kabila-171416.

[ii]Guevara, Ernesto Che. Congo Diary: Episodes of the Revolutionary War in the Congo, files.catbox.moe/mxxpki.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan. 2025.

[iii]Dutton, Edward, et al. The Rise and Fall of Roman Polygenic Scores, Open Psych, 23 July 2023, openpsych.net/files/papers/Piffer_2023a.pdf.

[iv] Lynn, Richard, and Tatu Vanhanan. IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Jan. 2002, www.researchgate.net/publication/289962908_IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations, p. 75.

[v] “Average IQ by State 2023.” Data Pandas, www.datapandas.org/ranking/average-iq-by-state. Accessed 24 Jan. 2025.

[vi] “Whitest States: White Only Percentage 2023.” Data Pandas, www.datapandas.org/ranking/Whitest-states. Accessed 24 Jan. 2025.

[vii] O’Neill, Aaron. “United States GDP and Real GDP 1929-2022.” Statista, 4 July 2024,

[viii] “Whitest States: White Only Percentage 2023.” Data Pandas, www.datapandas.org/ranking/Whitest-states. Accessed 24 Jan. 2025.

[ix] “Average IQ by State 2023.” Data Pandas, www.datapandas.org/ranking/average-iq-by-state. Accessed 24 Jan. 2025.

[x] U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product [GFDEGDQ188S], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S, July 9, 2025

[xi] U.S. Mission Italy. “America Sent Gear to the USSR to Help Win World War II.” U. S. Embassy and Consulates in Italy, 2 May 2023, it.usembassy.gov/america-sent-gear-to-the-ussr-to-help-win-world-war-ii/#:~:text=From%201941%20through%201945%2C%20the,and%20services%20to%20the%20Soviets.

[xii] GDP historic figures (in billions): 1941/$129.3; 1942/$166; 1943/$203.1; 1944/$224.4; 1945/$228 = $950.8 from: O’Neill, Aaron. “United States GDP and Real GDP 1929-2022.” Statista, 4 July 2024, www.statista.com/statistics/1031678/gdp-and-real-gdp-united-states-1930-2019/.

[xiii] U.S. Mission Italy. “America Sent Gear to the USSR to Help Win World War II.” U. S. Embassy and Consulates in Italy, 2 May 2023, it.usembassy.gov/america-sent-gear-to-the-ussr-to-help-win-world-war-ii/#:~:text=From%201941%20through%201945%2C%20the,and%20services%20to%20the%20Soviets.

[xiv] Coalson, Robert. “‘We Would Have Lost’: Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip the Balance in Soviet Fight against Nazi Germany?” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, RFE/RL, 7 May 2020, www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html.

[xv] Lofgren, Mike. “Why Can’t America Build Enough Weapons?” Washington Monthly, 24 June 2024, washingtonmonthly.com/2024/06/23/why-cant-america-build-enough-weapons/.

[xvi] Starting with the 1940s IQ of 102.3 via extrapolation above and 1941-45 inclusive average GDP of $190.16 billion, drop the $190.16 billion figure by 6%, for each 1 IQ point change down to an IQ figure of 98.39 which is close to the 2023 average US IQ figure of 98 (see note 5, above): IQ 102.39/GDP $190.16, IQ 101.39/GDP $178.75, IQ 100.39/GDP $168.02, IQ 99.39/GDP $157.94, IQ 98.39/GDP $148.46, using compounding as per personal correspondence with Dr. Garett Jones, then calculate average GDP of $168.67 billion.

[xvii] O’Neill, Aaron. “United States GDP and Real GDP 1929-2022.” Statista, 24 July 2024, www.statista.com/statistics/1031678/gdp-and-real-gdp-united-states-1930-2019/.

[xviii] US Embassy and Consulates in Russia. “World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945.” US Embassy and Consulates in Russia, 10 May 2020, ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/.

[xix] Beyer, Greg. “Battle of Kursk: The Largest Tank Battle in History.” The Collector, 31 Jan. 2024, www.thecollector.com/battle-of-kursk/.

[xx] Samsonov, A. M., et al. “History of the USSR in Three Parts. Part III: From the Beginning of the Great Patriotic War to the Present Day.” Translated by Maximilian Schlossberg, Internet Archive, 14 Dec. 2020, archive.org/details/historyussrthreeparts3/page/1/mode/2up?q=102%2C500, p. 65.

[xxi] Samsonov, A. M., et al. “History of the USSR in Three Parts. Part III: From the Beginning of the Great Patriotic War to the Present Day.” Translated by Maximilian Schlossberg, Internet Archive, 14 Dec. 2020, archive.org/details/historyussrthreeparts3/page/1/mode/2up?q=102%2C500, p. 65.

