Mar 17, 2016

Revelations of a New Left Leader (Mark Rudd)

via The End of Zion

While many good books have been written about the ideology and actions of the New Left movement of the 1960s, the one which I found most instructive is Underground: My Life with the SDS and the Weathermen, because it is a firsthand account by one of the leaders and because the author, Mark Rudd, is a Jew, and quite open about that fact.

For those not familiar with SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), it was the premier New Left organization of the 1960s ‘counterculture’ college campus radicals, and the Weathermen, or the Weather Underground, was its violent counterpart.

Their ostensible goal was to end American imperialism, racism and the Vietnam war and then usher in an egalitarian (i.e. raceless/classless/genderless) Marxist utopia.
Instead they just destroyed the entire country.

They are the people who, after the visible New Left fizzled out, took – most notably in media and academia – the “long march through the institutions” that resulted in the anti-White tyranny of political correctness that we are living under today.

The “long march through the institutions” was a phrase coined by the German-Jewish New Left radical Rudi Dutschke, and a strategy that was advocated by the Jewish “Father of the New Left” Herbert Marcuse, as well as many of the other New Left counterculture “gurus.” Marcuse was a leading theoretician of the Frankfurt School, which was located on Mark Rudd’s campus, Columbia University, and mixed the poisonous Jewish doctrines of Marxism and Freudianism into a potent ideological weapon against traditional White society.

The SDS at its peak in 1968 had around 100,000 known members in 400 chapters. Scholars have estimated that over 60% of its leadership, and 30-50% of its rank and file membership, were Jews (here and here), and the Frankfurt School, which gave them their ideology, was strictly a Jewish movement. Given that the Jews have only ever made up around 2% of the American population, that is pretty much proof enough, in and of itself, that the New Left countercultural revolution was essentially a Jewish coup.

Even just a rudimentary examination of these sick people and their demented ideologies goes a long way in explaining our current society, as the following excerpts from Mark Rudd’s book demonstrate.

