Given the challenges we face, it would seem only prudent that we accept offers of help from others willing to carry water for our cause.

Except I would rather decline the “help” proffered by faux-conservative Jews.

For example, on paper radio show host and best-selling author Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) sounds good for our cause, as Wiki testifies:

Savage has summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture. Some, including Savage himself, have characterized his views as conservative nationalism, while critics have characterized them as “fostering extremism or hatred.” He outspokenly opposes illegal immigration to the United States, supports the English-only movement and argues that Liberalism and Progressivism are degrading American culture.

An early Savage book from nearly twenty years ago, The Death of the White Male: The Case Against Affirmative Action, sounded like its heart was in the right place, arguing that affirmative action was reverse discrimination.

Savage’s big publishing break, however, came in 2003 when his book The Savage Nation made it to the top of the NYTimes best-seller list. There he claimed to be saving us from a “homosexualized, feminized America” that is “unraveling the very fabric of this great nation.”

Next came The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military which argues, among other things, that “the Left operates specifically to undermine God, country, family, and the military” and that liberalism is “either treason or insanity” or “a mental disorder.” He also goes after immigration again, discusses “Hollywood Idiots,” and claims that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appointment to the Supreme Court was “akin to appointing the general counsel of the Ku Klux Klan to the bench.”

Since this all sounds pretty good, what’s my beef? Basically, my beef is that Savage seems to me to fit into the mold of the controlled opposition. By that, I mean that the largely Jewish elite in America attempts to appease and distract Whites from successfully pursuing their best interests by co-opting a genuine White movement.

Someone like Rush Limbaugh perfectly fits the bill. He’ll hit many of the crucial issues that Whites embrace, but he will never get close to the core of the problem: Jews fomenting these anti-White movements.

The result is that Jews are prominent only on the left, but also on the (faux) conservative Right. I’m not even going to talk about the neocons. I want to talk about the culture warriors who are Jewish and have elbowed aside more genuine White activists like Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis.

Sure, Savage mocks a few Jews, prompting at least one group to call him a self-hating Jew. But does his oeuvre do anything to help us get to the Jewish core of this “culture of critique” that Savage only superficially attacks?

Here he gives his views on “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” He blames four individuals, three of whom are Jews and all of whom are linked to the 1960s counterculture: Alan Ginsberg, Bella Abzug, William Kunstler, and Timothy Leary. But he never identifies them as Jews, and that’s as far as his “analysis” goes — perhaps all one can expect from mainstream talk radio.

Another example of a Jewish faux-conservative is Bernard Goldberg. His book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, is devilishly effective at feigning an attack on the problems of liberalism. Its real accomplishment, however, is that it lets Jews as Jews off scot-free. It creates the illusion of attacking the proper target but in fact leads readers off to pursue harmless remedies. Thus, Professor Connelly here will give Goldberg an “A+” for obfuscation.

This tactic has been necessary for the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, for it fends off the normal outrage of a dispossessed and mocked host culture. As Kevin MacDonald noted in the TOO Blog on the issue of Jewish loyalty to Israel, “This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas.”

The Jewish culture of deceit indeed.

One of the more sophisticated examples of Jewish faux-conservatism comes in the person of former radical David Horowitz, whose conversion book DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the ’60s is quite candid about Jewish behavior. His even more personal book Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey was one of the best insider views of the Jewish subversive mindset that I’ve read. It left me convinced that Horowitz to a large degree personally believes in his critique of Jewish thinking and behavior.

Be that as it may, it really does nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam. His book Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom, for instance, appears sincere in some parts in its attack on the Left. But for anyone wishing to look carefully, it is abundantly clear that the main point is to attack leftist critics of Israel.

I’ve been studying these Jewish faux-conservatives for some time now and am impressed with the way the mainstream media accepts them as authoritative, all the while going through the motions of labeling them as dangerous because of their “extreme” conservative views. In fact, however, they are all part of the game — members of the inner circle. And they can get away with far more than their Gentile counterparts.

Now comes a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, slathered with lox and cream cheese (and maybe followed by a whiskey chaser): the case of one Andrew Breitbart, Internet phenomenon, and socially constructed Jew.

Last month, TIME magazine ran a long story on him, “Citizen Breitbart: The Web’s New Right-Wing Impresario.” Before knowing anything about the man, I thought the first part of the story sounded good, as he was attacking our rotten, anti-White liberal system:

“Their entire structure is writhing in diseased agony on the side of the road, and they don’t even realize it,” Breitbart says. But the left isn’t the only object of disdain. “I’m sick of this effete GOP nothing sandwich,” he adds, growing more animated. “As long as everyone is so pristine and socially registered, we’re going to lose.” . . .

Breitbart perceives himself as a new-media David out to slay old-media Goliaths. As he sees it, the left exercises its power not via mastery of the issues but through control of the entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy. “Politics,” he often says, “is downstream from culture. I want to change the cultural narrative.” . . .

Great, he’s on to Jewish cultural hegemony. I then wondered how far he would go.

Before I got an answer to that, I ran into this shocker:

Breitbart was raised in Brentwood, on Los Angeles’ privileged west side. The area is home to studio executives and producers, and the politics are Democratic. Breitbart was never fully comfortable in L.A.’s ’80s social milieu. His parents are Midwestern Jews. (His father ran a Santa Monica steak house.) They saw life differently than the other kids’ sophisticated dads and moms did. “My folks are from an older and very silent generation,” Breitbart says. “My dad is as conservative as William F. Buckley was, but without the same presentation.

Oh, so Breitbart gets a seat at the conservative table because his parents are from the Midwest?

The problem is, my J-Dar was not set off by the photo TIME magazine ran with the story:

Here’s another shot of him:

To my mind, that is not a Jewish face. In fact, it reminds me of some of the stock Irish actors Hollywood uses to denote an Irish face, such as that of Colm Meaney, who played Miles O’Brien on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

Or John C. Reilly, who appeared in The Perfect Storm, among other films:

It seems my J-Dar was right; Breitbart is not really Jewish . . . sort of. TIME may have opted to go with a self-description, but Slate gives us more nuance. In “Big Breitbart: Andrew Breitbart is messing with you,” we learn that “He’s Irish-American by blood. His sister is Hispanic. Their father is Jewish. Their mother was born Midwestern Protestant.”

Well if this doesn’t open up a box of postmodern multicultural worms, I don’t know what does.

In one sense, Breitbart is treated like TIME tells us—as a powerful new Jewish media mogul. In other words, just more of the same old tired controlled “opposition.” Like James Howard Kunstler, he’ll talk a good game about the problems. (Kunstler is no conservative, but he attacks our parasitical bankers, etc.) But nowhere will he connect those problems to the Jews who cause them.

(Frankly, I’ve had the same feeling about Laurence Auster as well. In fact, just recently fellow-Jew Paul Gottfried accused him of the standard neocon crime of hating Muslims. Auster defends himself here.)

Getting back to Andrew Breitbart, his story has all the trappings of staged opposition. Plus he’s media savvy and full of self-confidence as well, two traits some have said Jews possess in generous amounts.

The TIME writer gushes that Breitbart “has become the Web’s most combative conservative impresario — part new-media mogul, part Barnumesque scamp. Last fall, he launched Big Government, the flagship of his wickedly right-of-center sites, which also include Big Hollywood, Big Journalism — which described the House’s March 21 passage of the health care reform bill as a ‘socialist putsch’ — and the news aggregators Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv.”

Then at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February

Breitbart introduced the star speaker, Sarah Palin, and delivered a rousing jeremiad of his own. Assailing national reporters for portraying the movement as “racist and homophobic,” he used the dais at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel to speak his version of truth to mainstream media power: “It’s not your business model that sucks. It’s you that sucks.”

So our “new-media David” intends to slay “old-media Goliaths”? Since we all know that media is heavily controlled by Jewish interests, Breitbart is going to compromise their interests, right?

I don’t think so. This is all part of Breitbart’s “Barnumesque scamp” routine, but it won’t fool media Jews. It has, apparently, fooled the goyim, just as the hyping of Sarah Palin is fooling them. James Edwards of The Political Cesspool has consistently exposed Palin for the controlled opposition dupe that she is. And to the extent we buy this hoax, we are “neoconned again.”

Still, as a White advocate, I’m a firm believer in the power and reality of race; it is not merely a social construct. If Breitbart was born White, then he’s White. There must be some remnants of that in him, no matter what his upbringing.

Indeed there are. For starters, instead of going to a top-tier university like his Jewish classmates, he went to Tulane University in New Orleans. And he drank heavily. “The social life at Tulane was splendid. ‘I was a drunk,’ says Breitbart, who estimates he spent five nights a week at New Orleans bars with fellow Delta Tau Delta fraternity members.”

And unlike many Jews, he actually liked Southerners, finding them “warm and smart and less neurotic than Californians.” And what to make of his statement “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”?

While we can count on other Jewish faux-conservatives to faithfully cloak the identity and behavior of their fellow Tribe members, Breitbart may turn out to be a wild card — if he isn’t corrupted by the financial rewards of being a media star. And maybe this time the wild card will play in our favor.

The Occidental Observer, April 18, 2010

His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a comment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”

In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that

In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?

If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:

African-Americans: 1 (Oprah)
, Jews: 141, 
Italians: 14
, Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6, 
Hispanics: 2

Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.

In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.

The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbishness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.

This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.

The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:

The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analysis is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.

But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.

The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people–elite and non-elite alike—at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.

Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 23, 2010

Sam Francis (1947 - 2005)

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.

–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect

Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).

(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)

Francis laid out the problem starkly:

. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)

Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).

What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).

As Francis saw it,

The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)

Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).

If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.

“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).

(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)

That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.

In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”

Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).

So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.

Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.

Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?

When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).

Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)

Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.

Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.

A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”

He continues:

I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.

A similarly well-informed friend adds,

Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.

It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!

Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.

Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.

Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.

When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”

Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.

Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”

Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:

Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]

Sam shot back:

I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.

My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]

Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.

The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.

As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”

The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.

A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.

Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.

The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.

Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.

Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.

Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?

Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust

Naturally, the New York Times adored the book (it spent twenty-five weeks on their Best Seller list), and it was translated into at least fifteen languages.

Across the Big Pond, it sparked the “Goldhagen Debate” in Germany. Defeated in war in 1945, and more thoroughly defeated in spirit ever since, the German nation lauded Goldhagen’s assault on them. A prestigious prize was given: “Because of the penetrating quality and the moral power of his presentation, Daniel Goldhagen has greatly stirred the consciousness of the German public.”

Not all informed readers were as thrilled. Professor Albert Lindemann, for one, wrote in Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge U. Press 1997) that treatments of the Holocaust by those such as Goldhagen “lack penetration in striking ways. A large number might best be described as cries of pain or expressions of indignation rather than efforts to understand.” Further, he called the book “questionable and simplistic; [Goldhagen] typically ignores, or is ignorant of, evidence that contradicts his by no means original reading of German history.” In sum, Goldhagen’s thesis about pan-German responsibility for the Holocaust “might be termed a twentieth-century psogos, a tirade that is motivated by goals other than the impartial search for truth.”

Well, that’s putting it more nicely than I would, but then Lindemann was writing a year after Goldhagen’s first book, while I have the advantage of a dozen more years to draw on. By 2002, Goldhagen had cast his net more widely in his next work, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair. One reviewer for National Review, called A Moral Reckoning “a 352-page exercise in intellectual bad manners” and “a spree of intellectual wilding.” This was part of the genre of anti-Catholic books that were all the rage during that period, prompting Philip Jenkins to pen The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.

Now comes Professor Goldhagen’s latest book, Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. And what a doozy it is. I read the review of it in the New York Times Book Review. Reviewer James Traub thought it was swell.

To my surprise, another review of it turned up in The National Interest. The title of the review, “The Willing Misinterpreter,” captures the tone of the review. Though reviewer David Rieff is a fellow Jew (his mother was Susan Sontag, of blessed memory), he tears apart Goldhagen’s heated prose, beginning by labeling him an “amateur historian.”

As I noted, Goldhagen has widened his net in hunting bad guys, as Rieff picks up on: “Worse Than War is, depending on your point of view, either the logical conclusion of the path Goldhagen has been taking for the past fifteen years or its reductio ad absurdum.” Acknowledging Goldhagen’s families’ history, Rieff still states that Goldhagen’s views “are either willfully naïve or idiotic.” Tracing the bombastic style Goldhagen employs to Goldhagen’s high regard for . . . Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Rieff concludes that “The man really does give self-love a bad name.”

In addition to the differences in assessments of the worth of Worse Than War, I noticed one other important difference between the Times piece and that in The National Interest: The former ignores Jewish identity and Israel, while Rieff twice notes Goldhagen’s powerful pro-Israel orientation. This prompts me to unpack the review in the Times.

To do this, however, allow me a short digression. Earlier this year, I was musing over the question of whether Jews ever feel guilt or remorse when they blatantly insult, injure or kill goyim. I had to conclude, based on my research and observations, that the answer was no. Invariably, they possess mental traits that allow them to project their guilty behavior onto the actual victim, and in turn conceive of themselves as the victims. (Have a look at Chapter 8 of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, which deals with the phenomenon of Jewish self-deception.)

No sooner had I reached this conclusion than E. Michael Jones in his magazine Culture Wars called my views into question. In the April issue, he published his essay “Jewish Monsters from the Jewish Id.” The essay was partially based on his 2000 book Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film. The book discussed how the sexual liberation crowd “tried to drive religious and moral nature out with a pitchfork, but found that nature only returned through the back door, in the form of a monster.” In other words, as one review summarized with respect to sexual license and its attendant abortion problem, “Horror, says Jones, comes from a guilty conscience that won’t admit that it’s done anything wrong — and horror stories reveal the true nature of that guilt again and again.”

Jones combined this with his remarkable 2008 book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History to argue that the 2009 film The Unborn “is about Jewish guilt over abortion manifesting itself as fetal monsters.”

Jones’ review is too long to describe here, but let me say I found his argument compelling. Let me just offer this one passage because it informs what follows on Goldhagen. The crucial Jewish role in getting abortion legalized in America, Jones argues, plus the high rates at which Jews abort their own children,

explains the need to bring up Auschwitz, because the function of the holocaust is to absolve all Jews from any guilt they may have incurred by violating the moral law. Auschwitz is the totem which calms the troubled Jewish conscience by assuring the Jew that he is the eternal victim, and, as such, incapable of incurring guilt as the perpetrator of some immoral act like, say, killing a fellow Jew in the womb of his mother.

More pertinently yet, Jones sees that last December’s Israeli massacre of innocent Palestinian women and children also inevitably creates subconscious Jewish guilt. Which brings me back to Goldhagen and the review of his book in the New York Times.

The Times review never mentions Israel or its behavior. Goldhagen is writing about all manner of genocides and man’s inhumanity to man, but the review is silent on one of the most prominent ongoing examples in the world: that of the Israelis against the Palestinians (see “For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls,” Part 1 and Part 2.) Early chapters in Worse Than War have titles such as “Our Age’s Slaughters” and “Varieties of Eliminationist Assault,” so I have to wonder if he admits to what Israel is doing and has done.

More broadly, I find it highly unlikely that Goldhagen will highlight the prominent Jewish role in the Communist takeover of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, resulting in tens of millions of deaths of non-Jews. Perhaps readers familiar with this new book can help me.

Based on the two reviews I’ve discussed, however, as well as Goldhagen’s past works, I’d wager that he ignores, downplays, or denies Jewish guilt in any number of mass slaughters over the ages. If so, I can proffer this hypothesis: A Jewish writer like Goldhagen is projecting Jewish guilt for Jewish behavior onto the groups he writes about. More to the point, Goldhagen himself is dealing with the guilt engendered by concrete Jewish behavior, but is repressing it. As we all know, what is repressed must come out somewhere.