[xxii] “The Battle of Kursk: The Largest Tank Battle in History.” Sky HISTORY TV Channel, www.history.co.uk/article/the-battle-of-kursk-the-largest-tank-battle-in-history. Accessed 4 Aug. 2025.

[xxiii] “Battle of Stalingrad.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 31 July 2025, www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad.*

How the Left Turned Against Its Jewish Alter Ego

/13 Comments/in , /by

For a new-born state, the quest for identity means a relentless struggle against a rival victimhood. This can be called a pursuit of “negative identity,” requiring the demonization of the Other and a quasi-necrophiliac fixation on its own dead rather than its own living. No people or nation willingly cedes its dead to the competing death toll of another tribe or nation. A prime example is Jewish identity, uniquely enshrined in Western academia and mainstream media since 1945. It is now under significant strain.

The surreal accounts of World War II atrocities increasingly echo the actions of the Israeli military (IDF) in the Palestinian-inhabited Gaza Strip. Contemporary Israelis are now denounced as “fascists” or “Nazis” by the very groups whose attitudes on Jews as eternal victims were shaped for decades by their Jewish academic tutors. From the Marxist-inspired Frankfurt School to anti-apartheid advisors to Nelson Mandela, from confidants of Martin Luther King Jr., to prominent legal advocates of the Civil Rights Act and frontmen of the 1968 student upheavals in the U.S. and Europe, there runs a long tradition of Jewish involvement in progressive and revolutionary causes. Yet, the “negative dialectics” once critiqued by Jewish philosopher Theodor Adorno are now backfiring on Jews themselves.

Many leftists, antifa activists, and liberal commentators, along with Western politicians feigning outrage over what they call genocide in Gaza, fall prey to their own flawed reasoning. They equate Israeli military operations in Gaza with the persecutions of Jews in National Socialist Germany, ignoring that Israel’s actions align fully with the same antifascist logic deployed on a far more destructive scale by antifascist Allied forces during World War II when European and Japanese cities were firebombed into democratic submission. Thus, labeling Israel a “Nazi” or “racist” state is a contradiction in terms because it requires a mindless repetition of the antifascist and philosemitic rhetoric shaped in the wake of World War II.

As the Liberal System—colloquially called the “Deep State”—nears collapse, it grapples nervously with the Jewish Question in a context in which the Jewish collectivity has become symbol of absolute moral virtue. Over a long period, Jewish leftist, liberal, and antifa activists in the U.S. and EU have justified their existence by resorting to their own negative identity, that is, by branding White dissenters as “fascists” and “antisemites.” Jewish activist groups like the ADL and SPLC aligned themselves with these other virtue signalers and have basically followed up on tactics of the communist judicial practices in post-1945 Eastern Europe. For instance, Yugoslavia’s communist regime (1945–1990), in order to gain international legitimacy, widely encouraged by liberal outlets such as The New York Times, fabricated a perpetual “Croat fascist Ustasha threat.” Nowadays, U.S. and EU media and leftist pundits continue hunting for “neo-Nazis,” antisemites, and “white supremacists” — even when there are none in sight. As a young boy in Zagreb, Croatia, in the early 1960s, I recall a local joke: “When a fly farts at the foot of the nearby Sljeme Mountain or when a summer storm hits Zagreb, the Yugoslav media and its kangaroo courts will blame the proverbial “Croat fascist Ustasha.” Such communist-demonizing rhetoric, now adopted by Western judiciaries, reflects a policy of “negative legitimacy,” as seen in the recent lawfare against President Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol trespassers.

The EU’s political class, burdened by Europe’s historical stigma of fascism and colonialism, must parrot U.S.-imported “ethnic sensitivity training” while simultaneously staging obligatory atonement pilgrimages to Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall. “Never again,” originally a Jewish-inspired antifascist slogan, meant to shield Jews from criticism, now carries little weight under the inconvenient reality of the Gaza’s dead and starving. Israel’s actions in Gaza are disrupting the leftist pastoral image of a benevolent, always suffering Jewish nation. Therefore, the U.S. and E.U. system must navigate a delicate balance: a cautionary condemnation of the IDF while preserving philosemitic rhetoric created in the post-1945 international order.