* * * * *

The New Left revolution, in the mind of the Jew, was a conscious war on the ‘goyim’:
Imagine an idealistic Jewish kid growing up in a suburban New Jersey town, always knowing that the world consisted of two kinds of people: Us and Them, the Jews and the goyim.
[ . . . ]
I’ve often wondered, over the years, why I called my parents that morning. I couldn’t have been seeking their approval, something I knew I’d never get. Maybe it was simply that Jewish boys call home, it’s that deeply ingrained.
Or maybe I was unconsciously bragging to them: “Look, I’m finally an American, just like you wanted. I’m not afraid to stand up, to speak out. I don’t need to keep my head down, like you’ve always done. I can protest like any other American. I’ve made it in America! Oh, by the way, you may not be crazy about this part, but I’m going to work to bring down the dumb goyim who run this country. I’ll be the Jewish defender of the weak and the downtrodden.”
The character of Mark Rudd:
A few weeks later, Vice President Truman told the New York Times reporter how he felt about me, personally:
He is totally unscrupulous and morally very dangerous. He is an extremely capable, ruthless, cold-blooded guy. He’s a combination of a revolutionary and an adolescent having a temper tantrum. No one has ever made him or his friends look over the abyss. It makes me uncomfortable to sit in the same room with him.
The character of the New Left leadership, generally:
Years later, looking through a large file of my Freedom of Information Act papers, I ran across an FBI report that quoted the psychiatrist’s letter under the heading “Rudd’s problems”:
Chronic depression and a sense of isolation with intermittal [sic] suicidal ideation and impulses; high levels of anxiety in relationship to work, dating, sexuality, career and the future generally and difficulty in acceptance of the established authority of institutions.
At first I thought the shrink had laid it on a little thick, but then I realized his description sounded like everybody I knew.
Rudd was a Jewish coward, to boot:
Since I was a little kid, I’d been (and still am) afraid of violence. I was always ashamed of not standing up to bullies, even when they directly challenged me. In my family, violence was for the goyim or the trombeniks (hoodlums). I knew no one who hit another person. I did not play football. I had never lost my fear of violence.
On the sexual degeneracy of the New Left radicals:
It was a moment of extreme sexual experimentation. Group sex, homosexuality, casual sexual hook-ups were all tried as we attempted to break out of the repression of the past into the revolutionary future.
On one ride from Chicago to Detroit, all fourteen or so of us, except perhaps the driver, writhed naked on the floor of the van while hurtling down the interstate, legs, arms, torsos, genitals interlocked with no particular identity attached.
The homophilia of the New Left:
The line on homosexuality was that women should get close to women, men to men. In a revolutionary collective, there should be no barriers between people. Mainly, women slept with women; this was openly allowed. Men were more repressed. My own internal taboo never let me do more than fondle JJ’s penis during a threesome with a Weatherwoman one night. This homosexual experimenting had nothing to do with gay liberation.
[ . . . ]
The one time, a year earlier, when we had tried a threesome, I had felt an intense excitement at the thought that my semen was mixing with JJ’s inside a woman. Now, once again, I was experiencing that same feeling, bonding with JJ through a woman.
On how “women’s liberation” means being able to cheat on your boyfriend/husband (in this case with two Jewish radicals) on a whim without facing any consequences:
It wasn’t only JJ that I was thinking of as I lay with Barbara—there was also myself. In my mind I was Barbara’s liberator, bringing her freedom from her life of quiet desperation. My penis was a magic wand of liberation. Sex was also, for me, a respite from my lonely days and nights contemplating the deaths of my friends and my own dismal future. At times of emotional crisis and depression, I always needed a woman.
God knows what was going on in Barbara’s head as she wrapped her small, firm body around her second revolutionary that afternoon.
That night when I entered Carl and Barbara’s apartment, they were in the midst of an argument. My fears had come true: Barbara had immediately told Carl about that afternoon. I was panicked but attempted to console Carl by telling him that women’s liberation shouldn’t threaten him. I also told him not to be jealous, saying something like, “Barbara’s attraction toward JJ and me shouldn’t reflect on your relationship.”
On Nature’s revenge for their rampant sexual immorality:
Weather sex was also a disaster for medical reasons: Gonorrhea, pelvic inflammatory disease, crab lice, and a nonspecific genital infection we called “Weather crud” were epidemic among us. Once, while making love with a woman, actually an old friend from Columbia, I looked into her face and saw a crab in her eyebrow. I could not go on.
On the fanatical anti-Whitism of the New Left:
By contrast, Terry and JJ, the two East Coast leaders, sure of where we were going, were providing leadership. In our many meetings in New York City, one or the other would rant, “White people are pigs. This whole society has to be brought down. We have got to defeat white-skin privilege; we can’t let the Panthers and the Vietnamese bear all the costs.”
At that point we had determined that there were no innocent Americans, at least no white ones. They—we—all played some part in the atrocity of Vietnam, if only the passive roles of ignorance, acquiescence, and acceptance of privilege. Universally guilty, all Americans were legitimate targets for attack.
On siding with the violent Black animals who were burning cities down all across America:
Standing across from Columbia president Grayson Kirk’s mansion, at the corner of Morningside Drive and West 116th Street, JJ and I looked out over Harlem as dusk fell that unseasonably warm early April night. Below, we could see the flames of dozens of fires, dark smoke clouds trailing upward. In the distance we heard the shrieks of fire and ambulance sirens and, rising above that, the roar of a sound I’ve never heard before or since: the wailing of the hundreds of thousands of people of Harlem, the capital of black America.
JJ and I looked at each other, and both of us said the same words at the same time: “Let’s go!” We tore down the broken steps that descended through untended, garbage-strewn Morningside Park, the no-man’s-land between the Heights and Harlem. Wandering around Harlem most of the night, we watched people loot TVs and stereos from appliance stores, face down lines of beleaguered cops, set up improvised barricades of garbage cans to block the fire engines. “Burn, baby, burn!” seemed to be the message.
On the morality of literally murdering all newborn White babies, since they are all “the enemy”:
There were crazy discussions at Flint over whether killing white babies was inherently revolutionary, since all white people are the enemy.
The psychotic Jewess who led the Weather Underground, Bernardine Dohrn, gave a speech praising the Manson family’s brutal slaying of a White actress and her unborn child:
Out of this bizarre thinking came Bernardine’s infamous speech praising Charles Manson and his gang’s murder of actress Sharon Tate, her unborn child, and the LaBiancas. “Dig it!” she exclaimed. “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” We instantly adopted as Weather’s salute four fingers held up in the air, invoking the fork left in Sharon Tate’s belly. The message was that we shit on all your conventional values, you murderers of black revolutionaries and Vietnamese babies. There were no limits now to our politics of transgression.
Though Rudd admits to the “maybe we should kill White babies” incident, he fails to mention the meeting in which he and some other Weather Underground members decided that after overthrowing the U.S. Government, they would need to put 100 million American citizens – 40% of the population – into “reeducation” camps and exterminate a full ¼ of them (25 million!).

Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the Weather Underground, discusses this in the video below (in other places he has explicitly named Rudd as being present at the meeting):

So there you have it. The correlations between today’s world and the radical views and attitudes described above speak for themselves: the rabid anti-Whiteness, political correctness, media support and incitement of Black rioters and widespread sexual degeneracy we see today all follows the “long march through the institutions” of these scumbags in a perfectly predictable fashion.

And to think characters like Mark Rudd used to be considered “radical” only 50-60 years ago. Now anybody who opposes even the most outrageous of his and his kind’s beliefs – up to and including the destruction of the entire White race – is considered a “radical” or an “extremist,” and the leaders of the Weather Underground, whose dozens of terror attacks included bombing the New York City police headquarters and the Pentagon, all went on to land cushy jobs as professors – Bill Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Bernardine Dohrn at the Northwest University School of Law and Mark Rudd at Central New Mexico Community College – rather than spending their lives in prison.

The Jesuit Conspiracy Theory

via The Thinking Housewife

The idea that a massive and long-running conspiracy by phantom Jesuits is responsible for what many people refer to as the “New World Order” has gained a lot of currency on the Internet. But is it true? Thomas Fitzpatrick writes, “Much of the popularity of the Jesuit meme is due to dupes, especially in conspiracy circles, who mindlessly accept, without verifying, the Jesuit meme and then replicate it.” In this terrific essay, Fitzpatrick looks closely at foundations of the Jesuit conspiracy meme:

From attributing the creation of Zionism to an excommunicated Jesuit named Franciso Ribera to blaming the rise of Hitler and Nazism on the Church, there is no place the Jesuit memers won’t go. It borders on clownish with absurd claims that the Jesuits sunk the Titanic, created Islam, and assassinated John F. Kennedy. Of course, the grand proof they present of this alleged Jesuit conspiracy is Jewish Adam Weishaupt’s (founder of the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati) education under the Jesuits—something these Jesuit memers almost always bring up. Hypocrisy runs deep among these anti-Catholics, as they say in one breath that it is wrong to blame one group of people (especially Jews) and in the next breath they blame all the world’s problems on the Church. These clowns must have low regard for their audience for them to believe their blatant double standard goes unnoticed.

One hand tied behind the back

Before I go on here, I want to point out that this is not to absolve the Catholic Church of clerical abuses and legitimate corruption within it. And, of course, there is the heretical Second Vatican Council that has been foisted upon Catholics, which further maligns the legitimate faith and demonizes (at least in Protestant eyes) Catholics in general. This council is the handcuff that has one hand of the Church behind its back—done so that She would not be able to defend herself against the Judeo-Masonic onslaught going on. With the Church on the ropes, so to speak, the Jesuit meme is a sucker punch. 


Proponents of the Jesuit conspiracy meme

Based on their worldview, the Jesuit conspiracy meme is a convenient scapegoat and tool of self-deception for several groups, including but not limited to:

Jewish groups, Zionists (Jewish and Protestant)
Seventh Day Adventists
New or naïve conspiracy researchers
New Agers
Evangelicals, fundamentalist Protestants, Calvinists
Freemasons, Enlightenment thinkers
Catholic haters

The idea that Jews are running the NWO is rather inconvenient for them and exposes them for what they are. You would be hard pressed to find a Jesuit memer who is the slightest bit anti-Zionist. Many of them also happen to endorse other irregular conspiracy theories, like that of “reptilians” and “death fakers”. Then there are some who pretend to be anti-Zionist but with the appendage that the Vatican is really behind the Zionists. The fact of the matter is, the idea that there exists a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has been a cultural belief for hundreds of years; whereas the Jesuit conspiracy is the counter-culture belief, in other words, the revolutionary belief. Furthermore, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory has a huge amount of evidence behind it while the Jesuit theory has next to none. Jesuit theorists count on memetic replication, because if one actually checks their claims against recorded history, they theorists will be revealed as frauds. Read more here.