The result in Goldhagen’s case is a series of increasingly obsessive books, where the target group grows larger and larger. Meanwhile, because Goldhagen has mis-identified the source of his rage, his rage only grows.

So what else might be going on in the mind of Goldhagen, one of the most privileged Americans of his generation? As far as I can tell, no one has ever touched or threatened a hair on his head. He was born in Massachusetts and raised as the son of a Harvard professor (who survived the Holocaust). In turn, Daniel attended Harvard from B.A. through Ph.D. and then taught there for some years. What might account for his elevated level of what can only be termed hate?

Getting back to my introductory discussion on this “Jewish virtue” of hate — yes, it was so identified in an infamous essay in First Things, “The virtue of hate” where the Jewish rabbi and then Yale Divinity School student admitted that a nun who realized that “hatred is in the Jewish religion” was right. As most of us already know, “Hebrew prophets and judges believed ardently in the ‘virtue of hate.’” With a passion. I like that. And the rabbi has no problem acknowledging that “many Jews, in my own experience, have continued to despise religions Christians.” Bottom line: “When hate is appropriate, then it is not only virtuous, but essential for Jewish well-being.”

It is a common Jewish personality trait that we cannot ignore because so many Jews direct so much hatred toward so many of us non-Jews. Worse, they have the power to turn that hatred into real harm (and to subsequently protect themselves from their actions).

As just another taste of this process, peruse Hervé Ryssen’s characterization of Jewish intellectuals’ contempt for non-Jews in this piece:

It is not enough for these intellectuals to talk nonsense, to lull us with “human rights,” to bind us with repressive laws, and to inject us with alien cultural poisons. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our old cultures. But this contempt does not seem to fully satisfy their thirst for revenge. They must also insult us and spit in our faces: “ignoramuses, xenophobes, paranoiacs, morons, lunatics, etc.” . . .

And I will not recount the innumerable films in which the cosmopolitan scriptwriters take their revenge against Christian civilization and the white man in general. It seems obvious to me, regarding all this logorrhea, that these people hate us. It could not be any more obvious if they wore flashing neon signs on their heads.

Let me close with this point: Goldhagen writes that “hundreds of millions of people are at risk of becoming the victims of genocide and related violence.” God help us if Goldhagen is projecting repressed Jewish desires and intentions, for given the current Jewish stranglehold over America, they could indeed induce mass slaughter. We have seen the process at work in Russia, so we know many of the details, accentuated by the tremendous death toll of non-Jews. Recall that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

Tomislav Sunic expounded on this parallel between Soviet Russia and today’s America in Homo americanus:: Child of the Postmodern Age. In that book, he saw dark clouds on the horizon for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” Kevin MacDonald, in the book’s Foreword, identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived Whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

Remember, ideas have consequences. And the good Professor Goldhagen seems to have a fixation on genocide. That worries me, given that he is plugged into the ruling circles of the United States.

But in some distant future, there might be hope. As evidenced by his own books, Goldhagen opts to collectively blame Germans, to collectively blame Catholics, to collectively blame many other groups for their trespasses. What if Jews were ever to collectively repent for their considerable trespasses against others these last three to four millennia? To repent for their financial, political, and most of all lethal crimes against humanity? Maybe then the projection and repression might stop, and the world would become a far better place.

From The Occidental Observer, December 18, 2009

VDARE is now running its excellent War Against Christmas exposé of assaults on Christmas by “multicultural” haters of a holiday hundreds of millions of Americans love and cherish. For my money, it’s the best source of information on this particularly hurtful aspect of the war on Western cultures and people.

Tom Piatak leads off this year’s account, giving us a link to an Israeli paper’s description of what some Jews do on Christmas Eve. Reading it, I clearly saw the source for so much of Hollywood’s distaste for what Christmas means and what Christians do to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

Scurry over to this Israeli site for the skinny — For them, it’s wholly unholy:

Christmas Eve is one of the few occasions when Hasidim refrain from Torah study, do not conduct weddings or go to the mikveh. But they do play chess and work on their bills.

On Christmas Eve, known in Jewish circles as Nitel Night, the klipot (shells) are in total control. The klipot are parasitical evil forces that attach themselves to the forces of good. According to kabbala (Jewish mysticism), on the night on which “that man” — a Jewish euphemism for Jesus – was born, not even a trace of holiness is present and the klipot exploit every act of holiness for their own purposes.

For this reason, Nitel Night, from nightfall to midnight, is one of the few occasions when Hasidim refrain from Torah study. On this horrific night, they neither conduct weddings nor do they go to the mikveh (ritual bath). An entire folkloric literature has developed around the unusual recreational activities of Nitel Night.

Oh, there’s the usual disclaimer that not all Jews follow this custom, but in two decades of research on Jews, I’ve found that it’s simply a truism that Jews have an exceedingly negative view of Jesus, Mary, Christians and Christmas. No wonder so many spit when passing a church . . . or even spit on Christians themselves.

But in the Haaretz story, this passage about Kabbalistic toilet paper really stood out:

The Knesset correspondent of the ultra-Orthodox newspaper Hamodia, Zvi Rosen, relates that celebrated Hasidic admorim (sect leaders) would cut a year’s supply of toilet paper for Sabbath use (to avoid tearing toilet paper on Sabbath) on this night. Actually, this disrespectful act has profound kabbalistic significance, because kabbalistic literature extensively discusses Christianity as waste material excreted from the body of the Jewish people.

Honestly, I couldn’t make this stuff up. And get this: One of their commandments recommends that they attempt procreation on Friday night, which is a holy time. “Yet on Nitel Night, which has no holiness, it is customary to refrain from observing the commandment, because of the fear that a Jewish child conceived on Jesus’ birthday could become an apostate.”

Now how might this anti-Christian sentiment play out in, say, The Big Apple, home to so many hip and chic magazines? According to one account, “it is tough to beat an illustration by the prominent comic-book creator Art Spiegelman. This was intended to go on the cover of the New Yorker magazine in December, 1994, and it revealed Santa urinating in public. Even Tina Brown, the publicity-loving editor of the New Yorker at the time, thought Spiegelman had gone too far, and the piece was never used. In the long history of fallen Santas, that was a rare moment of restraint.” (But Brown did run Spiegelman’s Easter cover picture of the Easter Bunny being crucified.)

As we’ll see below in another case, here Jews spin their own hatred of others as a response to — drum roll — “anti-Semitism.” As one rabbi explained about Nitel Night, “Anti-Semites would ambush Jews and savagely beat them, sometimes even killing them, in the streets on Christmas Eve. Thus, the rabbis decreed that Jews should remain at home that night and not wander in the streets.”

Now go back and read my two-part series last year about Hollywood movies that kill the spirit of Christmas, and sometimes kill Santa, too (here and here). We now have a better idea of the font for such a spirit of hatred.

Excerpted from a longer piece from The Occidental Observer, December 18, 2009

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone argued that “whoever controls the media controls the culture.” And a linchpin of that media is Hollywood and its associated TV studios and networks.

Why does it matter that Jews control Hollywood? In essence, it matters because it represents the loss of power of one group—majority white Christians—to a group with a long history of hostility toward the people and culture of the West. Jewish control of Hollywood has been a crucial means for dispossessing majority whites from their place in the country they built. As some have argued, the twentieth century was “a Jewish century,” and much of this was because Jews controlled the image factory known as Hollywood.

Again, what Kevin MacDonald demonstrates in The Culture of Critique, cannot be repeated too often: “The Judaization of the West means that the peoples who created the culture and traditions of the West have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history — surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and as a people.” And, as I argued earlier, the treatment of Christmas shows how Jews “have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios.”

Today I’ll talk about how that has affected the kind of Hollywood films we get with respect to Christmas. In essence, it means that in the last forty or so years, the Christian aspect of the holiday has vanished on screen. The best we can hope for is a positive, feel-good portrayal of the season, such as we had in Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause (1994) or Tom Hanks’ The Polar Express ten years later.

Too often, however, films have associated the Christmas season with negative or even horrific stories. Perhaps the best example of this is Silent Night, Deadly Night. This is a 1984 slasher film that begins with a young boy named Billy witnessing the murder of his parents by a man dressed as Santa Claus. Billy ends up at St. Mary’s Orphanage, where he is beaten by Mother Superior. Later, morphing memories of his punishment at her hands with images of Santa, Billy grows up to become a killer teenage Santa. At work, for example, he strangles a co-worker with Christmas lights and then dispatches the girl with whom the co-worker was having sex.

After a string of other Santa murders, Billy returns to the orphanage, with the police hot in pursuit. Tragically, they shoot and kill Father O’Brien, a deaf priest dressed as Santa. Sneaking into the orphanage, Billy, dressed as Santa, swings his ax at Mother Superior, but a policeman shoots him down. Imparting his central message, Billy assures viewers, “You’re safe now . . . Santa Claus . . . is gone.” Not exactly a happy message at Christmastime.

In 1984, such imagery was still able to rile the population. Siskel and Ebert condemned the film, going “so far as to read the film’s production credits on air, saying ‘shame, shame’ after each one.” Angry mothers protested the movie around the nation, and TriStars Pictures, its distributor, quickly ceased advertising the film.

Silent Night, Deadly Night did have antecedents. Black Christmas was a 1974 movie set in a sorority house during Christmas break. A maniac is making calls from within the house, killing the coeds one by one. The movie also takes every opportunity to pair beloved Christmas songs with chilling scenes, a phenomenon that was later repeated in Gremlins, as we will see.

Another, Christmas Evil (1980), features a delusional Santa stand-in who murders three church-goers in front of a church. (He stabbed one man in the eye with a toy.) Later, while wearing a ragged Santa outfit and being chased by an angry mob, our main character drives his van off a bridge, imagining himself to be Santa in his flying sleigh.

As Austin Pearl, a Jewish reviewer, approvingly wrote, “Christmas Evil ruins Christmas unlike any other movie.” In particular, this reviewer liked “all the vividly disturbing images of Santa sprinkled throughout the movie.”

It’s no surprise that Pearl also liked the 2003 Billy Bob Thorton film Bad Santa, which was a concerted ethnic effort to trash Christmas. Jewish director Terry Zwigoff made the film under producers Ethan and Joel Coen for the Disney subsidiary Miramax, run by two more Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Billy Bob Thornton stars as the bad Santa of the title, going about his life boozing and swearing with abandon. At one point he has anal sex with an overweight woman in a changing room, while elsewhere he goes to a mall drunk and destroys a reindeer display in a drunken rage. Ho ho ho.

Near the end of this dark film, he is shot by a group of policemen but survives. Despite his obvious guilt in numerous crimes, he is pardoned because “the Phoenix police department shooting an unarmed Santa Claus in front of children was more fucked up than Rodney King.”

According to Wikipedia, critics described it as an “evil twin” of Miracle on 34th Street, the inspirational Christmas classic. No wonder Austin Pearl wrote glowingly that “Bad Santa is perhaps the most subversive, offensive Christmas movie ever made—with Thornton as a truly despicable character who, for once, does not receive a total personality transplant by the movie’s end.”

Director Zwigoff intended this film for impressionable teenagers, the vast majority of whom are, one would assume, Christians. When asked if he thought the film would do well, Zwigoff answered, “I think it might. Every teenager in America is dying to see this film. Though they won’t be able to get in unless they have a very open-minded parent.” Clearly he was aware of the film’s subversive content.

Two years later came another Jewish-directed anti-Christmas movie. The Ice Harvest, Harold Ramis’s “grisly black comedy/film-noir,” sees Billy Bob Thornton return to a mayhem-filled Christmas. One reviewer intoned that The Ice Harvest “is a must-see for fans . . . in the mood to see one of the worst Christmas Eves in the history of cinema.” Roger Ebert was also impressed. “I liked the movie for the quirky way it pursues humor through the drifts of greed, lust, booze, betrayal and spectacularly complicated ways to die.” In other words, Hollywood’s version of Merry Christmas stuff.

Gremlins

Perhaps the most unsettling Christmas movie was the original Gremlins (1984). Though directed by Joe Dante, Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment, released it. Time magazine characterized the film as being “developed and ‘presented’” by Spielberg and being one of his “children too.”

Stylistically, too, this film is completely Spielbergian, beginning with a typical suburban paradise. Snow is on the ground as local residents prepare for Christmas.

The drama begins when protagonist Billy receives a cute “mogwai” from his inventor father, but the creature spawns siblings that are far from full of holiday cheer. On the contrary, they bring violence, mayhem, and death to this otherwise happy time of year. Their mischief is methodically paired with normally positive symbols of Christmas. For instance, when Billy’s mom is home alone making Christmas cookies and listening to Christmas music, she is attacked by a squad of ghoulish gremlins, long in tooth and with murder on their minds. After stabbing one through the heart, she dispatches another with a deft push of the blender switch, turning the previously Christmas-cookie-aroma-filled kitchen into a bloodbath. Retreating to the living room, she is literally attacked by the Christmas tree, which is full of gremlins. This conflation of joyful Christian symbols with diabolical evil is a central device to the whole movie.

Another example comes when the police pass by Billy’s neighbor’s house and are greeted by the neighbor, dressed as Santa Claus, running about helplessly as gremlins eat into his brain. Next, Christmas-caroling gremlins arrive at grouchy old Miss Deagle’s door, only to send her flying out the second-floor window of her house in a malfunctioning motorized chair.

The scenes which most firmly tie this movie to a distinct Jewish sensibility, however, come with two extraneous dialogues between Billy and his girlfriend Kate. Passing a group of Christmas carolers singing “Silent Night,” Kate suddenly and soberly states that Christmas is a time when “a lot of people get really depressed. . . . While everybody else is opening up their presents, they’re opening up their wrists. It’s true. The suicide rate is always the highest around the holidays.” When she volunteers that she doesn’t celebrate Christmas, Billy asks, “What, are you Hindu or something?” Historically, the non-Christian group in America with mixed feelings toward Christmas is not Hindus, but Jews. Here the mask is in place but the true message is easily discernible.

Much later in the movie, after the gremlins have wreaked havoc on Kingston Falls, Kate launches into a startling horror story about Christmas, one that seems completely gratuitous since it is independent of the blood-thirsty gremlin theme. Surveying the rubble left by the marauding gremlins, Kate relates how she now has another reason to hate Christmas. It seems that when she was nine, she and her mother were decorating the tree on Christmas Eve, waiting for her father to come home from the office. They waited, but he never came.

Then, four or five days later, as the temperature dropped, Kate went to make a fire. “And that’s when I noticed the smell.” Thinking it was a dead cat or bird, they called the fire department to clean it out, but instead “they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He’d been climbing down the chimney on Christmas Eve, his arms loaded with presents. He was going to surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck, died instantly. And that’s how I found out there was no Santa Claus.”

Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here.)

No wonder Mr. Pearl, our Jewish reviewer, gleefully explained his motive for collecting anti-Christmas films in these terms: “It’s my wanting to recognize things that are deliberately anti-Christmas. It’s my wanting to take a big you know what on everyone’s Christmas spirit. . . . Each one of them is so anti-Christmas that I want to share them with the world, thereby forcing everyone to realize how liberating it is to rip off the Christmas mind control device and have some laughs in the process.” (Pearl provides embedded YouTube scenes of the anti-Christmas films he recommends).