E.U. politicians couldn’t care less about Palestinian suffering, just as they didn’t care much about Jews’ plight before and during World War II. However, with Europe’s non-European Muslim population surging—over 10 million in the U.K. and France combined, and 20 million across the continent, totaling 40 million with the Balkans included —they must tread a fine line. Beside a mandatory ritual consisting of the regurgitation of feigned philosemitic phrases, they must also feign sympathy for Muslim newcomers. Hence the reason that both the U.K. and France, scared of popular unrest from their Muslim populations, recently endorsed the ill-defined Palestinian state—to Israel’s dismay.

“Nazis,” Socialists, and National Socialists

As noted in TOO on many occasions, precise definitions of words and their historical context are vital to understanding the notion of the political. This is especially true for terms like “Fascism,” “National Socialism,” “genocide,” and “antisemitism.” The trendy term “Nazi” has become a trivialized pejorative, stripped of descriptive value and weaponized against political adversaries. Israeli PM Netanyahu labels his Lebanese and Iranian critics “Nazis,” while leftist protesters on U.S. and E.U. campuses accuse him and his IDF of “Nazi-like behavior.” Even President Trump is branded a “fascist” by home-grown virtue signalers.

The term “Nazi” was never used in official German documents or academic journals from 1933 to 1945; the correct term was “National Socialism.” Informally, the word “Nazi” did appear in casual settings, often as a playful shorthand. Young German National Socialist party members sometimes referred to their older colleagues as “Altnazi” (“old Nazi”), akin to “old fart” in American slang—a term of endearment, not disrespect. In his half-satirical travelogue, “Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina” (“A Nazi Travels to Palestine”), published in the respected German literary journal Der Angriff in 1934, Leopold von Mildenstein, a National Socialist author and prominent official in charge of the Jewish Question, chronicles his journey to the British Mandate for Palestine.[i]

The piece, light and picaresque, barely touches on political tensions between Palestinians, British authorities, and Jewish settlers. I do not intend to probe into Mildenstein’s ties with his close associate Adolf Eichmann and their Zionist connections. I solely want to highlight that the word “Nazi” was rarely used in National Socialist Germany, and when it was, it carried a colloquial, context-dependent tone.

Unlike Europe, where socialism historically aligned with class struggle, “socialism” remains a bad word among American right-wingers, who often equate it with communism. As German sociologist Werner Sombart, a disciple of Max Weber, noted in his book Why Is There No Socialism in America?, early twentieth-century European immigrants in the U.S. dreamt more about their social advancement than how to stage class warfare. Sombart observes that “the history of ‘third’ parties in America is a sad history of continued defeats that leaves little hope for the future.”[ii]

The American labor movement, shaped considerably by the racial awareness of workers and the myth of the promised land, made it hard for socialism to gain traction among the majority of White American immigrants. However, Sombart gives more credit to American workers, adding that unlike in submissive Europe, “the groveling and crawling before the ‘higher classes,’ which is so unpleasant in Europe, is completely unknown in America.”[iii]  In passing, it is worth noting that the word “socialism” had high standing in all countries affiliated with or sympathetic to National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy—before being usurped by the Soviet Union and left-wing parties which provided it with a multiracial and international meaning.

President Trump’s populist rhetoric carries some socialist veneer that resonates well with American workers and the lower middle class, though it’s viewed with anger by the American financial elites. Despite his pro-Israel stance, Trump garners ironically more support among European hardline nationalists than with his MAGA home base. He is certainly not ignorant of the ADL’s shady rhetoric but needs to make some compromise, however bad it looks to outsiders. One should remember how the popular French King Henry IV (1589–1610), in order to fast-track his ascension to the throne, converted promptly from Protestantism to Catholicism, with his short pragmatic phrase: “Paris is well worth a mass.”  (“Paris vaut bien une messe”).

Trump’s crackdowns on Antifa and communistic campus activists have already had a positive ripple effect in self-censored Europe. However, with nearly 50% of the U.S. population of non-White origin, MAGA’s vision may sound like a distant pipe dream.  Multiracial societies, such as the present U.S. or the E.U. are highly dysfunctional, as diverse racial groups vie for victimhood status at the expense of another group. The Holocaust, once a sacrosanct segment of the Liberal System, is now losing its victimological monopoly as other groups—Armenians, Timorese, Tamils, Tajiks, etc., and millions of victims of communism, or relatives of millions of killed ethnic Germans, and dozens of other ethnic groups worldwide, who perished before, during and after World War II—are eagerly waiting to be added to the long commemoration list.