Here’s a comment from Fitzpatrick’s site, Fitzpatrick Informer:

As you say the Jesuit meme serves several purposes: Firstly it’s a form of mealy-mouthed anti-Catholic propaganda. Those promoting it know that if they went around spouting constantly about the evils of the Catholic Church they’d come across as religious bigots and thereby get Catholics’ (and some non-Catholics’) backs up. So instead they spout disinfo about the Jesuits as a sort of remote control anti-Catholicism. Secondly, it’s a way of harnessing the power of the conspiracy movement against itself, in a sort of Judo manoeuvre. Unfortunately some in the anti-globalist conspiracy movement buy into a simplistic and nihilistic Punk rock version of history whereby “the establishment” are always the baddies. Such folk are low-hanging fruit for the anti-Jesuit disinfo agenda because they’re programmed to unthinkingly believe all western institutions of authority are by definition corrupt – most especially the Church. But the Catholic believer in conspiracy should reject this Pavlovian rebel rocker approach – and espouse counter-revolution and restoration – as opposed to revolution and destruction. The anti-Jesuit disinfo agents are fulfilling a Full Spectrum dominance agenda, whereby all sides – the Zio-Masonic mainstream media corrupt political establishment AND those supposedly opposing this cabal – disseminate the same anti-Catholic propaganda. As I’ve commented on this site before, it’s a tried and tested Cointelpro technique in Ireland – whereby the Sheeple are programmed to believe in the alleged power of “Catholic Secret Societies” such as Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus (the Jesuit meme doesn’t work as well in a formerly Catholic country like Ireland, where many folk – especially older people – would have encountered the Jesuits through churches and schools, and would therefore know the Order is the very opposite of a secret conspiracy. On the other hand most Irish people would know next to nothing about Opus Dei or the Knights and so would be prepared to believe any Masonic Disinfo they’re fed about these organisations).

Ghosts of Libertarianism's Past

via Radix

A few months ago Richard Spencer noted that for all the hate Libertarianism Inc. was giving Donald Trump, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard probably would have liked him and his candidacy quite a bit. Now that Rand Paul has dropped out, libertarians have largely abandoned electoral pursuits, and their institutions are going a bit schizophrenic, like Students for Liberty palling around with the likes of Pussy Riot and the insufferable George Will. Some of the old figures in what was termed "Paleolibertarianism" are even moving into the Trump camp. In light of all of this, let’s remind them that one of their most adored figures had quite a bit to criticize about the Current Year of his day.


Trump, despite obviously knowing many Jews in his elite New York City circles and having an adored daughter who converted to Judaism, is not afraid to tell the Republican Jewish Coalition:
“I don’t want your money, therefore you’re probably not gonna support me.”
Similarly, Murray Rothbard, despite being Jewish and having been immensely influenced by many Jewish intellectuals (Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand to name just two), delighted in skewering Jewish shibboleths:
Schindler’s List is a movie which has become not only Politically Incorrect but even to be less than worshipful about, since it purports to enable us, for the umpteenth time, to Learn About The Holocaust (the latter term always capitalized to emphasize solemnity and to assert its Absolute Uniqueness in the grisly world historical record of mass murder). And yet anyone who tries to Learn About History by going to a Hollywood movie deserves to have his head examined.

The Rich

Trump has become something of a “class traitor,” (as noted by everyone from the Weekly Standard to the New York Times) railing against the super rich, the job exporters, etc:
The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They're paying nothing and it's ridiculous. I want to save the middle class. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.
Murray Rothbard felt the same way. After flirting a bit with Ross Perot’s first presidential candidacy, in no small part because of its Middle American Radical trappings, but more on that later, Rothbard was livid Mr. Perot dropped out (before eventually jumping back in), and noted:
Never trust a billionaire. I have had personal experience of several billionaires, and this was the conclusion that has reluctantly but inexorably forced itself upon me. Never trust them; they are killers of the very dreams they themselves create.
And do not forget, of course, that those “several billionaires” Rothbard spoke of included the infamous libertarian Koch Brothers, who had fallen out with Rothbard decades earlier, and in a state of apoplectic shock of the rise of Trump.

David Duke

The infamous maestro of White identity electoral politics has said some nice things about Trump, much to the media’s delight. And while Trump has disavowed him, the similarities between the two men are undeniably there, and Trump sure was pleased to add Louisiana to his list of victories.

Rothbard in his day defended and even admired David Duke back when he was running for governor of Louisiana, writing in 1992:
It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that?


This one is simple, Trump has heroically slammed George W. Bush’s evil and moronic wars on the debate stage with other Republicans, and Rothbard never saw an anti-war alliance he did not like.