Two years later, the more extensive Mr. Hankey version was released as Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics. (A parallel CD of the songs includes the delightful “Merry Fucking Christmas”). Here Mr. Hankey besmirches the faces of children singing Christmas songs. He then introduces us to the next scene, Christmastime in Hell, where Hitler is shown crying over his Christmas tree. Later, when Jesus and Santa sing a duet, Santa gets miffed that there are far more songs about Jesus than about him, so he leaves the stage. When Jesus implores him to return, Santa speaks the cheery words, “Aw, fuck you, Jesus!” (Read the script here.)

This episode is a parody of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special in which everyone yells out “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!” only after Charlie has realized the true meaning of Christmas—which has Christ at its center. In the South Park version, the characters wish the Jewish boy Kyle a Merry Christmas only after he has taught everyone, through Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, that Christmas and Christianity are shit.

Replacing Christmas with the culture of the Holocaust

Finally, this brings us to Christmas this year [2008]. More than ever, the focus will be on Jewish themes rather than Christian. As a recent New York Times article admitted, Holocaust-themed Christmas releases have been the norm for years. Sophie’s Choice, for example, debuted in December 1982, Schindler’s List was released in the same month in 1993, and The Pianist opened two days after Christmas in 2002.

This year is no different: On Christmas Day the new Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie will debut. This film features Cruise as a German officer who plots to kill Hitler, prompting Cruise to joke in an interview, “Go kill Hitler on Christmas!” We will also have Defiance and Good, two more Nazi-oriented films, which will premier a week after Christmas. Then there is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, “which tells the story of a forbidden friendship between the son of a Nazi officer and a Jewish boy imprisoned in a concentration camp.” And don’t miss The Reader, which features Kate Winslet being tried for her years as a concentration-camp guard. Finally, there is Adam Resurrected, starring Jeff Goldblum as a Holocaust survivor living in a mental institution. The title seems to posit the death of Jesus at Christmastime and his replacement with a Jewish resurrection.

Out with the old religion, in with the new. A friend wrote: “I’ve seen the previews for Valkyrie. Good grief! And to release it on Christmas Day — it really doesn’t get more obvious than this. Sort of like saying, ‘Don’t you realize, THIS is your new religion, not all this Jesus business!’”

Three years ago, Fox News Channel host John Gibson wrote The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Well, it has gotten worse than we thought. But Gibson’s parting words are still the only formula for a reversal in this war. “Those who would ban Christmas and Christians should not mistake the signs on the horizon. The Christians are coming to retake their place in the public square, and the most natural battleground in this war is Christmas. The war on Christmas is joined.”

And may the good guys win. It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose. Merry Christmas!

Originally from The Occidental Observer, December 25, 2008

While much has been written and reported about this assault, few want to situate the attack on Christmas within a larger set of conflicts between Jews and white Christians. But to understand the hostility toward Christmas in America, one must do just that, as Jewish Townhall.com columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly did in his 2004 column “The Jewish Grinch who stole Christmas.”

The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “

One could spend a year, from one Christmas to the next, reading about the Gentile-Jewish basis of the War on Christmas. Some accounts are scholarly, while others are more popular. Some overtly point to the religious split as the source of the hostility, while others cautiously skirt around the issue.

Rush Limbaugh’s younger brother David is at pains not to name the source of the powerful anti-Christian bias he sees in our culture. Thus, in his 2003 work Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, he can open a chapter by writing “In the documented bias against Christians and Christianity in our modern culture, Hollywood and Big Media play very major roles.” But he ignores the highly Jewish nature of the American media in general and Hollywood in particular. In fact, the words “Jews” and “Judaism” do not even appear in his extensive index.

The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America.

Incidentally, the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently announced it. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews. And Abe Foxman seems to agree. So I guess it’s okay for us at TOO to say it.

But, according to Foxman, these Hollywood Jewish executives just “happen to be Jewish,” as if the Jewishness of Hollywood really doesn’t make any difference. But of course it does, and the War on Christmas is Exhibit A for that proposition.

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone have assembled a collection of Christian writings on the perils they and their families face in an increasingly anti-Christian America. Arguing that “whoever controls the media controls the culture,” they too avoid direct discussion of Jewish roles. Still, by including a chapter such as William Lind’s excellent “Who Stole Our Culture,” it is obvious to even the halfway informed reader what civilizational rival they are discussing.

Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, where MacDonald describes the broad range of Jewish movements arrayed against the culture of the West, including Christianity.

Perhaps one of the best books on this Kulturkampf is Fox News Channel host John Gibson’s 2005 The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. One need not read too intently between the lines to realize that the bulk of the “secular liberals” Gibson blames for the assault on Christmas are Jews.

He does this by bookending his tale with stories about Christians and Jews. In his preface, he relates the pain a Christian father recently experienced upon learning that his four-year-old son had learned to paint a menorah in preschool but not a Christmas tree. This was because the school had no “Christmas” tree, only a “friendship” tree. In contrast, the school displayed large drawings of menorahs with big block letters spelling out HAPPY HANUKKAH. It’s pretty clear which culture is dominant these days.

Gibson closes the book with a debate with Ira Glasser of the ACLU, displaying the “hairsplitting” style of argumentation that Glasser so forcefully wielded in a debate. “Hairsplitting,” of course, could just as easily be what many people mean when they say reasoning is “Talmudic.”

Finally, if one is so inclined, a perusal of law professor Stephen M. Feldman’s Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (Critical America Series) may be informative. What does it say, for instance, when someone who writes a book with such a title opens with the sentence “I am Jewish”? The scorching hostility toward everything Christian in this New York University Press book is inescapable, which is why Richard John Neuhaus called Feldman “relentless,” if not “fanatical.”

In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over “A Neutral Public Square,” and it has been going on for a long time. “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.’” The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.

Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!” Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.

Indeed, Jewish aversion to Christian symbols has resulted in a much more neutral public arena. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, in his much under-appreciated 1993 work The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, wrote:

Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayer in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.

Writer Mark Steyn light-heartedly described how Jews created a gradual division between religious and secular Christmas symbols, making America a society where “Jesus, Mary and Joseph are for home and for church; Santa, Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman—the great secular trinity—are for everybody.” He continues:

It’s 1934 . . . and it falls to a Jew to introduce Tin Pan Alley’s first Christmas pop standard. Isidore Israel Itkowitz—or Eddie Cantor—doesn’t much like the song, but his wife talks him into it:

‘He’s making a list

And checking it twice,

He’s gonna find out

Who’s naughty or nice.

Santa Claus is coming to town . . .’

In just 60 years, those words have become as familiar to most Americans as the Pledge of Allegiance. ‘Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer’ has gone down in his-to-ree in only 45 years. He’s not just for Episcopalians and Catholics—and who better to teach little girls ‘that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity’ regardless of the color of their nose? Johnny Marks had such a hit—it’s one of the biggest sellers of all time—that he founded his own publishing house, St Nicholas Music, and devoted the rest of his life to composing seasonal songs, from ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ to a beautiful setting of Longfellow’s Civil War poem, ‘I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day’. . . . In the New World, the most potent Americana—observational or aspirational—is created by Jews. Perhaps the Yankees took the sleigh rides and winter wonderlands for granted, but you had to have grown up in the lowest East Side ghetto to see that

It’s a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy

As they pass around the coffee and the

pumpkin pie . . .

Jule Styne . . . was born in the Jewish slums of Bethnal Green and liked to say that it was coming from that background that made him understand the dreams of ordinary Americans. With Sammy Cahn, he wrote:

Oh, the weather outside is frightful

But the fire is so delightful

And since we’ve no place to go

Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!

. . . Irving Berlin understood. . . . Today, the calendar turns to Berlin anthems, to ‘Easter Parade’; and ‘God Bless America’ and ‘White Christmas’. They had white Christmases in Temun, Siberia, where he was born, but it’s not about the weather: a white Russian Christmas wouldn’t be the same. . . . (See M. Steyn, “A Triumph of Miscegenation,” The Spectator, December 17/24, 1994.)

Of course, this “compromise” to take Christ out of popular culture was a great victory for Jews, for it allowed the hostility many Jews felt toward a Christian majority to find vent without the Gentiles really noticing. Philip Roth, however, knew exactly what it meant:

The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus.

Sadly, Jews have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios. The progression of Christmas images from overwhelmingly positive to secular and even vicious imagery is something I’ll discuss—and show—in my next column in a few days.

Merry Christmas!

From The Occidental Observer, December 21, 2008

Clint Eastwood: No Longer Making Our Day

America is still a majority white nation. Whites still hold most of the nation’s wealth and power. Thus the process of white dispossession cannot continue without the cooperation of white Americans. Because of this, Hollywood cannot portray all white Americans as evil racists. That can wait until after we are extinct. In the meantime, Hollywood must also offer images of decent, moral whites: the kind of white people with whom white audiences would like to identify. It should come as no surprise, however, that the measure of these white characters’ virtue is their willingness to cooperate in their own people’s dispossession. Thus, although the viewer is given an image of the evils of white majority society, he is also allowed to identify with a member of the white majority who steps forward to defend the rights of non-whites. I call this character the “righteous white.”

Righteous whites are a staple in Hollywood race films, whether the non-whites they champion are American Indians in Kevin Costner’s Dances With Wolves (1990), Japanese Americans in Come See the Paradise (1990) and Snow Falling on Cedars (1999), or blacks in movies from To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) to Mississippi Burning (1988), A Time to Kill (1996), Ghosts of Mississippi (1996), The Hurricane (1999), and The Green Mile (2000).

Late in his career, Clint Eastwood has invested a great deal in presenting himself as a righteous white, both in True Crime (1999), where he comes to the aid of a black, and Gran Torino (2008), where he champions a family of Hmong. Eastwood not only starred in both movies, he produced and directed them.

In True Crime Eastwood plays reporter Steve Everett, an adulterous recovering alcoholic. Sensing a travesty of justice, he looks into the case of Frank Beechum, a black man condemned to death for murdering a white woman and scheduled to die at midnight that very day.

Though Everett is liberal and non-racist, the rest of the whites in the movie are racist to one degree or another. For example, when the white warden tours the execution chamber, two white guards joke around by imitating a condemned man who finally confesses. This is in contrast to Beechum, who maintains his innocence. Later, a smarmy white pastor attempts to use the black convict for his own ends, hoping to draw publicity to himself. The pastor goes so far as to invent a last-minute confession by the condemned. The camera repeatedly intrudes on the guards’ banal conversations and jokes, despite the solemn atmosphere created by an impending execution. True, one guard is black and one Asian, but they appear as props. The focus is on the more numerous white guards and warden.

In addition, the key witness to the murder comes across as a cowardly white who hopes to gain attention by embellishing his story. In any case, he and another white witness are shown to be guilty of racism in that they “naturally” pick the black man they saw at the crime scene out of a police lineup. When Everett visits the home of the black grandmother of a possible witness, she delivers a soliloquy on the pervasiveness of anti-black racism in America.

When it turns out that the woman’s now-deceased grandson killed the white victim, the shooting is shown as unintentional; thus, there are no true black criminals in this movie, only white racists. Everett’s new evidence halts the execution seconds after it has begun, and Beechum survives to enjoy freedom with his doting wife and daughter. Steve Everett may look good at the end of the film, but the same can hardly be said of whites in general.

In Gran Torino, Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a retired auto worker living in a neighborhood that has been taken over by poor Hmong refugees. Walt is an angry, bitter old widower who is alienated from his family. He later learns that he is terminally ill. He also has negative, racist feelings toward the Hmong. Eventually, though, Walt involves himself in the struggle of a young Hmong neighbor, Thao, to resist the pressure to join a gang. He comes to value the family-oriented Hmong culture while remaining alientated from his own family.

When Walt repels a gang assault on Thao, the gang responds by raping Thao’s sister and shooting up his house. Thao wants to retaliate immediately, but Walt first stalls him, then locks him in his basement. Once Thao is safe, Walt confronts the gang members outside their house. With a cigarette in his mouth, he asks them for a light. Then he thrusts his hand in his jacket. The gang members think he is pulling a gun and shoot him dead. In fact, he was only reaching for a cigarette lighter. The gang members are arrested for killing Walt in cold blood. By sacrificing his life, Walt has halted the cycle of violence and saved Thao and his family. But Walt does more than merely sacrifice his life for non-whites. He also sacrifices the interests of his children to them. When Walt’s will is read, it is revealed that he has disinherited his children, leaving his house to the Catholic Church and his prize Ford Gran Torino to Thao.

It is a model of righteousness that can only lead to racial suicide.

The film opens in the present with a mixed group of well-dressed blacks and whites arriving at a cemetery. A voiceover tells us that in 1971 their school in Alexandria, Virginia had been forced by the school board to integrate.  The action then fades back to that time. As Hollywood routinely does, it depicts violence coming only from whites, with the narrator telling us that a white store owner has killed a black youth, precipitating violence in town. Bill Yoast, the white coach of the all-white football team, establishes his credentials as a moral person when he prevents his boys, including his star quarterback who hates these “black animals,” from heading into town to protect the white store owner.

Into this tense situation comes a new black coach, Herman Boone (played by Denzel Washington), who moves his family into an all-white neighborhood. At the recently integrated school, the men find out that Boone will replace Yoast as head coach, a proposition that the white coaches find unpalatable. The white players, too, object, threatening to boycott the black coach. Yoast, however, convinces them that the right thing to do is play ball.

Play they do, beginning with a bus trip to summer camp. To no one’s surprise, the bus scene is used to highlight segregation. Coach Boone is eager to establish his dominance and does so when Gary, the white quarterback, tries to act as master of the coach. Boone neatly turns this around by humiliating Gary (and all the white parents watching), badgering the boy with taunts of “Who’s your daddy?” Meekly, Gary gives in and rides the integrated bus.

Upon arrival at the camp, Boone demands that white and black players share rooms. Clashes erupt over tastes in music as well as responses to a poster of black athletes giving the Black Power salute at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. An obese white lineman confesses to all in the cafeteria that he is too stupid to go to college. To remedy this, a brilliant black player volunteers to tutor the grateful white, who acknowledges that he is nothing but “white trash.”

Injecting historical seriousness into the film, Boone runs his charges through the dense woods, coming upon a fog-shrouded battlefield cemetery. He then speaks of the background of the Civil War and its attempt to erase the wrongs of slavery. Let us not, he intones, forget those goals and sacrifices, nor let those past hatreds persist.

The second white character to become a moral center for this film is Gary, the quarterback. Unlike Coach Yoast, Gary harbors racist feelings toward blacks. He will be one of three examples of whites who come to terms with the new conditions in America, finding it unthinkable at first but slowly coming to see both its inevitability and rightness. After sharing a room with a black teammate, Gary returns to town more open-minded. His girlfriend, however, remains a segregationist and refuses to shake hands with a black player. She, too, will change, though, becoming another white character on screen to lead reluctant whites in the theater audience to make the same transition.

At the Titans’ first game, one in which the whites in the stands segregate themselves, the mixed Titans defeat an all-white team. Celebrating after the game, Gary’s white friends expect him to join them for some fun, but Gary sticks with his black and white teammates. Hungry, they look for a restaurant. A newly arrived teammate from California promises to treat them at a local restaurant, but the black players balk. Finally, they all enter, whereupon the simian-looking and unshaven white owner refuses to seat them at any of the open tables. After all, this is the segregated South.

Director Boaz Yakin

Meanwhile, back in school, the issue of interracial dating is hinted at but is quickly turned into an opportunity to castigate whites for their racism. When a black player moves in close to a group of white girls, teasing them about who’s good looking, white students begin a scuffle. Gary, growing ever more certain of the evils of racism—including white solidarity—steps in to threaten his former friends.