An ethnically segregated system may be the only path to stability in the U.S. and E.U., reducing   fears of one group weaponizing its victimhood status against another. To counter the breakup of the country, Trump’s administration is well-advised to overhaul the education system first: eliminate Freudo-Marxist scholasticism, remove affirmative action, and end DEI-based faculty appointments. “Ethnic studies,” a conceptual misnomer, should be scrapped. Mandatory IQ testing, courses in sociobiology and behavioral genetics, Latin, and Greco-Roman classics should become the curriculum for students of European descent.

The collapse of Yugoslavia, a failed communist DEI showcase, serves as a cautionary example why multiethnic states do not last long. Ongoing ethnic conflicts like Ukraine-Russia or Serb-Croat tensions only give credence to leftist and communist arguments that nationalism can have equally disastrous results.

The haunting question must be raised: Are White nationalists  interested in preserving their identity based on their race, or will they continue to fight among themselves over their often-mythologized histories and their exaggerated cultural narratives? At present, the influx of millions of non-European migrants poses a far greater danger to White Americans and the native peoples of Europe than their millennia-long, and ultimately futile, debates over their historical and cultural memory.

Segregation and walls foster political stability. One could learn at least one thing from Israel: Fences, borders, barbed wire and a triple-locked door often make good neighbors and promote mutual understanding.

Notes

[i] Leopold („Lim“) von Mildenstein, „Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina“, Der Angriff (Oct., 5-9, 1934), pp. 5-11.

https://digipres.cjh.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE9813662

[ii] Werner Sombart, „ Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus?“ (Tübingen: Verlag

von J. C.B. Mohr,  1906), p. 58 (In English, „Why is There No Socialism In the United States“, (‎NY:  International

Arts & Sciences Press, Inc., 1976).

[iii] Ibid. p.128.

The Pooh-ish Question: Epistemology, Extermination and Weighing the Holocaust

/18 Comments/in , /by

It still seems like magic to me. With three weights and a simple set of scales, you can weigh objects in one-pound steps up to 13 pounds (or kilos or whatever). With four weights, you can weigh up to 40 pounds. And with five weights, up to 121 pounds. That’s a lot of bang for your buck.

Power hour

So how do you do it? You turn to ternary. That is, for your weights you use powers of 3 like 1, 3, 9, 27, 81… rather than, as in binary, powers of 2 like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16… Using powers of 2, three, four and five weights allows you to weigh objects of up to 7, 15 and 31 pounds, respectively. Not so impressive. Here are powers of 2 in action, where you are balancing the object in one pan against the weights in the other pan:

 

3 lbs = 2 lb + 1 lb

5 lbs = 4 lb + 2 lb + 1 lb

7 lbs = 4 + 2 + 1

12 lbs = 8 + 4 + 2

15 lbs = 8 + 4 + 2 + 1

22 lbs = 16 + 4 + 2

31 lbs = 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1

The trick with ternary is to use both pans of the scales. That is, you’re adding and subtracting unique powers of 3. Here’s a video that explains it. For example:

4 lbs = 3 lb + 1 lb

5 lbs = 9 lb – 3 lb – 1 lb

6 lbs = 9 – 3

7 lbs = 9 – 3 + 1

13 lbs = 9 + 3 + 1

17 lbs = 27 – 9 – 1

22 lbs = 27 – 9 + 3 + 1

23 lbs = 27 – 3 – 1

24 lbs = 27 – 3

40 lbs = 27 + 9 + 3 + 1

41 lbs = 81 – 27 – 9 – 3 – 1

70 lbs = 81 – 9 – 3 + 1

71 lbs = 81 – 9 – 1

120 lbs = 81 + 27 + 9 + 3

121 lbs = 81 + 27 + 9 + 3 + 1

As I said: this still seems like magic to me.[1] Up to 121 pounds with only five weights? And up to 364 pounds with six weights? 1093 pounds with seven weights? 3280 pounds with eight? The bang for your buck gets bigger and bigger. Ethereal mathematics has a solid, practical application. And what about the “bang for buck” you get from physics, the most mathematical of the sciences? With physics, the bang can be completely literal. And not just literal but lethal. The bang of an atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb has deadly decibels. It’s so loud that it kills by sound alone.

Transient human mites

And physicists got those bangs by applying ethereal math to infinitesimal matter, that is, by using mathematics to explain and predict the behavior of atoms and other very small particles. Physics, the most mathematical of the sciences, is also the most comprehensive, explaining everything from static electricity to supernovas, from the flight of a bumblebee to the birth of the universe. This is what the Hungarian-Jewish physicist Eugene Wigner (1902–95) famously called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.” Why should math, invented by transient human mites on a dust-speck of a planet, be so good at accounting for so much in such a vast universe? Well, I don’t think that the effectiveness is unreasonable and I don’t think that “invented” is the right word for math. What I would call unreasonable is the mathematizing of the immathematical. That is, I reject the certainty expressed by so many people in fields where mathematical methods and standards of proof don’t presently apply. And may never apply. Take theology. In the epistemological hierarchy of sciences, theology clearly doesn’t stand with physics or biology or even (for flip’s sake) sociology. And yet it’s theology that gave us the notion of infallibility, of absolutely certain knowledge without any tincture or taint of error or doubt.