White Genocide and the Authoritarian Right

Trump has gotten plenty of flack for retweeting something an account called “White genocide” posted, along with retweeting Mussolini quotes.

Rothbard, it should be recalled, favored the Serbs in the Balkans wars, as a child trolled his Communist family by asking, “What’s so bad about [Francisco] Franco, anyway?”, and admired Joe McCarthy, writing in the early ‘90s:
The unique and the glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals or his ideology, but precisely his radical, populist means. For McCarthy was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly. And he did it on television, and without any real movement behind him; he had only a guerrilla band of a few advisers, but no organization and no infrastructure.
Remind you of anybody?

Pat Buchanan and the Segregationists of Yore

Trump is constantly being compared to Pat Buchanan, George Wallace, and the like. The implicit smears aside, there is a great deal of truth to this — ever hear about the Middle American Radical?

Rothbard excitedly endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and supported Strom Thurmond in his college days — not to mention his identification as a copper head.


Trump talks tough on crime — and is willing to talk about the racial and immigration dynamics behind it, do I even need to bother with a link here?

Rothbard wrote:
Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.


I would like to say, in sum, the Murray Rothbard was in many ways a lot more of an “alt-right-er” than Trump is today, and probably ever will be. Rothbard personally knew and corresponded with Sam Francis, kept company with Jared Taylor, he endorsed racial separation, and as pointed out earlier, he never disavowed David Duke. Regardless, there can be no doubt that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would be happily riding the Trump Train.

If that’s libertarianism, count me in.

What Type of Future Can Young Men Look Forward to?

via Return of Kings

On Christmas Day I spent time with four of my male cousins, ranging in age from 15 to 24. While I’m not quite their mentor, they are receptive to lessons I give them. With any man I talk to, I try to identify where he is in life and what his unique situation is to give advice that I think will help him reach his next goal. This year, however, I had trouble giving much in the way of advice or motivation.

The reason is because most roads today lead to dead ends, and I know this because I’ve pursued most of them. A man eventually gets spit out not that much farther from where he began.
  • I slept with dozens of girls around the world, but now I’m tired of it.
  • I traveled to two dozen countries, but now it’s boring because there’s nothing novel left to experience.
  • I make enough income to live a minimalist lifestyle indefinitely, but I don’t care for the comfort it gives me.
  • I’ve achieved a high level of fame and influence, with web sites that collectively served 88 million page views last year, but I’ve become accustomed to it. It’s no big deal.

Pursuing external experiences, objects, or sex with beautiful women made me joyous but only for a short period of time, and then I returned back to the same emotional level. Was it all a waste? Was it all for vanity? Whatever the answer, I surely can’t advise my young cousins to pursue hedonism, of banging hoes around the world for no other reason than to bang hoes, if it will fail to give them a lasting form of contentment. Instead, I could advise them to search for deeper meaning in life.
  • Dedicate yourself to God
  • Find a woman and have a big family with her
  • Give back to your community and make people’s lives better
These are better options, perhaps, but the times we live in will make them difficult to pursue. A God-fearing man would have to build high walls against the never-ending barrage of degenerate messages and sinful temptation that surround him. Raising a big family would provide a man with meaning as long as his wife didn’t take advantage of laws that encourage her to destroy the family and make the man financially destitute, and as long as the state doesn’t interfere in the raising of his children. Giving to others brings joy, as I can personally vouch for, but who exactly do you give to when your neighbor is from Somalia or Guatemala, and who may not even speak English, or when you’re actively being displaced and marginalized by your own government?


With concerted efforts to destroy God, family, tribe, and nation, my cousins will find it a great challenge to encounter a meaningful path, especially since they were programmed from a young age to be weak, victimized, feminine, dependent, collectivist, and fearful. I have no doubt that they can transcend that programming, but I’m sure you agree with me that the path to self-awareness and independence has become difficult and dark in a way that it wasn’t for men of the past. My cousins will be isolated and attacked along their path. They’ll receive no mainstream support. Is this the road I want to send them down, a life of truth but filled with constant battle and vigilance?

In the modern age, a life of meaning for men is impossible to achieve without also having to perpetually fight. It will take the mentality of a warrior to defeat the forces that want to hold us back today, and I wouldn’t put any man in this fight unless it’s a fight that he wants. So this Christmas, I didn’t give much guidance to my cousins. I gave practical advice, but nothing substantial or revolutionary, because I know that unless a man believes deep in his soul that hope and meaning is out there, that a good future can be made for him, there is little that can be done. I’ll keep an eye on them and see how they develop, but wait for them to come to me with a decision that they much rather take the far more difficult path.