Yoast’s young daughter is the third major character to revise her feelings toward blacks. At first she sees Coach Boone as a black interloper who is taking her daddy’s job. Later, she reluctantly allows that Boone isn’t such a bad coach. Later still, after befriending Boone’s daughter, she is at the Boone home when racists throw a brick through the front window. Now she too takes sides, going so far as to tell her father that she hates living among “rednecks.”

The racial conflict grows in intensity. For instance, a white player deliberately misses a block during a game, resulting in an injury to a black player. Again taking the movie-constructed moral position, Gary ignores white solidarity and has the white player thrown off the team. Next, in the regional championship, the opposing coach and referees are openly racist, making ridiculous penalty calls, but still the Titans prevail. In the line-up after the game to shake hands, though, the other team’s white coach refuses to shake hands with Boone.

By this point in the film, the proper position for the audience to espouse has been firmly established. From here on out, characters either get with the program or get relegated to the realm of the hopelessly racist. Gary’s girlfriend is one of the first to repent, coming down to the field during a game to shake hands with a black player.

Her boyfriend, Gary, however, takes the symbolism to a new level: that of Christ-like martyr for the sake of his black teammates. Driving his ’69 Chevy Camaro through town after another Titans victory, his car is broadsided by an old pickup truck, and he is permanently paralyzed from the waist down. In the hospital, Gary watches on TV as his team fights its way to victory in the Virginia State Championship. Director Boaz Yakin sets up a shot where white light from above shines over the prostrate Gary, who then lifts his arms into a Christ-like pose. He has given everything so that his black teammates may play.

In the film’s climax, the Titans are losing. At halftime, Coach Yoast  makes a rousing speech, telling the team that they have taught him that people really are to be judged by their character not race. Fired up, the boys return to the field to do battle. Another white player gives up his starting position to a black teammate voluntarily and without prodding. The decision turns out to be the right one, for the black player recovers a fumble, then later sprints 75 yards downfield for the winning touchdown, while the new white quarterback blocks for him. No opportunity is missed to show that the world is a better place when blacks replace whites. The lesson for American society in general is clear.

I am fortunate to follow a number of my betters who have written on the question of why we write. Now I can simply repeat that with which I agree. For instance, put me in the camp of Michael O’Meara, Kevin MacDonald, and most of The Occidental Family who, in O’Meara’s words, feel that “we, the country’s white majority, have been dispossessed, that we no longer belong to America, and that America no longer belongs to us.” I never thought I’d feel this way, but I do.

And this dispossession has happened right in front of the eyes of anyone now over forty. Think back to the TV reruns we all watched — I Dream of Jeannie, The Brady Bunch, or Green Acres: they were all about White people living White lives. Or think about the seven-member cast of Gilligan’s Island. They were diverse but would hardly qualify as multicultural under today’s standards. Back then we could identify with characters in nearly every show; now you have to search to find your own demographic set. It is almost as bad as bowling alone.

Dispossession is painful on many levels. It calls for a response. I know I must do something because we’re faced with a blunt proposition proffered by our enemies: “Die!” Or as Kevin MacDonald more tactfully describes it, conservatives (and by extension race realists) “should be aware that they exist at the sufferance of the ‘cultural establishment’ and that in order to exist at all they have to pledge obeisance to the fundamental tenets of leftist ideology. But to do that is to basically throw in the towel and acquiesce in the dispossession of our people. Obviously, we can’t do that.” Obviously. It would go completely against nature’s ironclad laws.

Thus I resist our dispossession and coming extinction. Perhaps this urge to resist is due to a certain aspect of my personality: I am combative and naturally take sides. (For instance, I would never consider fraternizing with boys from the town two miles away- – they were our football rivals, nay, enemies.) When young, this personality trait meant schoolyard fights and sports. Now that I’m grown, I’ve put away such childish things and focus on REAL competition: Race War, the ultimate contest.

I might also add one other factor responsible for caring so much about white dispossession: my own extended clan has experienced a parallel process of dispossession from the land that has been ours since the Irish Potato Famine. At one point it comprised over five hundred acres — fields, multiple households, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, a thriving business . . . even a religious order living on donated family land. Now the bulk of that is gone and we are scattered. It was better before.

Still, why do I care so much about “The Jewish Problem” and why choose to write about it? Well, consider what Prozium admitted about himself: “I had a rare personality type (one that I suspect many intelligent racialists share) that inclined me to care far more about truth than social status.” Ditto for me, alas. I’d rather face the facts about what role Jews play in our dispossession than pander to community standards on status.

And to think that I only came to realize the power of status over truth in my own middle age. In fact, it was only earlier this year that I realized that my own abiding interest in the Jewish Question had an unusual wellspring. In his bruisingly honest article “Prisoners of Fate?,” Andrew Hamilton inadvertently captured my case perfectly:

It appears therefore that “white consciousness” arises pretty much de novo each generation among a tiny minority of random individuals possibly selected for higher racial awareness. At some point in their lives they realize more or less spontaneously that something is amiss — specifically, they become conscious of, and instinctively adopt a hostile attitude toward, anti-white racism and policies designed to eliminate their race and the basic rights required to preserve it. Usually, a search for answers motivated from within leads to whatever racial literature or small groups exist. It seems very much a matter of inner-direction, of “seeking out.”

(This shock of recognition was followed by the revelations gained from reading Michael O’Meara at TOQ and Alex Kurtagic at TOO, that myth and style trump reason every time. So much for my own writing.)

Going back, in grad school I finally conceded that books had fallen more than a few notches in the pantheon of things respected in our (so called) culture. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death but especially Sven Birkert’s The Gutenberg Elegies convinced me of that. My training in the linear logic associated with reading and writing is now of less value than it would have been two or more generations ago, so maybe I’m now a bit of a relic in that respect.

Camille Paglia recently weighed in on this subject as well:

Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote ‘critical thinking,’ which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (‘racism, sexism, homophobia’) when confronted with any social issue.

Perhaps this message has been available everywhere, but I simply lacked the eyes to see it, just as I erred on the status vs. truth issue. Now that I accept it, I recognize the message everywhere. Just this morning, for instance, I read what Richard Hoste wrote here on TOQ: “We are a species that evolved to care about status, not truth.”

He was reviewing a book on evolution by an author who argued:

When individuals espouse ideological positions, we typically interpret their beliefs as signs of good or bad moral character. . . . Political correctness is one outcome of such attributions.For example, if a scientist says, “I have evidence that human intelligence is genetically heritable,” that is usually misinterpreted as proclaiming, “I am a disagreeable psychopath unworthy of love.” The arbiters of ideological correctness can create the impression that belief A must indicate personality trait X. If X is considered sexually and socially repulsive, then belief A becomes taboo. In this way our sexually selected instincts for moralistic self-advertisement become subverted into ideological dogmas.

This brings us back to the question, why do I still write even though I’ve long suffered the consequences of violating strongly entrenched taboos and, further, believe I now understand the near futility of writing the non-fiction columns and essays that I do?

In brief — and paraphrasing what I wrote in the introduction above — I share the sentiment that Christopher Donovan wrote about here on Sept. 22nd: “I write because I can’t stand what’s happening to whites.” Like him, in the grand scheme of things, I am a nobody, powerless and most unwelcome in niches for which I might qualify but are in fact overwhelmingly occupied by Jews (and the Asians and other minorities Jews support).

Still, I am a creature of habit, and, as a conservative, change but slowly. Having been brought up in a White world that consistently paid homage to plain speaking — “Don’t beat around the bush”; “Call a spade a spade”; “Say what’s on your mind” — I’m loath to conform to radically different rules today.

Also, the West has long prided itself on its fealty to reason — the Greeks, the Enlightenment, science, etc. From early on I came to respect those who practiced reason best, and most of those people put pen to paper. Despite the drop in status of the book in our society, I still revere those thinkers who think and write well, the Cuddihys, Paul Johnsons, Albert Lindemanns and Kevin MacDonalds of the English-speaking world. I aim to be like them, which is why I have followed the path of the scholar. That is my chosen training and I will stick with it.

So, I might say that despite the evidence I’ve cited about the waning of critical thinking, I nonetheless concur with what Kevin MacDonald notes in his own “Why We Write” speech. He believes that “the greatest danger to the cultural establishment is the existence of intelligent, well-written, well-documented, and fundamentally honest articles arguing for the importance of white identity and white interests.” Every time I write, this belief burns inside me.

Finally, one more reason I write is because I want to address the community of race realists and earn their respect. (Ah, Connelly, so you DO aim to play the status sweepstakes!) But honestly, I desire the camaraderie and respect of others in the movement to save Whites. This may strike some as trite, but when I listened to James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool from August 29th, I felt as though I were among family listening to him and Keith Alexander banter, or when Craig Bodeker and Merlin Miller appeared, and especially when our editor Greg Johnson spoke during the third hour. I value being a part of this group.

I know what resonates with me and what doesn’t, and the words of the extended Occidental Family certainly resonate. The hope that my own words resonate with others is why I continue to write.

Wouldn't it be nice if THEY would seceede from us?

“Is America, Too, Breaking Up? Or, Nothing Succeeds Like Secession”
from The Occidental Observer, September 16, 2009

To say that the last few generations have been a demographic disaster for many White populations around the world is an understatement. That Whites in America are now slated to fall to a mere half of the population by 2042 is but one of the more telling signs of this sad truth.

Firebrand Pat Buchanan has been aware of this threat for a long time and even wrote a searing book on the subject, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.

Recently, while returning from a conference in Europe, he had the chance to reflect on trends in America, and came to a possibly pessimistic conclusion, “Is America Coming Apart?”

We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others’ throats….

In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

Tellingly — for those who didn’t already know — Buchanan is talking about what most of us think of when we say “Whites.” And this pointedly excludes Jews, as indicated by the following: “The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking.” Trust me, he has my full agreement on that definition of Whites.

Buchanan then asks us, “If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago.”

And that, in short, is what I would like to write about today: Should America break up into more homogeneous parts, in large measure to assure the survival and eventual prosperity of Whites? In other words, is secession of one or more sectors of America a viable option?

Writers for The Occidental Quarterly (print and online) as well as those here at TOO have weighed in on the issue before. For example, a year ago editor Kevin MacDonald explicitly stated his case in the editorial “Secession and implicit whiteness,” writing, “Secession is certainly an option that has occurred to whites intent on preserving the traditional people and culture of the US.”

A chief reason that secession is an option is the widespread sense that the American system is beyond repair, at least with respect to the interests of Whites. As the TOO editorial noted, “44% agreed that ‘the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.’” Further, in a 2006 poll released by CNN, 71% of Americans agreed that “our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed.”

The present system is indeed broken and cannot be fixed. And like it or not, it will continue to get worse either at the present rate or at an increasing rate as far as Whites are concerned. What to do, then?

First, study the problem and consider options. One could do worse than turn to Michael O’Meara’s award-winning TOQ essay “Toward the White Republic” for both. He wrote that

white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.

Sam Dickson’s point at last year’s American Renaissance conference parallels this:

What I want is a homeland for my race, on this continent, and homelands for our people in Europe, in our lands of ancestral origin. . . . Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people?

Note O’Meara’s take on how the system broke:

When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity — an assault whose overarching aim has been to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution. The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”

O’Meara offers a growing framework for addressing this problem:

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, we are surrounded by armed forces seeking our destruction; we are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if we’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.

In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America. . . .

But even if [reform is] feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.

The next question is, which sections should break away? Having grown up in one of the thousands of small White towns still left in America (look at the figures for Whites in such places even now: 94.25%, 95.41%, 98.14%, 93.13%), I know there is an enormous pool of potential recruits in this struggle, since these towns are at a minimum full of “implicit Whiteness” — the often unconscious attraction of Whites to other White people and to White culture. We were and are the people Buchanan and others are writing about. We’re part of “Red State” America, the landlocked eastern sector of “flyover country,” derisively named by those who think only New York, Los Angeles, and possibly San Francisco are worth their time.

Frankly, where I grew up, people didn’t think a whole lot of New York and New Yorkers, pretty much considering it and its inhabitants a foreign country — the John Rocker worldview, if you’d like.

Oh, I understand that our contempt for much of the Blue State world is returned by those who despise us. Sadly, they are largely in control of our culture (or what’s left of it, as they say), and we’ve had to endure their open hatred for decades now. Take novelist Philip Roth, for example. Today the geriatric Roth has become the paranoid and hate-filled Jew he had railed against forty years ago. This was abundantly clear by the time he released The Plot Against America (2005). Never mind that white Christian boys and men went to die for the Jews’ enemy in World War II in a very unnecessary war. Roth is still consumed with a vision of a Jew-hating goyish nation led by Charles Lindbergh.

Roth’s hatred has become so palpable that the review of The Plot Against America in The American Conservative concluded, “This is a repellent novel, bigoted and libelous of the dead, dripping with hatred of rural America, of Catholics, of any Middle American who has ever dared stand against the war machine.”

Last year we were treated to yet more goy hatred in Roth’s latest, Indignation, a book that even half-Jewish Christopher Hitchens hated. Attending a college in small-town America not unlike the ones I wrote about above, Roth’s Jewish protagonist can barely stand the locals:

More than a few times during the first weeks, I thought I heard myself being summoned to one of the rowdier tables with the words “Hey, Jew! Over here!” But, preferring to believe the words spoken had been simply “Hey, you! Over here!” I persisted with my duties, determined to abide by the butcher-shop lesson learned from my father: slit the ass open and stick your hand up and grab the viscera and pull them out; nauseating and disgusting, but it had to be done.

Years ago, Hollywood insider Ben Stein detailed what the coastal elites thought about the rest of the country. In his essay, “Whatever happened to small-town America?” he explored television’s pronounced hostility toward rural (read Christian) America. Overwhelmingly Jewish, the television elite, like its Hollywood counterpart, imagined that small-town goyim naturally meant harm to the Jews. “As a result, when he [a Jewish TV writer] gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies.” (See here for my thoughts on this phenomenon.)

As I said, it is Jews of Stein’s and Roth’s milieu that rule America, occupying the top ranks of academia, journalism, the legal system, Wall Street, Washington, as well as Hollywood and TV. Doesn’t this represent the kind of broken marriage Pat Buchanan alluded to? Might not it be past time for a divorce?

Respected military strategist William S. Lind thinks such split — secession in political terms — has a future in America. His important article, “Calling President Davis,” begins succinctly: ”Secession is in the air.” One of the many good points he makes is this:

If America breaks up it is likely to do so along non-geographic lines. Fourth Generation theory suggests that the new primary identities for which people are likely to vote, work and fight will not be geographical. Rather, they will be cultural, religious, racial or ethnic, ideological, etc. Following the sorts of massacres, ethnic cleansings, pogroms and genocides such Fourth Generation civil wars usually involve, new geographically defined states may emerge. But their borders will derive from cultural divides more than geographic ones.

Several White Nationalist thinkers such as the late National Alliance leader William Pierce, have turned to fiction to reach an audience not likely to sit through measured rational arguments calling for rebellion against the forces that oppress them. Lind too turned to the novel. Called Victoria, it incorporated Lind’s ideas about Fourth Generation warfare, positing a second American Civil War. It never found a publisher, however, which Lind blamed on Political Correctness. Be that as it may, “the idea of an American break-up,” he wrote, “is no longer off the charts.”