Beautiful art, bad epistemics: the infallibly certain Assumption of Mary into Heaven (image from Wikipedia)

And so some Catholics assert that the Pope is God’s guide for humanity and therefore infallible when speaking ex cathedra. And some Protestants assert that, on the contrary, the Pope is Beelzebub’s butt-plug and it’s the Bible alone that’s infallible. And some Muslims assert that Catholics and Protestants are both wrong and it’s Islam that’s infallible. Their particular version of Islam, that is. And Stalinists and Maoists and fascists have piped up from politics and asserted their own brands of infallibility and absolute certainty.[2] It’s a ridiculous spectacle and I reject the entire farrago of contradictory claims.[3] Indeed, I suggest a paradox: that all who claim infallibility thereby infallibly prove that they don’t possess it. That’s why mathematicians, who do supply us with certain and eternal truths, don’t claim infallibility. They don’t need to claim it, because mathematics clearly possesses it.[4] Religion clearly doesn’t possess it, which is why religious believers have so often claimed it.

Pretty puny

In short, infallibility belongs to psychology and cratology, the study of power, not to epistemology, the study of knowledge. But that epistemological error — the mathematizing of the immathematical — doesn’t always wax so gross and produce such pathologies. Economists don’t claim infallibility but they also express too much certainty about inherently uncertain things. And in their case, they are literally mathematizing the immathematical, thinking that pretty equations can capture the huge complexities of economies and markets. As Nassim Taleb explained in The Black Swan (2007), they were wrong. The pretty equations turned out to be puny equations. Very good mathematics can be very bad economics, because economics is not yet a proper science. Its field of study is too complex for that, because another paradox is this: physics is the most powerful science because it is dealing with the simplest phenomena. That is, atoms and galaxies are far easier to model mathematically than individuals and economies.

History is even further than economics from being a proper science. And that’s why I reject Holocaust denial. Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the nasty Nazis really commit genocide against the powerless Jews? Did Himmler and his henchmen really organize and undertake a massive program of industrialized slaughter? There’s no shortage of people who proclaim that, for sure, the Holocaust never happened, that the innocent Nazis never did nothing to no-one, and that Himmler and his homies were framed. It’s the “for sure,” I don’t like. I can accept doubts about the standard Holocaust narrative. Indeed, I share some of those doubts. But doubting a narrative is not the same as demolishing a narrative. If proponents of the Holocaust narrative have often been liars, then opponents of the Holocaust narrative have often been lunatics. The argument between the two camps looks like theology to me: both sides assert infinite certainty about history, which is an inherently uncertain field. There is no way to weigh the truth of the Holocaust using an entirely objective epistemology like math. Okay, only one side — the pro-Holocaust side — has used censorship and imprisonment to enforce its ideas, but only one side currently has the power to do that. When I look at some Holocaust deniers, I don’t think they would wield power wisely and tolerantly if they possessed it.

Not even irrational

And I’ve known two Holocaust deniers well. Neither of them impressed me in the slightest as a scholar or as a thinker. One was intelligent but irrational; the other was stupid and subrational (that is, his reasoning didn’t even rise to the level of irrationality). For example, the intelligent Holocaust denier had been imprisoned more than once for his political activity, after acting as his own lawyer in court. He therefore presented himself as an expert on how to address and impress a jury. I expressed doubt about his expertise, pointing out that each time he had appeared before a jury, he had been found guilty by it. He waved this away as irrelevant. Did I not understand? He had appeared before a jury. He therefore knew what to say and do in order to impress the members of a jury. Yes, I said: impress them negatively, which was why the juries he had appeared before had all found him guilty. He again waved this away as irrelevant. I gave up.