Headlines from a Just and Rational Future

via Koinen's Corner

No, we will never live in a perfect world. But wouldn't it be nice if someday soon we could have a much improved, more just and truthful, more refined and civilized world in which people, and especially those in power, did the right things?  A world in which we might see the following headlines, and others just as proper and refreshing, on a daily basis?

Fantasy?  Maybe so, for the time being, but no harm in playing with the concept -- let's at least have a little fun with it.  Speaking for myself, it would restore my faith in society and government, and give me a lift, if I could wake up some morning and read one or more of the following headlines in the newspaper or online:

U.S. Vows to Stop Instigating and Fighting Mid-East Wars to Benefit Israel

U.S. to Stop Giving Israel $ Billions Per Year in Foreign (Military) Aid and Loan Guarantees

New N.E.A. Administration:  American Public Schools to Start Teaching High School Students Truth about Jewish Involvement in Causing World War II

Historians Now Agree -- The Real Villains of WW II Era Were Stalin and His Jews, Churchill and His Jews, and Roosevelt and His Jews; Not German Patriot Adolf Hitler

International Court of Justice: World's Jews to Pay $6. Trillion for 20th-Century Mass Murders, Warmongering, and as Jewish So-Called 'Holocaust' Scam Reparations

New Government '9/11' Commission Report Exposes Israeli (Mossad) Involvement in 2001 World Trade Center Controlled Demolitions and Pentagon Attack

Supposed Political Lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee ) Found to be Operating Illegally as Agent of Foreign Power; Operations Shut Down Across the Board and Assets Frozen; Indictments Expected

New Election Anti-Corruption Laws Bar Jewish (and Other) Billionaires from Buying Candidates and Votes

Organized Jewry Named as Principal Cause of Degenerate Deterioration of America's Popular Culture; Corrective Restrictions Foreseen

Congress Passes Law Aimed at Preventing Jewish Control of U.S. News and Other Media

Fugitive Angela Merkel Captured; To Be Tried for Treason for Her Attempted Genocide of the German People

Jewish 'Holohoax' Lies and Deception to Yield to Teaching of Truth in U.S. Schools Starting When Schools Open In Fall

Last U.S. 'Holocaust' Indoctrination Center Demolished

More Public School Instructors in U.S. Dismissed for Teaching Jewish So-Called 'Holocaust' Propaganda (Lies)

World Court Finds Israel Guilty of International Terrorism

Racial Differences in Intelligence and Behavior Proven Beyond Doubt to Result From Genetic (DNA) Variances

More Than 90 Percent of American Whites Now Accept Well Established Scientific Truths of Racial Inequalities

Supreme Court Rules Anti-White Affirmative Action and Non-White Racial Preference Laws Unconstitutional

Obama Impeached for Conspiring to Deprive White American Majority of Their Civil Rights

Next-to-Last Negro in Chicago Shot and Killed by Fellow 'Black-Lives-Matter' Activist -- Shooter Says He 'Dindu Nuffins'

Detroit Sues Federal Government for Monetary Aid More on Par with That Provided Annually to Haiti and Several African Nations (Several Other Majority-Black U.S. Cities Expected to Join Litigation Once They Figure Out How To File Paperwork)

Bill Clinton Pleads Guilty to Anti-White Racism Charges

Obama Convicted of Treason in Presidential Eligibility and Credentials-Fraud Case

All George W. Bush and Richard Cheney 9/11 and Iraq War Treason Convictions Upheld Yesterday in Court of Appeals Ruling

In Order To Avoid Feeling Stigmatized Based on Their Sexual Identity and Practices; Queers, Lesbos, Pedos, Trannies, and Some Others Can Now Simply Check 'It' on Their Census and Tax Forms

And last but not least...

Congress Passes Long-Awaited 'Malicious Email Spam and Telemarketing Death-Penalty Act'

Sea Changes

via Western Spring

The fall of the Left/Liberal consensus has long been anticipated by those on our side of politics; the Left is devoid of ideas and originality, all of its nostrums have been tested to destruction and the consequences – societal breakdown – are all around us. The empty husk waits only for a fresh, strong, breeze to blow it out of the positions of power and influence which it still occupies by sheer inertia. Alex Kurtagic once forecast that we might not realise that the great change had come about until afterwards, and perhaps that’s how it always is with great but slow change which has little perceivable impact on the everyday life of people.
Janet Daley, whose articles in the Telegraph I always read with interest, wrote about the Trump candidacy the other day. She very obviously dislikes Mr. Trump, which is fair enough – I doubt if many of us would care to spend much time in his company – but she surprised me with her rejection, not of his person but of his politics. She went on to endorse in glowing terms the centrist, establishment candidate, Rubio. On reflection I realised that Janet’s views had not changed with the passage of time; it is the political atmosphere which has changed around her and left her behind, and she has only just realised it.