While Lind feels secession will come about along non-geographical fault lines, most other secessionists feel it will be based on contiguous territory. One of the leading writers in this camp is Harold Covington, a rather unusual individual, to say the least. Still, if we can learn from his novels, then it might be worth taking his ideas seriously. Besides, numerous pro-White bloggers have been making the case that reasoned argument will never move the masses. What is needed is style, or myth, as O’Meara argued:

All great movements . . . are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths . . . For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

TOQ editor Greg Johnson recently wrote a brilliant review of Covington’s secessionist novels, the so-called Northwest Quartet. Like O’Meara, he sees working within the current American system as a dead end:

Fortunately, we know that the US system is moving full steam toward catastrophes on a number of different tracks. The political system is captive to minority and foreign interests and cannot pursue the common good. Our Israel-first foreign adventurism and profligate welfare spending are economically unsustainable. Multiculturalism and non-white immigration are leading to the ever-intensified degradation and dispossession of whites, which can only lead to increased ethnic conflict. Affirmative action and corruption have filled the government with incompetent employees who are parasites at best and actively throttle productivity and sow social chaos at worst. Education and popular culture continue their descent. The system is dependent on ever-increasing technological sophistication to exploit diminishing natural resources, yet the demographic trends are profoundly dysgenic. Morons are reproducing faster than geniuses, and the political system enfranchises and caters to the morons, with their high time preferences and ignorance of the causes of order and wealth. Furthermore, as Sam Dickson has pointed out, the system apparently has no brakes. For example, even before Social Security was enacted, it was known to be unsustainable, but nothing has been done to solve the problem, only to postpone the final crash by a few election cycles. Of course the system might be able to survive one crisis at a time. But eventually several crises will converge, and the United States will not be able to survive intact.

I’ve begun A Mighty Fortress, the novel Johnson recommends as a good introduction to Covington’s work. One thing is for sure — Covington knows how to turn a phrase. For instance, he describes an attack on Federal troops this way:

The other major tickle out on Highway 169 was a simple Baghdad banger in a recycle bin beside the road. Humvee blown off the asphalt just out of Maplewood Heights. Three dead Fatties [Federal troops]. Pyrotechnics courtesy of Doctor Doom, some good old bathtub gelignite just like Mom used to make.

Or this rebel’s dialogue: “We may have to do another off-Broadway production, sir, as in offing somebody on Broadway.”

Or this apt contrast between the America of old and now. Rebels are fighting so that a girl “can grow up in the world of Jane Austen again, instead of A Clockwork Orange.”

Like other White Nationalist fiction writers, Covington notes the target of the current liberal regime: White males. He writes:

In the America of the early twenty-first century, it didn’t pay for a white man to look too sharp. White males weren’t supposed to hold their heads up, especially in the Northwest, where some alert FBI agent or Fattie might wonder just what the hell a white boy was looking so chipper about.

Ain’t that the truth.

To say Covington is politically incorrect is an understatement, at least judging by his prose. The worldview he creates in A Mighty Fortress is one in which Whites and Jews are at war with each other, as indicated in this dialogue about dealing with the U.S. government:

Some people might advocate that we accept some kind of half a loaf as a springboard for something better in the future, but history proves that doesn’t work with ZOG. With liberal democracy, you start at a certain level of moral and decent existence and then everything decays from there, kind of like radioactive half life. The United States started at an exalted level in 1783 and it decayed from that point on. Anywhere there are Jews, things only go downhill. The only hope that our people have for any kind of continued existence is the absolute removal of the Jew and everything the Jew has created from our lives, our consciousnesses, our hearts and our souls. We’re like the wolves, the buffalo, the damned spotted owls. We’re an endangered species. White people have to have their own safe habitat, clean and uncontaminated, if we are to raise our young, build up our numbers and thrive once again.

(Speaking of ZOG, readers have to see former Congressman James Traficant’s first post-prison interview on Fox. Beginning at about 6:30 he says “I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don’t beat you at the poll, they’ll put you in prison.” See full transcript here.)

From what I’ve read so far in this novel, the rebel movement is heavily composed of working class Whites, which is not a surprise considering how hard they have been hit by globalization. I can sympathize because small towns like mine have been decimated by the offshoring of so much of our industry.

Still, there is a resilience that was echoed in a previous TOO editorial on secession:

An excellent recent example is the video “A Country Boy Can Survive” by Hank Williams Jr. All the people in the video are working class whites from ‘little towns all around this land’ far from the city: ‘You only get mugged if you go downtown.’ And there is the confederate flag—a remnant of traditional Southern culture. The theme is that country people can survive because of their ability to live off the land. The US political system is broken and can’t be fixed within the present political structure. But they will survive.

So too in A Mighty Fortress. The fighters are men like “Farmer Brown” who have paid a heavy price under the current regime. Meanwhile, elite Whites such as cardiologist Edward Shipman support the system because they benefit from it. I suspect, however, that as the novels progress, more and more high status Whites will join the secession movement as they realize that at a minimum the lives of the children and grandchildren will be greatly diminished under an anti-White regime.

Lest the point about the reality of the anti-White regime in North America is not getting through, I will offer three versions of it, in increasing severity.

*

First, Kevin MacDonald wrote:

In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as [a] multicultural utopia. . . . And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it’s that we should not believe in utopias.

*

Next, as Sam Dickson said at last year’s American Renaissance conference, “We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white race is genocide.”

*

Finally, consider the words of Andrew Hamilton:

Whether white survival ultimately takes the form of secession, reconquest, or even some newly-evolved type of genetically-based, non-territorial “peoplehood” . . . is less important, perhaps, than the realization of the obsessive hatred of the System for the white race. Whites can actively or passively accept it — and die — or they can fight it. The essential thing is to recognize with absolute clarity the uncompromising, nonnegotiable, genocidal character of the alien, anti-white System, and to oppose it with every fiber of one’s being on moral grounds.

Personally, I take these descriptions literally, as I’ve written about before (see also here).

But I wonder what could serve as a catalyst for the break-up of America, a galvanizing event that would set spark to fuel? A commentator on O’Meara’s essay painted this scenario:

What may be a true catalyst for Whites to find their opening to rebel—without fear of looking back and seeing no one behind them, is a full economic collapse, as simplistic as that may appear. Once some pot-bellied, PC-brainwashed, NFL-following White fool is scrambling to find a quart of milk for his children while seeing Uncle Sam take care of non-Whites to ensure their breeding, along with comfortable, arrogant Jews who will not be able to abstain from rubbing it in, all bets are off. I have been surprised over the last 18 months as to how many “regular people”— Whites whom I would not have thought aware of the level of Jewish responsibility for our current situation — remark privately on things that show they do have a grasp of what’s up, and who’s the major force behind it. People need a situation as catalyst, they need to feel a good number of people are in it with them, and they need leaders. Right now, it is tough for Whites to speak up, as “The Machine” goes in high gear against them. There goes your job. There go your friends. They might agree, but they have to feed their kids.

The time may indeed be near for that break-up. As Buchanan concluded: “E pluribus unum” — out of many, one — was the national motto the men of ‘76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?”

When he asks, “Is America, too, breaking up?” one suspects the answer is “Yes.” But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Time will tell.

Willis Carto and the American Far Right

George Michael describes Willis Carto as “undoubtedly the central figure in the post-World War II American far right.” The organization Carto founded — Liberty Lobby — was “one of the most enduring institutions in the history of the movement and provided a base where virtually all segments of the far right came together.”

The Spotlight, which Liberty Lobby published for over 25 years, was widely read as the most influential medium of the far right, appealing to militia people, antiglobalists, conspiracy theorists, Holocaust revisionists, and White racialists.

Not surprisingly, the Anti-Defamation League considered Carto and Liberty Lobby highly dangerous.

Others agree with Michael’s assessment of Carto’s importance. Leonard Zeskind, for example, positions Carto at the pinnacle of white nationalism — along with William Pierce — in his 2009 book Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream. (Oddly, Carol Swain’s fine work, The New White Nationalism in America, does not even mention Carto, a glaring omission.)

Zeskind quotes David Duke speaking about Carto to a conference full of “Aryan believers”:

There is probably no individual in this room who has had more impact on the movement today in terms of awareness of the Jewish question than this individual . . . Because he has not only influenced many of you individually . . . but he also has influenced the men and women who influenced you.

At the conclusion of his book, Zeskind writes that “More than any other individual in his time and place, he built the infrastructure and generated the resources supporting a long-standing white supremacist political movement.” George Michael’s book provides a satisfying tour of how Carto accomplished that.

These are not overblown claims. Consider that Liberty Lobby had 250,000 members in 1970, working with a budget of nearly a million dollars. At its mid-1980s peak, the budget was between $4 to $5 million. What far right or White nationalist organization is even a shadow of that today?

Observers of the America White nationalist movement will quickly note that Michael’s approach is the same as that taken by Robert Griffin in The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce, in which Griffin stayed with Pierce and interviewed him at length, giving an even-handed account of Pierce’s work and thoughts.

Just as Robert Griffin did in his Pierce biography, Michael succeeds in humanizing Carto by giving an objective description of the man. Upon their first meeting in late 2000, for example, Michael had this impression:

At first [Carto's] deep-set eyes conveyed a demeanor and mood of intense seriousness. Although at the time he was in his seventies, Carto appeared mentally sharp and physically fit. He is a diminutive man, shorter than average and probably weighing less than 150 pounds. His dapper attire gave him the appearance of a newspaper reporter, as portrayed in old Hollywood films. He speaks with a Midwestern accent that leaves an impression of ordinariness. Overall, his appearance is unremarkable; one might even describe him as avuncular.

Born in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1926, Carto had significant French ancestry, with the family name likely being “Carteaux” originally. Carto’s grandfather anglicized it to better blend in. Interestingly, Carto believes that his salt-of-the-earth father privately agreed with his unorthodox views “but he never discussed it. People like my dad — millions of guys like him at their country clubs and in private gatherings, playing bridge or whatever — they talk [about] things. It’s so obvious that the Jews are taking over. But the last thing they want to do is get involved.”

Carto’s focus on Jews began after he left the Army in 1946 (in 1944 he was shot and wounded by a Japanese sniper and was awarded the Purple Heart). Sensing something was wrong in the country, that “on virtually every issue — whether it was immigration, foreign policy, economics, taxes, or race relations — the media supported those positions that ran counter to the interests and wishes of the America people.” (“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”!)

Eventually, Carto became politicized and launched a newsletter known as Right. Influenced by Prof. John Owen Beaty’s The Iron Curtain Over America, Carto moved further toward the opinion that “Jewish international bankers were implicated in conspiracies to control the economies of the Western world.” (Did someone just say “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”?)

Through Right, Carto saw Jews as advocating the “pollution” of America through miscegenation while at the same time striving to maintain ethnic purity among themselves. Out of fear of miscegenation, Carto also opposed the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states, fearing Hawaii, for its part, would elect ethnic Japanese who would not support White interests in Congress.

Carto managed to cross paths with nearly every right wing group and promoter of the last half century. In the 1960s, for instance, he met and worked with American Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell, but they parted ways. In addition, the Lobby’s charges against various Jewish groups prevented Liberty Lobby from joining other rightist groups such as the John Birch Society.

Michael’s narrative really comes alive in chapter seven, when he gives a well-rounded account of the career of Francis Parker Yockey, author of Imperium. By 1960, Carto appeared to many outsiders to be moderating his views, but in fact he was further radicalized by the writing of Yockey. Michael claims that a major event in Carto’s life was meeting Yockey while the latter was in a San Francisco jail on passport violations.

Soon after this 15-minute meeting, Yockey committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide pill, and rumors swirled that Carto had provided the pill. (As an aside, Michael notes that the U.S. attorney responsible for prosecuting Yockey “inexplicably resigned, left his wife and children, and joined a monastery.”)

This was my own introduction to the life of the enigmatic Yockey, and Michael’s account ably captures the reason someone like Carto felt that while in Yockey’s company he could “feel history standing aside me.”

Yockey’s arguments certainly resonated with those Carto had been making in the previous decade. As Michael writes, “In Yockey’s worldview, Jews were the primary culprits in the decline of Western civilization.  Not unlike previous anti-Semitic narratives, he submitted that Jews excelled mainly in parasitism and were incapable of creating a civilization of their own. He characterized them as ‘culture distorters’ . . .”

In a letter purloined by an undercover mole in the organization, Carto had been very explicit about his beliefs:

Hitler’s defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing. . . . If Satan himself, with all of the superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews.

Yockey felt that Jews had taken over America in “all but name” by 1933, with Roosevelt as their agent. Using the media, Yockey argued, Jews controlled public opinion, and thereby the policies of the democracies in Europe and the United States. According to Michael, Yockey reasoned that the Industrial Revolution allowed Jews to rise to power, with American eventually becoming a “money civilization” with a “semitic countenance.” Michael notes that Yockey also asserted that Jews composed 10 percent of the population of the North American continent and that “it is a stark and gruesome fact that America today is ruled by the Jew” (emphasis in original).

From Yockey, Carto drew a lesson that he shared with his rival (and reported enemy) William Pierce, head of the National Alliance. The West, he felt, needed a new faith that would allow a spiritual regeneration. “Only a new dynamic Weltanschauung could save the West.” Opposing this civilization was an enemy that had “four millenniums of experience in guile and deception,” the Jews. One method of destroying the West, both Yockey and Carto believed, was introducing multiculturalism. As Carto states, multiculturalism “could only bring the downfall of all cultures.”

Carto believed that through media control, Jews “confused the white masses, thereby inverting their morality so that they sympathized with non-whites and convinced the former of the ‘rightness of the suicide of the White race.’ Jews were accused of waging a ‘permanent revolution’ against the underpinnings of Western civilization.” Carto continues to maintain this view.

Similar views were held by other racialists with whom Carto crossed paths. For instance, Prof. Revilo Oliver had a mixed relationship with Carto, though they shared similarly negative views on Jews. Pierce, as mentioned, was no Carto supporter. When Carto forces accused Pierce of being an FBI informant, Pierce responded by accusing Carto of embezzlement.

Amidst all this turmoil, Carto labored on. In fact, one of his greatest achievements was yet to come: the founding of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in 1978.

One strength of Michael’s book surfaces again here. As he did in the beginning of the book with a chapter offering an overview of the far right before Carto, Michael prefaces the discussion of the IHR with an introductory treatment of the origins of Holocaust revisionism. He lists, for example, the achievements of Frenchman Paul Rassinier, the first notable revisionist, whose works include Crossing the Line and The drama of the European Jews (online edition; for the French edition, click here. For an online version of the French ed., click here). He then ties together Carto’s promotion of David Hoggan’s The Myth of the Six Million and its impact on leading revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes. We next hear about Arthur Butz and his seminal work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (1976).

Two years after Butz’s book appeared, Carto took the crucial step of providing an institutional setting for the disparate revisionist forces. With the founding of the IHR, the world now had “the number-one international force for Holocaust revisionism.”

Located in Torrance, California, the IHR housed the Noontide Press. More importantly, The IHR published a periodical, the Journal of Historical Review, which was a direct descendant of Carto’s American Mercury. Presented along scholarly lines, articles were properly formatted and footnoted, and at one point the IHR boasted twenty-five editorial advisory committee members, eighteen of whom held doctorate degrees.

Not surprisingly, the rise of an institution supporting Holocaust revisionism elicited a powerful backlash. Carto’s house was vandalized, followed by picketing by Jewish Defense League members. Next, a firebomb did minor damage to parts of the IHR facilities in 1981. A year later there were two more firebombings. On July 4, 1984, however, a serious arson attack by unknown forces destroyed more than ninety percent of the books and tapes at the IHR, resulting in nearly a half million dollars of damage. The case was never solved.