As for the stupid Holocaust denier: he once told me that there was a White nationalist slogan running thus: “‘Racist’ means ‘anti-White’.” I pointed out that the slogan was in fact: “‘Anti-racist’ means ‘anti-White’.” It didn’t make sense otherwise. He said that not making sense was precisely the point, because the left was crazy. Marvelling at this logic, I asked him to produce a single instance of the slogan being used in the shorter form he had alleged. He said he had a clear and distinct memory of seeing a banner carried on a pro-White demonstration that bore the slogan “RACIST MEANS ANTI-WHITE.” The visual memory was right there before his mind’s eye, he told me. In further proof, he held up a finger and traced the letters on the air: “RACIST MEANS ANTI-WHITE.” Again, I gave up the argument. This same stupid Holocaust denier believed that the moon landings were 100% faked, that the moon itself is a giant space-ship parked in orbit by aliens, and that the vapor trails left by jets are definitely chemical warfare being waged against the unsuspecting population below. When I asked how he could be so certain about the vapor trails, he replied that it was because the sky had looked very different when he was young.

Ron Unz’s implacable enemy

When I declined to accept this as proof positive that vapor trails constitute chemical warfare, he accused me of arrogantly rejecting incontrovertible evidence. Shortly after that, I broke off contact with him. His stupidity made my head spin and I had also decided that he was #2 in my list of “Most Boring People I’ve Ever Known.” Strangely enough, the #1 spot in that list is occupied by the intelligent Holocaust denier mentioned earlier. Or not so strangely: like other kinds of ideology rejected by the mainstream, Holocaust denial attracts psychologically unusual people. And sometimes they’re unusual in bad ways. That isn’t proof that Holocaust denial is wrong any more than it is proof that Holocaust affirmation is right, but the psychology of Holocaust deniers does help explain why I am not a Holocaust denier. I don’t like their dogmatism or the irrationality displayed by many of them. In fact, only one Holocaust denier has ever impressed me favorably as a rational and reasonable scholar: Ron Unz.[5] He doesn’t write like a Pope setting out infallible truth ex cathedra.

No, he writes like a historian, weighing evidence, making provisional judgments, speaking of possibilities and probabilities, not certainties. But he doesn’t convince me. Nor am I convinced by Unz’s implacable enemy David Cole. However, I am more persuaded by Cole’s arguments for the reality of the Holocaust than I am by Unz’s arguments against it. To repeat: I’m not convinced by Cole’s arguments, I’m simply more persuaded by them. Maybe he’s fooling me, but “The David Cole Holocaust Chronology” seems to me better argued and written with greater knowledge than anything I’ve seen by Unz and other Holocaust deniers. Below is a passage that impressed me in Cole’s chronology, as he sails between the Scylla of Holocaust denial and the Charybdis of Holocaustianity. He’s talking about “docs ignored by both sides, the deniers and the mainstream historians,” and he says this:

For example, the Korherr Report — one of the most important documents of the Holocaust, yet generally unused and un-cited by both sides.

Dr. Richard Korherr was Himmler’s statistician. In 1942 he was commissioned by Himmler to compile a detailed report detailing how many Jews had been killed, how many had fled, and how many were still alive (and where). This wasn’t a public document; it was Himmler’s-eyes-only (with a condensed version prepared for Hitler).

Himmler wanted exact figures.

Korherr, with unfettered access to all SS documents, definitively concluded that as of the beginning of 1943, slightly over 2.4 million Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps, the Ostland ghettoes (which functioned as death camps), and by the Einsatzgruppen execution squads.

You’d think that Himmler’s official death census would be in every Holocaust book. But no. “Great” scholars like Yad Vashem’s Yehuda Bauer rarely if ever cite it (in his 1982 magnum opus A History of the Holocaust, Bauer doesn’t cite Korherr once).

Deniers never cite Korherr either.

Amazing, huh? With the Mao and Stalin death toll, we’re forced to roughly calculate the figure via demographic extrapolation. But with the Holocaust, we have the main perpetrator, Himmler, commissioning a specific census of the murdered. A number. Everyone agrees it’s a legit document, yet few use it.

Why?

Because if you accept 2.4 million for the beginning of 1943, you cannot get to six million by April 1945. From ’43 to ’45, there would simply not be enough Jews subjected to “Aktions” to get to 6 mil. Every mainstream scholar agrees that by the close of 1942, two-thirds of all Holocaust deaths had already occurred. So Korherr’s figure presents a problem.

That’s why I put my approximate figure of total Holocaust dead at 3.5 to 3.6 million. But not six. You simply cannot get to six in the two remaining years of the war.

Meanwhile, deniers won’t accept a figure above 271,000. Accepting 2.4 million by 1943? That blasphemes the tenets of their cult. It can’t be more than 300,000, period! Their pseudo-religion dictates it.

So the Korherr Report, being too low a number for the mainstream and too high for the deniers, gets buried. I had to find all this shit out for myself with no fucking Internet, dudes. So again I say, two years pre-Internet is not that long a time to get into something, learn some things, make some mistakes, learn from the mistakes, and get out.