Janet Daley would probably describe herself as a “conservative”, which in the post-sixties world has come to mean one who is not really conservative at all but actually a classical liberal – as liberal on social matters as on economic. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has managed to hit what one commentator has described as “the sweet spot” – maximising public support by combining populist economic policies with socially conservative ones. It is that sweet spot, that populist combination,  which has led to him being described as a “national socialist” – needless to say he is not the kind of national socialist who stamps around in jack boots (at least I hope not) but he is the kind who puts his own people first, realising that a nation needs to be safe –  its borders protected from foreign intrusion and its economy from unfair foreign competition. Not only has Trump been described as a national socialist but very interestingly, and perhaps as a direct consequence, he is said to be the most left wing of the remaining Republican contenders, capable of picking up White voters from Bernie Sanders should he lose the Democratic nomination to Mrs. Clinton.

So has the sea change happened? It certainly seems as if in the United States the days of interchangeable centrist candidates  (how did Bush differ from Clinton on anything that matters ?) may be passing. What about elsewhere? The EU, a centrist establishment project if ever there were one, is creaking alarmingly under the stresses and strains of its doomed Euro currency and a suicidal immigration policy. Out of the mess, new forces rise both on the ultra Right and on the far Left and it is those forces which will find themselves picking up the pieces if and when the EU project falls apart. Even here in the UK, we see a pale reflection of the continental sea change in the rise of Farage and Corbyn – much more significantly, in the referendum we now have a chance not only to unshackle ourselves from a corpse, but to dig a grave for the remains.

It is, though, an oddity of Britain, and particularly of England, that we have always rather prided ourselves on being a mild and moderate people, not given to continental or American excess and avoiding all trace of extremism in our politics. That means that if and when we throw off the shackles of the EU and recover control of our borders, most people will be satisfied; there will be little appetite to go further by reversing the dispossession of our people from so much of our country, the appetite will rather be for integration and assimilation. In that appetite lies a very great danger for our racial and cultural identity and that is why we as racial nationalists, profoundly though we must hope for our country’s liberation from the EU, must never slacken in our determination to recover every inch of our country for ourselves alone. No “mild and moderate” for us!

Anti-White Violence against Trump Will Make America Turn Right, as It Did in ’68


Friday evening’s Donald Trump rally in Chicago was broken up by a foul-mouthed mob that infiltrated the hall and forced the cancellation of the event to prevent violence and bloodshed.

Brownshirt tactics worked. The mob, triumphant, rejoiced.

And the reaction of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich?

All three Republican rivals blamed—Donald Trump.

With his “dangerous style of leadership,” Trump stokes this anger, mewed Rubio, “This is what happens when a leading presidential candidate goes around feeding into a narrative of bitterness and anger and frustration.”

Rubio implies that if Trump doesn’t tone down his remarks to pacify the rabble, he will be responsible for the violence visited upon him.

Kasich echoed Rubio: “Donald Trump has created a toxic environment (that) has allowed his supporters and those who sometimes seek confrontation to come together in violence.”

But were the thousands of Trump supporters who came out to cheer him that night really looking for a fight? Or were they exercising their right of peaceful assembly?
Cruz charged Trump with “creating an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord,” thus offering absolution to the mob.

Friday night cried out for moral clarity. What we got from Trump’s rivals was moral mush that called to mind JFK’s favorite quote from Dante: The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

As news outlets have reported, Friday’s disruption at the University of Illinois-Chicago auditorium was a preplanned assault.

Behind it were the George Soros-funded, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Hispanics hoisting Mexican flags and cop-haters carrying filthy signs to show their contempt for police.

Above an injured Chicago policeman–Chicago
PD were told not to wear helmets,
because of “optics”

People for Bernie, a pro-Sanders outfit, tweeted, “[This] wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work.”