Michael next chronicles a depressing series of setbacks and challenges to Carto and the IHR, including a lawsuit by a Jewish businessman, (see Michael Collins Piper’s account here) and a more devastating one involving Journal of Historical Review editor Mark Weber and his allies. The upshot was that in 1996 a judge awarded the IHR $7.365 million in damages, forcing Carto, his wife, and Liberty Lobby to declare bankruptcy. This appears to be a fitting tale about the far right more generally, as squabbling amongst themselves seems to result in more harm than attacks by external enemies. As Michael notes, “Thus, in an ironic twist of fate, one of the most longstanding institutions of the far right was forced to close shop, not due to action by its watchdog opponents, such as the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center, but rather due to an internecine feud on the far right.”

Remarkably, Carto bounced back. In place of Liberty Lobby and its mouthpiece The Spotlight, Carto created American Free Press and The Barnes Review. The former newsletter maintains a heavy focus on Holocaust revisionism, just as The Journal of Historical Review had. (Michael notes in passing that even some Jewish scholars seek to downgrade many of the more exaggerated claims about Jewish suffering. Two men mentioned are historian Peter Novick and enfant terrible Norman Finkelstein.)

In addition, The Barnes Review holds annual conferences in the Washington, D.C. area, attracting speakers such as Eustace Mullins, attorney Edgar Steele, and Holocaust revisionists Frederick Toben and Germar Rudolf. In-house journalists such as Michael Collins Piper also speak. Even Hutton Gibson, father of Mel, has given a lecture there.

American Free Press is less heavily focused on Jews, preferring to name the Bilderberg Group as more responsible for trends harmful to Whites. The following exchange between Carto and Michael illustrates Carto’s views, while also showing the immediacy of the book’s approach:

Willis Carto: They [Jews] have the universalistic dream where everybody is going to be a slave. And the plutocrats, they want essentially the same thing. But at some point I can just imagine the Anglo-plutocrats — the Bush types and the Queen of England types — sitting around with the Jews. And what’s going to happen then? That’s going to be a watershed. And if anybody thinks that the plutocrats are going to share with the Jews or the Jews are going to share with the plutocrats, he is totally crazy.

George Michael: How do you see this relationship between the plutocrats — the so-called Eastern establishment — and the Jews? Who do you really think pulls the strings?

WC: I think it is shared interests. I don’t think they really have come to the point yet that they have to start scheming against each other . . . . They’re both after the same thing, which is mastery of the globe . . . . When they reach some point, the daggers have to come out. I mean the Jews aren’t plutocrats. And the plutocrats aren’t Jews. They are going to share power only until they get down too close to the bone, when they have to start nibbling with sharp teeth. I don’t think it will hold together.

GM: Are you optimistic that somehow these problems can be surmounted, that someday there will be an effective opposition that will be able to marshal grassroots support to effect change in America? And the western world by extension?

WC: If I understand your question right, I can see as I say, at some point, the dollar has to crack. It has to shatter. Everything has to collapse. And when it does . . . . Well, I’ll tell you what I really believe. There is one of two things. And both of them are pretty bad. Number one I sort of laugh, I find it kind of humorous that these old-line, old money people want a gold standard. They’re going to get their gold standard. When the dollar goes down the tube, they’re going to have their gold standard, because that will be the only money. That is one scenario, which isn’t good. The other scenario isn’t any better, but is really a condition of anarchy in this country where you have all these groups that are put together forcibly at each other’s throats. And it could be very bloody.

A perennial favorite of American Free Press is Mossad Conspiracy Theories, a prime one being that Israel spies extensively on its “patron,” the United States. Such a claim today appears to be on more and more solid ground, as various revelations about Jewish and Israeli spying surface. (For more, see my recent column “Spies Like Us”). In addition to mere spying, articles in the newspaper allege an Israel role in 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that followed. Finally, American Free Press strongly pushes arguments that Israel and its neoconservative operatives were behind the drive for a second war on Iraq.

Michael sees the emergence of Carto’s new media as evidence of Carto’s continuing resolve. “The survival of American Free Press has demonstrated the durability and tenacity of Willis Carto. The paper’s circulation is roughly 40,000, not far below the Spotlight’s circulation of 50,000 when it ceased publication. Furthermore, The Barnes Review is now the most widely distributed revisionist journal. Finally, Carto still organizes conferences that draw crowds in the low hundreds — a considerable feat by American far right standards. Nearly all observers wrote him off after his loss in the battle with the IHR. However, as of 2007, the eighty-one-year-old Carto works a full-time schedule that would tire most men half his age.”

Before assuming that this represents a hopeful sign, one should pay attention to what immediately follows the above quote. “[Carto's] influence on the American far right remains undeniable. But in the larger scheme of American politics, just how significant has he been?”

Michael observes that some have looked at the net effect of Willis Carto’s work and concluded it has been “virtually nothing.” If so, Carto alone is hardly to blame, as researchers on the American Right, John George and Laird Wilcox comment:

[W]hatever else one can say of Willis Carto, it is clear that he, more than any individual, has been responsible for giving form to the ragtag band of citizens who make up the [R]ightist fringe. Carto has attempted to ride herd on a very difficult and contentious band of rugged individualists, prima donnas, loners, and nut cases with predictably marginal results. Some critics on the [R]ight say that Carto’s failures have been caused by his autocratic personality, but it’s doubtful anyone else could have done better.

Surprisingly, Carto’s own take on his efforts to unite the right is similar:

That was a fundamental error. I had to learn as many, many others have learned, that such a noble sounding goal is impractical and impossible, a waste of time, a waste of effort. These various groups and organizations, and leaders, under no circumstances are they going to join together. They all have their own ideas on how to do things and none of them work. That certainly is not the way to do it.  I was wrong all those years.  It took a long time for me to find out. . . .

The only way this can be surmounted is to have one personality, one leader, extremely intelligent, with the right type of personality, a good speaker, a gregarious person, who can literally take over these other groups in the sense that half of their membership deserts to come over to his banner. That’s the only way it could be done. . . .

That’s the only way to do it.  Not to try to merge with other organizations. You have to steal their membership. He [Hitler] didn’t merge his party with anybody. But through his own abilities as a speaker and all the other leadership qualities he had, he was literally able to steal the memberships. And so these organizations would vote to dissolve and go into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That’s what he did. And he instinctively recognized the fallacy of what Liberty Lobby later tried to do and the Congress of Freedom tried to do and what We, the People tried to do and get one organization out of many. You can’t have it.

Surely there is a lesson in this for today’s activists. One such lesson can be drawn from Carto’s insistence that white nationalist efforts must be institutionally grounded, as he tried to do with Liberty Lobby and the IHR.

Willis Carto and the American Far Right is a personal tale of an important man in a vitally important story about an entire race. Carto saw the risks to the West over half a century ago, and to his credit has been working ceaselessly ever since to defend his people and civilization. Thus, it is cheerless to read Carto’s final words in the book: “I did my best. That’s all I can say.” Yet one cannot help but admire the man portrayed in these pages.

Carto will soon pass from the scene, but, as Michael notes, new groups of White nationalists will emerge. How could it be otherwise? Faced with undeniable decline and the threat of genocidal violence at the hands of outside enemies and traitorous or clueless Whites within, there will always be those who seek to fight back before the light finally goes out.

The late Harvard historian Samuel Huntington explained why such resistance is inevitable. In his last major work, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, he recorded the betrayal of American elites, who in the 1960s and 1970s “began to promote measures consciously designed to weaken America’s cultural and creedal identity and to strengthen racial, ethnic, cultural, and other subnational identities. These efforts by a nation’s leaders to deconstruct the nation they governed were, quite possibly, without precedent in human history.” (See also E. Michael Jones’s The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing, Peter Brimelow’s speech at the Preserving Western Civilization conference, or the VDARE.com exchange between Kevin MacDonald and Eric Kaufman for similar perspectives.)

White backlash, Huntington argued, is to be expected, which, should it come, would put Carto in the vanguard. “The actual and prospective continuing loss of power, status, and numbers by any social, ethnic, racial, or economic group,” Huntington wrote, “almost always leads to efforts by that group to stop or reverse those losses.” The example he cites? Bosnia-Herzegovina. While he did not foresee that level of violence, he did predict that Whites — in this case those in California — would react to their dispossession with a certainty of 100%. One hopes Carto will still be around to witness Whites finally standing up for themselves.

We humans often say that we live in interesting times, and for Whites today, that is certainly true. How, for example, can we have people like Carto, Huntington and even a far-Left professor like James Petras sharing views on the plight of the West, or in the case of Carto and Petras, an insistence that Jewish/Zionist power is a leading threat? What Petras writes in books such as The Power of Israel in the United States (see his similar books Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, and Global Depression and Regional Wars: The United States, Latin America and the Middle East; see also my review here) would not seem out of place in one of Carto’s many publications. Now that is interesting.

Both Leonard Zeskind and Michael are in agreement about the future of far right activism. Zeskind concludes that movement activists have created “a white nationalist opposition to the status quo that will not go away in the near future” (emphasis in text). Michael believes that such activism “will probably endure well into the current century.”

Let’s hope so. And let’s hope that it finally gains traction.

Larry Lawrence, Jewish Fake War Hero

Two weeks ago, I showed that deceiving non-Jews was normative behavior for the Jewish community historically. As I wrote, “illegal activities involving deception and deceit are tolerated within the Jewish community. . . . The only ethical principle involved here is the age old ‘Is it good for the Jews?’”

I focused on financial crimes because they have been in the news for so long now and have involved Jews to a degree that most astute people can’t miss. Of course no human group is entirely free of deception or financial misdeeds but, as I argued, there seems to be a greater likelihood of financial crime among Jews (again, see here for an academic treatment that tiptoes around the issue). More importantly, I continued, Jewish white collar criminals do not face censure within their own communities.” For instance Moshe Rosenberg, an Orthodox rabbi, lamented that “Unfortunately, unethical and even illegal behavior too often does not face serious censure in our communities.”

From financial fraud and manipulation, I moved on to literary deceit, pointing to specific instances of Jewish deception by some of the most esteemed authors of our time. I did this because I hoped to show that it is not merely the desire for money that motivates Jewish deception. Rather, as I seek to illustrate, deceit is a normative aspect of Jewish culture. That is, it is not censured as it commonly is among, say, Christians. Instead, it is sanctioned as long as it is directed toward outgroups.

Today I would like to focus on another area in which American Jews have attempted to hoodwink their fellow Americans into believing that Jews have made more sacrifices than in fact they have — military bravery and sacrifice.

Valor on the battlefield and recognition of that valor are central to many cultures, including most Western cultures. As our last “Good War,” World War II occupies an important place not only in American history but in American mythology as well. In that war, the story goes, we reluctantly set out to smite forces of pure evil that threatened the entire world, from the Pacific theater to Europe.

Perhaps more remarkable is the fact that the question of Jewish valor in that war still makes the headlines. For instance, during the Clinton Administration, Larry Lawrence, U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, died and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

One of America’s richest men, Lawrence owned the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, where his friend President Bill Clinton vacationed. Lawrence’s claim to the right to be buried in Arlington hinged on his assertion that he had had served in the Merchant Marine during WWII and had been injured. In fact, he had avoided the draft and never served.

The U.S. Army is in charge of Arlington Cemetery, so Army personnel carefully checked Lawrence’s story but found nothing to support it. Richard Holbrooke, who also happens to be Jewish, was Assistant Secretary of State at the time and appealed to the White House on Lawrence’s behalf. His request was granted, and Clinton presided over the 1996 burial.

As the New York Times reported, however, “Confronted with mounting evidence that M. Larry Lawrence, the late Ambassador to Switzerland, had fabricated a heroic World War II record, his widow decided today to have his remains exhumed from Arlington National Cemetery, where he was granted burial under an unusual waiver.”

David Rubitsky, Jewish Fake War Hero: He claimed that he was not honored because of anti-Semitism. But his ludicrous tales of valor would never have been taken seriously had he not been a Jew.

Another Jewish WWII soldier, Sgt. David Rubitsky, claims to have accomplished superhuman feats. He was serving in New Guinea in 1942 when the Japanese attacked. As Joseph Farah reported in 2001:

Rubitsky watched the Japanese soldiers move small artillery pieces, heavy machine guns, mortars and anti-aircraft armaments into the area. He watched as more and more soldiers gathered. Anticipating a surprise attack by the Japanese on his 2nd Battalion, Rubitsky decided to lead his own surprise attack.

He opened fire. As Japanese soldiers advanced toward his bunker, Rubitsky used every weapon in his arsenal for nine grueling hours of intense fighting. He alternated between firing his .30-caliber water-cooled machine gun with 3,000 rounds of ammunition, a Browning automatic rifle with close to 600 rounds, his M-1 rifle, a pistol and tossing some of his 35 hand grenades.

Rubitsky spent a total of 21 hours in the bunker — including nine under heavy siege. The Japanese army attacked from three different directions – the north, south and west. . . . When Lt. Col. Herbert Smith came up to the bunker the next day, he estimated that Rubitsky had single-handedly killed 500 to 600 Japanese soldiers, thereby saving his own battalion from being decimated in a surprise attack.

Rubitsky made strenuous efforts to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor but insists it was denied because of anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League initially aided Rubitsky’s campaign, as did the media generally. For example, as one researcher noted, “Newspaper and magazine articles, with references to ‘anti-Semitism’ [related to the Rubitsky campaign], appeared in such prestige publications as Time and the New York Times.”

This researcher then added that “Because of the lobbying efforts of the ADL, including a resolution signed by 92 members of Congress, in 1987 the U.S. Army undertook a two-year review of David Rubitsky’s story. On December 8, 1989, after obtaining evidence from forensic specialists and taking statements from Rubitsky and 20 others who served alongside him, the U.S. Army concluded that Rubitsky’s claim was unfounded.”

To date, it is not known if Hollywood plans a bio-pic of Sgt. David Rubitsky. Read the rest of the article.

Mister

Mister is available in the TOQ Online Bookshop

Imagine a novel that is a marriage of George Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four and Jean Raspail’s depressing account of the genocide of Europeans, The Camp of the Saints.

As the definitive dystopian novel of our age, Nineteen Eighty-Four conjures up a world that has far too many parallels to our own day for comfort. For starters, the technocratic totalitarian State of the novel echoes loudly in forms we see today such as the Department of Homeland Security and Federal programs such as the Clinton-era Carnivore that could sift through all e-mail traffic.

The protagonist of Nineteen Eighty-Four, a government functionary named Winston Smith, develops an intense dislike of the cynical regime under which he must live, so he sets out to personally foil the omnipresent and omnipotent system of Big Brother. As is famously known, Smith is naïve in believing he can escape the system’s notice and is arrested, tortured and re-educated to love The Party like all other good citizens.

Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (read the Preface here) is cut from different cloth. Unlike Nineteen Eighty-Four, it focuses on race and racial differences, where European whites are on the verge of extinction . . . “encircled by seven billion people, only seven hundred million of them white, hardly a third of them in our little Europe, and those no longer in bloom but quite old.” Boatloads of starving refugees from India head for the shores of southern France, packed onto the ship’s deck:

[I]t was like trying to count all the trees in the forest, those arms raised high in the air, waving and shaking together, all outstretched toward the nearby shore. Scraggy branches, brown and black, quickened by a breath of hope. All bare, those fleshless Gandhi-arms. And they rose up out of scraps of cloth, white cloth that must have been tunics once, and togas, and pilgrims’ saris.