And lest you think my estimate of 3.5-3.6 million is a crime of denial, I’ll point out that Gerald Reitlinger, in his 1953 masterwork The Final Solution (still considered the gold standard in the field), gave, for the final death count, a range of 4.1 to 4.5 million. There’s not much space between my 3.6 and Reitlinger’s 4.1, and I’m always open to anyone who can defend Reitlinger’s number, or even Hilberg’s 5.1 mil. But as I said, the extremists who despise me, and the extremists who idolize me, share a similar trait —  they like speaking about me but never to me. (“The David Cole Holocaust Chronology,” 16th August 2024, David Cole’s substack)

I’ve said before that, when I was reading some of Cole’s articles at TakiMag, I felt as though he was trying to pick my pockets. In other words, I don’t trust him. But I don’t get that feeling from his discussion of the Holocaust. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s Ron Unz who’s right about the Holocaust and not David Cole. But at the moment my subjective and fallible judgment is that Cole’s Holocaust history is accurate and Unz’s isn’t. Or more accurate, anyway. The stupid Holocaust denier I mentioned above wouldn’t agree with me, of course. He wouldn’t need to read the “Cole Chronology” to know that Cole was wrong. But that Holocaust denier is stupid, after all. And highly credulous about conspiracy theories. I’m pretty sure (but have no desire to confirm) that he’s now embraced Nuke Denial and is asserting with complete confidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax. In other words, physicists don’t get any bang at all for their buck.

How Nazis answered the Jewish Question

My head spins at the thought of arguing with him about nuclear weapons. But it would be a useful exercise to do so, all the same. After all, how do I know that nuclear weapons are real? And that man really landed on the moon? And that the moon isn’t hollow and isn’t a giant spacecraft parked in orbit by aliens? Well, I don’t know any of those things because I’ve never studied any of the relevant fields in depth. I simply accept the orthodox history and the orthodox science, because I’m not an expert, or even an amateur, in any of the relevant fields. The same applies to the Holocaust and the question of whether or not it really happened. I’m not an expert in any of the relevant fields, from history to archaeology to demography to forensic medicine. Accordingly, I neither affirm nor deny the Holocaust with any certainty. But at the moment I lean towards affirming the Holocaust with David Cole rather than denying it with Ron Unz. I think that the Nazi answer to die Judenfrage, the Jewish Question, was indeed extermination. And if not extermination of six million Jews, as Holocaustianity preaches, then extermination of “3.5 to 3.6 million” Jews, as David Cole estimates.

By denying Denial, I will of course attract abuse and vituperation from Deniers, but that’s usually true of adopting any position, for or against, on a controversial topic. The odium theologicum comes into play. And for me the Holocaust isn’t only part of the Jewish Question, it’s also part of what I call the Pooh-ish Question. I’m referring to Frederick Crews’ The Pooh Perplex: A Student Casebook (1963). Crews was a literary scholar who satirized literary scholarship by presenting wildly different crypto-humorous claims about the “real meaning” of the children’s classic Winnie-the-Pooh (1926). Crews wrote his satire of literary scholars through the personae of invented and antagonistic academics like Duns C. Penwiper, Murphy A. Sweat, Simon Lacerous (based on F.R. Leavis) and Woodbine Meadowlark. And he succeeded mightily in his satire: The Pooh Perplex is one of the most intelligent and entertaining books I’ve ever read.

Highly intelligent, highly entertaining: Frederick Crews’ The Pooh Perplex (1963) and his follow-up Postmodern Pooh (2001)

It also proved one of the most disconcerting books I’ve ever read, because Crews inhabited the academic personae so well, argued their positions so skilfully, and excavated the Ur-text so cleverly that I found every interpretation to be plausible, even though I knew all of them were tongue-in-cheek and some wholly ridiculous. When the Christian persona C.J.L. Culpepper argued that Winnie-the-Pooh was an allegory of “the Fall and Redemption of Man,” he marshalled incident after incident from the book to prove his interpretation. When the Freudian persona Karl Anschauung — “one of the last survivors of Freud’s original circle of Viennese followers in the first decade of this century” — argued that A.A. Milne wrote Pooh to assuage a “Honey-Balloon-Pit-Gun-TailBathtubcomplex,” he marshalled incident after incident from the Milnean corpus to prove his wildly different interpretation. The Marxist persona Martin Tempralis did the same for his wildly different interpretation. And so on. All of the interpretations of Winnie-the-Pooh were more or less plausible.