In the end, these non-white multitudes overwhelm the native Europeans whose sentimental liberalism has prevented them from making the effort needed to save even themselves. The last holdout — mountainous Switzerland — succumbs as well, destined to suffer the fate of its fellow European nations, overrun by “the howling, swarming horde. Thousands of human ants, streaming down the zigzag path from Fontgembar, in an endless column, bristling with fists, and sticks, and scythes, and guns . . .”

Alex Kurtagic’s Mister features both the Orwellian logic of a highly technologized but dehumanized society and the inundation of Europe by non-white swarms. It is the story of an unnamed Brit who leaves his comfortable home outside London for a business trip to Spain. Known only as “Mister,” the protagonist is highly intelligent, at least in the fields of technology, business, and tax evasion. An apolitical gentleman, as Tomislav Sunic describes him in the book’s foreword, Mister exhibits a shocking shallowness that turns out to be central to both his impending predicament, as well as what has already befallen his less intelligent fellow white Europeans.

Kurtagic’s blog describes Mister and his setting:

A status-conscious IT consultant travels to Madrid for a week of meetings at Scoptic, who have hired him to implement a fiendishly arcane accounting system equipped with artificial intelligence, in an effort to keep the company one step ahead of the government’s rapacious tax authorities. Renowned within the catacombs of the scientific community, and with an impressive publishing record in the most prestigious trade and academic journals, he expects to do serious business with a serious organisation. The only problem is that he lives in a hot, overcrowded world where nothing works: hyperinflation, crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime, political correctness, corruption at all levels, and a new world order globalist government, determined to regulate, monitor, and tax every aspect of a person’s life; opposed to the forces of totalitarian democracy are occult underground movements, most notably the Esoteric Hitlerists. As a result, nothing goes according to plan, and frustrations mount as things go only from bad to worse . . .

Kurtagic is a master at creating a living, breathing impression of this nightmarish world, beginning on the very first pages where Mister prepares to board his British Airways flight:

By the time the announcement had been made in English, it was almost impossible to hear anything beyond the foreground murmur of human conversation. The gate had by then long disappeared behind a forest of boubous, abayas, burqas, and business suits, rising above a chaotic undergrowth of push-chairs, plastic bags, rucksacks, handbags, briefcases, and screaming children. Of course, the pre-boarding announcement had invited only a fraction of those standing, but it was clear to him that they all thought themselves in competition for space inside the overhead compartments inside the aircraft; their strategising had begun the moment they had entered the departure lounge, their eyes darting towards the front of the enclousure, scanning for empty seats and cunningly calculating optimal positions.

This Hobbesian sense of war of all against all never leaves us in the novel, which at 531 pages means the reader feels like he has dragged himself into the 23rd inning and still faces the prospect of more. Or, as Kurtagic noted in an interview with Sunic, it was meant to show “a process of strangulation” that would “overwhelm the reader.” That it does — in spades.

As mentioned, the central character is a shallow man, confusing fundamentally important things with superficial social standing and attire. Obsessed with brand-name clothing, Mister prides himself on his Gieves and Hawkes grey chalkstripe suit and sneers at those who possess less. Further, he appears clueless to the fact that the social norms operant in the recent past have little sway in the multi-racial, multicultural world of 2022.

Thus, when he is at first denied boarding of his flight, he bellows:

You did not follow correct procedure. You have not made the proper announcements, so the flight is not closed. So, please, log back on, swipe my boarding pass, check my passport, and let me through!… I paid for a service and you are refusing to provide it. If you do not let me through, I will make a formal complaint and sue British Airways for breach of contract.

While such threats from a “serious man” are successful this time, they appear comic once Mister has arrived in Madrid, the site of perpetual confirmation that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw. For now, however, he finds his seat back at Heathrow. Sad to say, his discomfort has only begun, for, as Kurtagic portrays, Mister is about to endure the assault on civilized senses that modern air travel has become.

One of 853 passengers, Mister shares his row in œconomy (Kurtagic favors archaic English spellings) with “a colourfully attired Afro-Caribbean woman, holding a crying infant on one of her prodigious mammaries, which rested on her giant thigh,” and an obese Chinese student who vomits into his airsickness bag before the plane has ever left the gate.

Mister’s growing thirst amidst the heat of the airline cabin foreshadows the heat and dryness of Spain. On the plane, “He pressed the cabin call button once more. It had no effect. His throat itched with desiccated asperity.” And this is even before take-off (and a long delay in which passengers must deplane). Once in the air, he is prevented from buying two small cans of juice (at €20 a pop) because airline rules limit passengers to one can only. Musing about the past, Mister recalls, “The ordinary cup of yesteryear had fallen victim to the rising cost of potable water. With Southern England’s reservoirs now in permanent crisis, and water consumption subject to a battery of climate levies, any beverage containing water had become an Oriental luxury.”

Having finally arrived at the airport in Madrid, Mister encounters the use of Spanish — as does the reader. Here Kurtagic begins his gambit of scripting conversations in Spanish: “‘Pare. ¿No lleva equipaje?’ said the first número. ‘No. No llevo,’ he replied.”

These conversations continue sometimes for half a page, with translations in 7-point font at the bottom. While this is a burden for the reader, it does add to the sense of being in a foreign country, as well as in a world that doesn’t quite make sense. In addition, it is a harsh reminder that our own English-speaking world is shrinking (“Press one for English, two for Spanish.”) Further, this first encounter with Spanish is with two brutal members of the Guardia Civil, who constantly scream at Mister because he has brought no luggage with him. Can such a situation be far off for LAX?

Kurtagic spent some of his youth growing up in Latin America, so his command of Spanish is convincing. Further, he claims that many of the Madrid scenes he scripted were based on street life he observed in South America. If so, the rising tide of color bodes ill for those of us in the North.

Once out of the airport, the sense of claustrophobia and chaos only increases. Jammed into a cab, Mister is accosted by Europe’s Blade-Runner future. “A cacophony of horns suddenly erupted around them. The cabbie had decided to abandon the lane, but a driver on the target lane, a Mestizo in his thirties wearing a cowboy hat, had been determined not to allow him access.” A fight ensues:

“¡Te voy a matar, negro maricón!” screamed the Mestizo, with an Ecuadorian accent.

The cabbie used his right hand to slam Cowboy’s head against the dashboard. . . . Cowboy responded by grabbing the cabbie’s face, as if to rip its flesh; however, he was in an awkward position, and the cabbie was able to grab Cowboy by the hair and once again and repeatedly slam his attacker’s head against the dashboard. Angry horns flared around them, followed by angry shouting from the motorists behind them. . . . Cowboy managed again to grab hold of the cabbie’s shirt, and, holding the two-way radio’s microphone by the cable, smashed it against the cabbie’s forehead as hard as he could. The blow was weak, however, because Cowboy’s torso was still in a horizontal position and there was not enough room to properly swing the device. Realising this, Cowboy then decided to pull his torso out of the vehicle and rip the microphone out of the radio. The cabbie was unable to prevent Cowboy’s vandalism, and, before her had time to think of an appropriate act of retaliation, witnessed Cowboy climbing over the cab’s bonnet, and repeatedly kicking the windscreen with his high-heeled boot. The cabbie burst out of his vehicle and jumped onto the bonnet, where he pushed Cowboy with violent force. Cowboy landed on his back, slamming against the bonnet of his car.

At this point, two racially-indeterminate  men materialised, running in to join in the brawl.

We quickly realize that this passes for “sport” in the gladiator-filled world of 2022. Cars spew out their drivers and passengers as everyone strives to gain a better view of the fight. A man riding a scooter stops, “obviously hoping to witness sufficient spilling of blood, rupturing of septa, and loss of teeth to titillate his cruelty.” Additional people enroll in the fight, but eventually it winds down, as the cabbie retrieves a crowbar from the trunk of his car, causing the defeated Cowboy to call it quits. Alas, such random violence is rife throughout the novel.

The non-whites in Mister are different from the immigrants in Raspail’s novel, however. In Camp of the Saints the immigrants were frail and numerous: “They were there! A million wretches, armed only with their weakness and their numbers, overwhelmed by misery, encumbered with starving brown and black children, ready to disembark on our soil, the vanguard of the multitudes pressing hard against every part of the tired and overfed West.” In Mister the non-whites are certainly numerous, too, but they are far from weak. On the contrary, the abundance of food found in Europe, along with the savage conditions of life on the streets, allows them to become powerful predators, always willing to use maximum violence to rob, rape, or just relieve the day’s boredom.

In addition to the violence, there exists a pervasive sense of the shortages of life’s most basic needs. This is paired with oppressive heat and always — always — manners of the jungle, as revealed in a Madrid street scene:

All competed for space with a remarkable absence of civility, none above using elbows and shoulders to force or ram their way through. Above them, the sun beat their heads without mercy, burning their skins, blinding their eyes, scorching their scalps, melting the tarmac [pavement] – so strong was the light that it bleached out the grey urban landscape of cement and baked brick; the trees and bushes that had once adorned the avenue had long been dead, desiccated, and cut down, their past existence only evident through the stumps that had been left in the pots and circles of caked dirt lining the pavement. The street thermometer read 46°C [115°F]. It was 8 o’clock in the morning. . . .

If it was teeming above surface, there was no room for an atom beneath the surface. Commuters were packed into the Metro system at a pressure of 1.1 megaPascals, or approximately 11 atmospheres. The queues were interminable, and moved at geological time-scales. It took millions of slow-moving seconds to purchase a ticket, just as long to get to the ticket gates, and again as long to get past security. This entire interval he spent with his feet burning, in a standing position, with his chest pressed against a warm commuter’s back, and someone’s warm chest pressed against his own back, his nose never more than two inches from someone’s head. . . . The air had the consistency of lentil soup, and the stink of body odor and halitosis.

Mister never really gets to spend much time on business, instead using most of his energy and wits simply to stay alive and keep his money and possessions intact. When he does manage to meet with clients, he’s disappointed to learn that their office is in a violent and derelict section of town. At this point, however, Kurtagic is able to mimic another Orwellian construct. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell introduces Emmanuel Goldstein, the elusive author of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism and the major enemy of The Party. As such, he is the subject of the daily Two Minutes Hate, a period during which loyal citizens of the State watch the scripted depiction of Goldstein on State television and indulge in a mindless frenzy of hate toward this object of State scorn.

In Mister this object is “The Monster of Long Beach, “an American evolutionary psychologist and columnist, about to be tried at the Human Rights Tribunal in The Hague for crimes against humanity.” Having harmed no one violently, this defendant was unique: He was “a peaceful, urbane, soft-spoken university professor and author of seven books, who had, until his legal troubles began, lived a quiet life, teaching and writing from his base at California State University, Long Beach.”

In the novel, this “monster” is Dr. Kevin MacDonald.

Kurtagic explains how MacDonald’s three books on Judaism — A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements — had been deemed racist and likely to encourage genocidal policies. His tenure has been revoked and his books banned and burned; possession of the books was now illegal.

To show they were serious, the European government staged sting operations in which they would offer underground copies of MacDonald’s works, but in fact would only be interested in collecting the names of people looking for such banned literature.

This development in the novel allows Kurtagic to present a disquisition on MacDonald’s theories, particularly those found in the third book, Culture of Critique. Thus we learn about Freud’s fraudulent concepts, which were always intended to undermine Western culture, and tracts from the Frankfurt School and Franz Boas, which pursued similar goals. Mister begins to catch on, as his business client explains to him how Freud et al. had always been nothing but “ethnopolitical activists masquerading as scientists.”

For such a soft-spoken university professor, MacDonald sure finds himself at the center of a lot of action. As reported by CNN, MacDonald manages to escape from prison in The Hague, prompting an international search and capture operation. “The so-called Monster of Long Beach was not thought to have left the EU. One of the talking heads commenting on the breakout — a rabbi — vehemently asserted that Dr. MacDonald’s writings were poisonous and extremely dangerous: it was vital that he be captured before he gained the opportunity to access a computer or the internet.”

As with Nineteen Eighty-Four‘s Goldstein, MacDonald is an obsession of the State. Newspapers carry unflattering photos of him on the front pages, with headlines screaming “MOBUS: DID HE BANKROLL MACDONALD’S BREAKOUT?”

Later, Mister actually shares a ride with MacDonald, but there is no dialogue. In fact, Mister cannot be sure that his fellow passenger was really the escapee, MacDonald. Mister’s fervent hope that it is not MacDonald becomes important when Mister is suddenly and unceremoniously arrested by the Unidad Especial de Intervención, a special police unit used for only the most dangerous missions. Mister stands no chance and is violently arrested.

Here Mister becomes Winston Smith, locked up for his thought crimes. The all-seeing State has detailed records of everything Mister has done, said, or purchased over decades, and uses these to construct a case that Mister is a dangerous racist. At the police station, he is interrogated by two non-white goons, who mercilessly taunt and mock him, clearly showing one of Kurtagic’s important themes: “The former conquerors now behave like the conquered, and the former conquered are devouring their former conquerors.”

As Mister’s freedom is taken away and his psyche gradually broken down, Mister finally begins to reflect more deeply upon what has happened both to himself and to European man. In his cell in the gulag, with the prospect of a decades-long sentence, he asks himself, “How did he end up in that cell?”

The answer speaks to all modern white men. Mister begins to admit that he had known all along about the corruption of society, the nincompoops who passed for politicians, and the slide into chaos throughout Europe. Despite his exceptional intelligence, though, Mister had taken the selfish route:

He had railed against the mediocrity of the common man, fulminated against their choice of political leaders, ranted against the cowardice of politicians beholden to œconomic interest, and raged against the supine addiction to comfort and safety of the general voting public, because they would rather make small concessions here and there than actively defend their freedoms. . . . He had expressed himself on the subject in no uncertain term — except he had done so privately, strictly among trusted friends and family, where there was no risk and therefore where it did not count, while acting in the outside world just like the common man . . . [emphasis added]

Apparently, this is a turning point in the character’s development, as he abandons the position he had previously prided himself on always taking: “Best to keep quiet, make money, live well, and be safe.” Now he faces years in the gulag among resentful non-whites seething with the desire for revenge against the Oppressor. Laws throughout Europe privilege these non-whites, while white men like Mister are apt to trigger the trip-wire on fiendish hate crime laws that have been enacted.

Clearly, Mister is a man taken from Raspail’s Camp of the Saints, where

many Frenchmen of true lineage are no longer anything but hermit-crabs that live in shells abandoned by representatives of a species, now disappeared, that was known as ‘French’. . . They are content to just endure. . . . Under the flag of an illusory internal solidarity and security, they are no longer in solidarity with anything, or even cognizant of anything that would constitute the essential commonalities of a people.

Mister is willing to accept the blame, however, for “he had withheld his talents, withheld his opinions, withheld his energy; in short, opted out, and focused on being comfortable within the domesticity of his life, watching his civilisation being devoured by anarchy, brutality, corruption, incompetence, misguided ideology, and hyperinflation, in an inexorable descent from the light of the stars to the mud of the jungle.” In short, he had by default given the Zionists and corrupt politicians “carte blanche to destroy the world” — his world and our world.

The ending of the novel is disappointing, for the protagonist, instead of using his chance release from prison as an opportunity to finally act, instead reverts immediately to his former selfish, shallow mode, evidenced most starkly by his plaint while trying to get back to England, “I’d give anything for a jar of pomade!”

This is a shame, for the System has finally broken down and Spain is in chaos, giving the native inhabitants the opportunity to throw off their totalitarian oppressors. This should have been the point where the newly enlightened Mister joins them in enacting scenes of revolution, scenes similar to those in the opening pages of William Pierce’s classic novel of white revolution, The Turner Diaries: “Today it finally began! After all these years of talking — and nothing but talking — we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words. . . . We have finally acted!”

Given Kurtagic’s obvious intelligence, he could have allowed his protagonist to develop into a role model for his race, one who clearly understands the origins of the problems whites face and what must be done to correct them. Pierce did this with his second Andrew Macdonald novel, Hunter, creating the character of Oscar Yeager, a former combat pilot who experiences the “malaise” so common to Western men of his era. The difference is that Yeager acts. In contrast, Mister beats a retreat back to London, tail between his legs.

Does Kurtagic mean for it to end this way? Or might there be a sequel in which Mister regains his jail-cell convictions and actually does something to improve the miserable situation of whites in the Western world?

Kurtagic offers hints that solutions are at hand, one being political involvement. For instance, Kurtagic has the real-life radio show host James Edwards (The Political Cesspool) appear as Governor James Edwards or Tennessee, whose motto about white activism is “No retreat, no surrender, no apologies.”

When a Congressman commits suicide because he was hounded for purported anti-Semitism, Governor Edwards explodes at reporters:

Look: your network helped conduct a hate campaign that drove this man to suicide. Are you going to apologize to his children? Are you going to pay them compensation for the loss of their father? We all know that if the Congressman had not been White he would not have been faced with a vile hate campaign – I am offended by that. When do you plan to say you are sorry? When do you plan to make your donation to American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens? When do you plan to campaign for a museum honoring the memory of the tens of millions of victims of Soviet terror? Why aren’t you outraged by the fact that not one has been built? Will you now turn yourself in to the authorities so that you can be charged with racism and serve your prison term?

Another available avenue is secession from central governments. In Mister we see resort to this in America, where David Duke (briefly a cellmate of Mister in Spain) has now become President of the newly seceded Confederate States of America. Meanwhile, Vermont had also seceded, while Aztlan, as in other novels, has reverted back to Mexican control.

Harold Covington, in his “Northwest Quartet” novels The Hill of the Ravens, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress, and The Brigade, covers the fictional story of white secession most extensively. In his books, whites create “the Northwest American Republic,”  40 million racially-conscious white people from all over the world. As in Mister, Aztlan is a Mexican-controlled nation in the American Southwest and California. A similar situation prevails in The Savaged States of America: A Futuristic Fantasy by Kevin Beary. Here, not only is Aztlan where it is supposed to be, but another nation formed out of the American South has been ceded to blacks. It bears the name “Malcolmland.” A rump state called “The Corridor” is all that is left of white America, but it is run by illogical women and populated with emasculated white men who are forced to take anti-testosterone pills. Needless to say, its days are numbered.

Perhaps I am too hard on Kurtagic, for the disease Western men like Mister face is advanced. In fact, it is very much as Raspail describes in Camp of the Saints:

For the West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilization, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left. At every level — nations, races, cultures, as well as individuals — it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles. It is the only the soul that forms the weave of gold and brass from which the shields that save the strong are fashioned. I can hardly discern any soul in us.

By having Mister abandon his promises to stand and fight like a man, does Kurtagic conclude — with Raspail — that there is hardly any soul left in us? If true, the fate of the Roman Empire may be our fate, but only in some ways: “The Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it’s true, more slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden conflagration.”

Finally, a few comments on the structure of the novel are in order. Like any good postmodernist, Kurtagic includes in the text a hearty wink at himself. In a conversation with a woman he meets in his hotel, Mister hears about her husband’s story of a genius IT consultant who goes to Spain on business. The book is called Mister. Mister allows that the story sounds familiar, prompting the woman to blurt “There you go. Reality imitates fiction. Hey, you might even be a character in someone’s novel!”

Second, Mister desperately needs a stern editor. For starters, the book is too long. Pruning shaers should be able to bring it down to a more digestible four hundred pages. Next, the spelling errors, missing words, and duplicated phrases (pp. 482-3, for example) have to go. And then there are the marathon paragraphs. Fine, the author means to “overwhelm the reader” with his descriptions of heat and thirst and masses of human bodies, but that does not justify paragraphs that span three pages (see, for instance, the start of chapter 34).

Mostly, however, the eclectic vocabulary has to go. When even a reader with a Ph.D. in the humanities is mystified by the meaning of over a hundred words, it’s time to jettison the steroid-saturated thesaurus. Canescent, consputing, phenolic, contortuplications, catosopher, ephectic, absquatulation, pullulated, eidetic, hypertelic, delectate, paedomorphic, gluttei (it’s spelled correctly the next time it appears), thelyphantic, etc. & etc. Alright already!

On the whole, however, this is a book worth reading, if only to test a hypothesis Kurtagic advances elsewhere:

Of course, were it purely a matter of logic, we would easily win the debate over White displacement and multiculturalism, because our arguments are amply substantiated by science and history. The problem is, however, that we are not dealing with rational processes: we are dealing with psychological processes that stem from an innate human need for belonging and self-esteem, which have been successfully exploited by the masters of discourse, and which are notoriously impervious to logical argument.

Will his novel, then, trigger the desired responses? Like the works by Covington, Beary, and Pierce mentioned above, I do think they help. But where Kurtagic can really contribute is in transforming his novel into other media, particularly visual media. As people throughout the world born after, say, 1970 are famously averse to reading extended arguments, other message forms are needed. Kurtagic, who has experience the music business, understands this, especially the power of style, as he demonstrates here.

As he writes, “The end product to aim for is a parallel universe, comprised of alternative institutions, media, and markets, that legitimates Whiteness and is poised for a cultural reconquista once the present establishment is sufficiently weakened by its own cultural bankruptcy and corruption.”

I look forward, then, to watching Mister as he makes his debut on the big screen or perhaps in an underground Internet video. Kurtagic has spent immense time and effort to create this story, so let’s hope it grows. After all, the White race deserves it.

Mister is available in the TOQ Online Bookshop.

Rabbi Levy Rosenbaum, human organs trafficker

For those conversant with the Bible, the twin themes of Jewish resource acquisition and deceit will be familiar. For example, in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Kevin MacDonald describes this:

The biblical stories of sojourning by the patriarchs among foreigners are very prominently featured in Genesis. Typically there is an emphasis on deception and exploitation of the host population, after which the Jews leave a despoiled host population, having increased their own wealth and reproductive success. Indeed, immediately after the creation story and the genealogy of Abraham, Genesis presents an account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt. Abraham goes to Egypt to escape a famine with his barren wife Sarah, and they agree to deceive the pharaoh into thinking that Sarah is his sister, so that the pharaoh takes her as a concubine. As a result of this transaction, Abraham receives great wealth . . . .

Far from being a unique story, it portrays a pattern. MacDonald concludes, “Like the others, the Egyptian sojourn begins with deception and ends with the Israelites obtaining great treasure and increasing their numbers.”

The most famous Biblical story of deceit is the story of Exodus. Joseph helps his relatives enter by telling them to deny being shepherds because the Egyptians dislike shepherds. The Israelites reside in Egypt and are successful: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt . . . and they got them possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly” (Gen. 47:27).

The Book of Esther is another fascinating tale of deceit in which Esther, a beautiful Jewish woman, insinuates herself into the inner court of a powerful king but keeps secret her Jewish identity. Eventually, she is able to both save her fellow Jews and have the king kill her enemy, Haman, and his ten sons. The Jews then kill 75,000 others with the approval of the king: “The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and they did what they pleased to those who hated them” (Est. 9:5). Meanwhile, her cousin Mordecai assumes a prominent position in the royal court.

To this day, Jews celebrate these acts of deception and political murder as the holiday of Purim. This is an important indication that fraud and deception are part of the official ideology of Judaism.

In some ways it is sobering to think that some two thousand years after Esther and her cousin Mordecai used cunning to acquire great status and dispatch enemies, a similar pattern exists in the modern world. The most recent example is the arrest of 44 people, including several rabbis, in a money laundering and influence peddling scheme involving payoffs to public officials in New Jersey. Rather than marginal figures, the rabbis involved were highly respected pillars of the Syrian Jewish community — a traditionalist Jewish group that remains largely separate even from other Jewish groups. What’s fascinating is that Rabbi Israel Dwek, a founder of the New Jersey synagogue at the center of the scandal, renounced his own son, Solomon Dwek, because the son had cooperated with the FBI after being indicted on bank fraud charges. The father’s actions were entirely within the Talmudic Law of Moser — the prohibition of a Jew informing on another Jew. The father will therefore “sit Shiva” for his son — a ceremony observed when an immediate family member has died. . . . Read the rest of the article.

Charles Bolden

I don’t think my previous column could have been more timely. Titled On the Visual Displacement of the White Race, it appeared May 15. One week later, major news media reported that President Obama had chosen a former astronaut and Marine general to lead NASA.

This move certainly bolsters my point about the displacement of White men in positions that combine excellence in both technical innovation and high status: aeronautics. I showed an ad that Microsoft ran in The Atlantic Monthly — two pages with an unmistakably clear message: White males need not apply to future rocket programs, as engineers or astronauts. The future in this field—as the photo shows—belongs to the usual multicultural hopefuls—women, Hispanics, Asians and most particularly Black males.

The nominee for NASA administrator is Charles Bolden, who has four shuttle missions under his belt, including two as mission commander.

Interestingly, Obama chose a White woman as Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver, blocking out any White men at the very top of America’s space program. This comes in stark contrast to the historical make-up of all levels of NASA going back to the 1950s. The Gemini and Apollo programs were essentially White male preserves, from the Mission Control Specialists to the astronauts themselves. . . . More

Microsoft sells science fiction. The caption reads: "We see a rocket scientist."

I’ve been observing and studying the fall of Western man for about two decades now. For a number of years I could not really understand the process, but eventually I caught on. I’ve shared my fears and observations about our displacement with friends and family in a haphazard way but it was not until this winter that I systematically reached out to try to warn them. More than the election of the first African American president last fall, it was the sudden implosion of the economy that convinced me that my minimum duty was to at least pass on my estimation that a few basic measures of preventive self defense were in order.

Before talking to anyone, however, I pondered the likely response to my warnings. Like almost every White racialist out there, I’ve experienced rejection from nearly every White I’ve talked to. Why this is so remains a mystery to me, for the evidence of White decline is everywhere. Sure, humans are prone to denial, but how can it continue this far past the obvious?

Denial or not, I resolved to go one step beyond the writing I’ve been doing to actually talk to specific friends and family members about the elevated risks they face simply by being a White person in today’s America. Of particular concern are the naïve young women in my family.

Looking back on it, the impetus for this personal campaign probably came from a column by the editor of The Occidental Quarterly, Greg Johnson. Mr. Johnson used the occasion of the release of a low-keyed video about race in America to ponder precisely what I’m talking about. In his words: “When a White person awakens to our race’s peril, the first impulse—and the first duty—is to try to awaken others. But where to begin?”

His decision was to “highly recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute documentary A Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the road to racial awakening.” Taking this advice, I started there, ordering a copy for my brother in Virginia. A blue collar man, he’s been hard hit his whole life by stagnant or declining wages, in part due to the massive immigration—legal and illegal—of laborers with little education. Since he’s a nice guy who is at least superficially willing to listen to my ideas on race, I figured he’d react favorably. . . . Read the whole article

Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

Gates comes to this task well-prepared. As former counsel to the US Senate, he understands how power is wielded. He also has a deep background in finance, which is important in understanding the ways Jews have manipulated world finance for their own gain.

The subtitle of the book refers to the way America and her allies were dragged into fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq. As bad as that may be, it is minor compared to the historic damage Gates claims Ashkenazi groups have done to Gentile nations.  Press releases describe the book’s scope:

In an account covering presidencies from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush, the author chronicles the influence wielded by pro-Israeli agents operating inside administrations over the past century regardless of party.

Harry Truman, a political product of organized crime from the 1920s, recognized Israel in 1948 over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall and the entire US foreign policy and intelligence establishment.

Guilt by Association makes treason transparent. The corruption that plagues American politics is traced to an alliance with elites and extremists loyal to the Land of Israel. Unable to rid politics of campaign finance corruption, the US finds its security imperiled by those skilled at deceiving America into waging wars for the Zionist state.

Tracing this corruption to criminal syndicates from the 1920s, Guilt by Association reveals how those skilled at displacing facts with beliefs wield clout from the shadows. Both deception and self-deceit play critical roles in enabling this criminality to expand its reach on a global scale. Guilt by Association documents how by operating in the realms of politics, media, academia, think tanks, and popular culture corruption came to dominate politics, as shown by presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates these candidates by decades, the book explains how organized crime expanded worldwide while the US discredited itself in the eyes of a global public astounded that Americans would tolerate such corruption to their own detriment. Featuring sophisticated analysis presented in layman’s language, Guilt by Association will transform political debate in the US and beyond.

This chronicle of duplicity and trans-generational manipulation describes how dysfunctional personalities are identified and then positioned for elective office. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates the current presidential candidates by decades, Guilt by Association describes how organized crime expanded worldwide in plain view yet with legal impunity.

Realists about Zionist power such as former Congressman Paul Findley and Ambassador Andrew Killgore have lavished praise on the book, with Findley calling it “magnificent, timely, and persuasive.”

Jeff Gates

Gates reveals something positively gangsterish in many facets of the Ashkenazi subculture he examines. For instance, he writes, “The Zionism chronicled in this account describes a transnational organized crime agenda featuring financial and political domination by elites and extremists.” A current manifestation of this, Gates argues, can be found in the fact that “the war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs. Those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale.”

If you find credence in the old saw that money makes the world go ‘round, you stand to benefit from Gates’ chronicling of not just criminal activity in the US, such as smuggling booze during Prohibition, but also the ongoing pillaging of wealth from both Russia and America. As he does throughout the book, Gates links various Jewish actors to show how maximum leverage is achieved. For instance, he points to how Larry Summers used the perceived authority of the World Bank, Treasury Department, and then Harvard University to create a team of “predominantly Ashkenazi advisors” who went on to enable the oligarchization of Russia “lawfully” and “in plain view and with impunity.”

As he writes, “Yeltsin predecessor Mikhail Gorbachev charged in July 2005 that $1 trillion had been hidden abroad by those ‘plundering’ Russia. The facts suggest the total may be considerably more. . . . the Yeltsin government enabled an Ashkenazi elite to take organized crime to a national scale.”

Bringing the issue closer to home for Americans, Gates cautions,  “The Russian experience confirmed that this global syndicate is masterful at committing nationwide frauds by corrupting a nation’s lawful authority, including the office of the president . . . With the pro-Israel bias of mainstream media, the political environment—both in the US and abroad—is ripe for frauds on an unprecedented scale.” Do the names Madoff, Bruce Karatz, Bruce Friedman, and Marc Dreier mean anything to you? They should because they fit the profile of members of the Ashkenazi syndicate Gates outlines.

Whether explaining financial fraud, getting America to fight wars on behalf of its “ally” Israel, or how the charge of “anti-Semitism” is misused to control critics, Gates’ broad approach is unusually instructive.

Gates in essence reveals the secret to Jewish power: their ability to employ magic to deceive the masses. For instance, Gates write with respect to financial fraud the public allowed it in part because they were “a public induced to believe in the wisdom of financial markets—despite the facts.”

This can be generalized to serve a host of areas the American public has been unintentionally complicit in its own harm. We are “a public induced to believe [insert target of deception]—despite the facts.” Gates is perfectly correct in stating: “Thus the role of self-deceit and, in the Information Age, the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in the media, pop culture, politics, academia and think tanks.”

The good news is that Gates promises that Guilt by Association is but the first in a series of books to explain these critical developments. Get ready for them by getting a copy of the book and following updates here at his website.