And later in his career he treated Freud with the same biting contempt, writing devastating critiques showing the utter foolishness of psychoanalysis: “Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine—one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry. Still the legend dies hard, and those who challenge it continue to be greeted like rabid dogs.”

The inherent fuzziness of language

And so reading The Pooh Perplex made me confront what I now call the Pooh-ish Question. It runs like this: How easily can a skeptic or subverter spin a plausible case for a heterodox interpretation of any text from literature or any genuine fact from orthodox history?[6] Could one, for example, find anomalies and contradictions in the orthodox account of, say, Superbowl XXI in 1987 or the FA Cup Final in 1923? And argue plausibly that the said Superbowl or FA Cup Final never in fact took place? Or that the alleged victor was in fact the actual loser, and vice versa? I think one could. I think one could easily take many (or even any) events that really did happen, find flaws in the otherwise accurate orthodox account, and make a plausible case that the events either didn’t happen at all or happened in a very different way to the orthodox account. And that’s what people have done to things like the Holocaust, the Moon Landings, the history of nuclear weapons, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in July 2024, and so on.

I also think the Pooh-ish Question is related to the inherent fuzziness of language and human perceptions. That’s why theology is so imprecise, so unreliable and so prone to generate contradictory claims. And why physics is the opposite. Physics depends on math and objective instruments, not on language and subjective perceptions like theology. Holocaust denial looks a lot more like theology than physics to me. Of course, it’s Ron Unz the Holocaust denier who has studied physics at an advanced level, not David Cole the Holocaust affirmer. But Unz isn’t conducting physics when he denies the Holocaust. History isn’t yet a science and conclusions can’t yet be reached there with mathematically based precision and reliability. That isn’t to say that history is entirely subjective and that no solid facts can be known about the past. But it is to say that heterodoxy and mendacity are much easier in history than they are in math or physics. Pioneering scholars like Peter Turchin are now working to turn history into a science and perhaps one day the Holocaust will confirmed or contradicted by cliodynamics. Until that day, I’ll probably remain a provisional Holocaust affirmer, siding with David Cole rather than Ron Unz. But I agree right now with some of what Unz says in his articles about Holocaust denial. For example, I definitely agree with the following. And it seems like a good way to end this article:

Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime was generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions when we include the casualties of the Russian Civil War, the government-induced famines, the Gulag, and the executions. I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.

Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80–85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the dreaded NKVD.

Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.

Today’s American Neocons are just as heavily Jewish as were the Bolsheviks of a hundred years ago, and they have greatly benefited from the political immunity provided by this totally bizarre inversion of historical reality. Partly as a consequence of their media-fabricated victimhood status, they have managed to seize control over much of our political system, especially our foreign policy, and have spent the last few years doing their utmost to foment an absolutely insane war with nuclear-armed Russia. If they do manage to achieve that unfortunate goal, they will surely outdo the very impressive human body-count racked up by their ethnic ancestors, perhaps even by an order-of-magnitude or more. (“Holocaust Denial: Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement,” Ron Unz, August 27, 2018)

[1]  If using ternary weights seems magical, then treating ternary as binary seems mystical. When you do that, you can produce all the rational fractions uniquely in their simplest form, as though mindless math had a mind or as though God were calculating them for you. See this page at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences for further details of what is known as hyperbinary.

[2]  Leszek Kołokowski, the great Polish philosopher and intellectual historian, said this in Main Currents of Marxism (1978): “When the party is identified with the state and the apparatus of power, and when it achieves perfect unity in the shape of a one-man tyranny, doctrine becomes a matter of state and the tyrant is proclaimed infallible. … Lenin had always been right [and] the Bolshevik party was and had always been infallible.” (Op. cit., pp. 4 and 93) And Italian fascism, which was strongly influenced by Marxism, had the slogan Il Duce ha sempre ragione — “The Duce is always right.”

[3]  Comparing claims for infallibility, however, I do think that traditionalist Catholics have by far the strongest. But that’s like saying that someone with $100 has a stronger claim to be a billionaire than someone with 10c.

[4]  That is, mathematics clearly comes as close to infallibility as any human activity can.

[5]  Please note: I’m not saying that no other Holocaust deniers are rational and reasonable scholars, I’m simply saying that I haven’t come across any denier apart from Ron Unz whom I could describe like that. Not that I’ve read much Holocaust denial.

[6]  Crews’ follow-up, Postmodern Pooh (2001), made me confront the Pooh-ish Question again as he satirized newer forms of scholarship like post-modernism and evolutionary psychology.