Now, Sanders did not order this assault on the civil rights of Trump supporters. But has endorsed him and “Bernie” signs and T-shirts were everywhere among the disrupters. Hence, he has a duty to disavow this conduct and those who engaged in it.

If Sanders refuses, he condones it, and is morally complicit.

Can one imagine how the media would pile on Trump if working-class white males in Trump T-shirts invaded a Hillary Clinton rally and shut it down?

Can one imagine how the networks and cable TV channels that host town halls with the candidates would react if hell-raisers snuck into their audiences and shouted obscenities during discussions?

The keening over the First Amendment would not cease for weeks.

Some of us have been here before, and know how this ends.

When the urban riots broke out in the ’60s, Hubert Humphrey declared that, if he lived in a ghetto, “I could lead a pretty good riot myself.”

At his 1968 convention in Chicago, radicals baited and provoked the cops in the front of the Conrad Hilton, and as this writer watched, their patience exhausted after days of abuse, Chicago’s finest tore into the mob and delivered some street justice.

“Richard Nixon,” wrote Hunter S. Thompson, “is living in the White House today because of what happened that night in Chicago.”

Hunter got that one right.

That fall, Humphrey was daily assailed by the kinds of haters now disrupting Trump rallies. Everywhere he went, they chanted, “Dump the Hump!” At times, Humphrey came close to tears.

That fall, Humphrey realized the monster he helped nurture.

My tormentors, he said, are “not just hecklers, but highly disciplined, well-organized agitators … some of them are anarchists, and some of these groups are destroying the Democratic Party and destroying this country.”

In 1970, when President Nixon sent U.S. troops into Cambodia to clean out Viet Cong sanctuaries, and students rioted, Ronald Reagan called them “cowardly fascists,” and declared, “If there’s going to be a bloodbath, let it begin here.”
Not much Cruz-Rubio-Kasich equivocating there.

Photo Credit: Henry Gordillo, who was there.When radicals stomped down Wall Street desecrating Old Glory, construction workers came down from the building sites they were working and whaled on them.
Union president Peter J. Brennan was soon in the Oval Office—and in Nixon’s Cabinet. “Secretary Bunker,” we called him.
Prediction. Given their “victory” in Chicago, and its allied nasties will try to replicate it, again and again. And as Americans came to despise the ’60s radicals, they will come to despise them.

And, as in the 1960s, the country will take a turn—to the right.

America has changed from the land we grew up in. But she is not yet ready to allow ugly mobs screaming obscenities at Trump and his folks inside and outside that hall in Chicago, or their paragons like socialist senator Bernie Sanders, to take over the country.

Those raising hell in the street in Chicago and that convention hall are unfit to be citizens of this democratic republic.

For as Edmund Burke reminded us, “Men of intemperate minds can never be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

An Open Letter to Ben Shapiro

via Counter-Currents

Dear Ben,

First, I would like to thank you for standing up to leftist academics and the Black Lives Matter crowd over the “white privilege” canard. It was indeed a pleasure to see a mainstream, if somewhat vilified, pundit like yourself smashing a precious liberal trope in such a public and humiliating way. White nationalists, white advocates, and other race realists, I’m sure, all watched on with approval and enjoyed a sort of vicarious thrill as you quite literally spoke Truth to Power. But it was only vicarious because, unlike you, we are not even afforded a seat at the table. If we were to attempt spreading our ideas at universities or BLM meetings, we would be met promptly with mob violence. While they barely tolerate you (for now), they truly hate us.

Which leads me to the point of this letter: your vocal opposition to Donald Trump and the #NeverTrump movement you champion. Of course, you offer many arguments to support your position, and I plan to go through them here in order to debunk them and show you how you are missing the bigger picture on The Donald.

Your main argument, if I am understanding it correctly, goes like this:
  1. Donald Trump is not a consistent conservative. You prove this by pointing out his previous support of Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood, the Stimulus, campaign finance reform, the Assault Weapons Ban, and other non-conservative policies.
  2. By saying no to such a disingenuous candidate, conservatives can shape the GOP so that it will field true conservatives in the future. You support this by drawing a straight, cause-and-effect line from the defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the GOP’s rebellion against Gerald Ford in 1976 to the ascendency of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
  3. Therefore, true conservatives should never vote for Donald Trump lest he “destroy” conservatism and the hope for a conservative GOP in the future.
While point A is for the most part correct, you err with point B. First, Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because he was a fine statesman, a charismatic leader, an excellent debater, and was going up against a weak opponent in Jimmy Carter who had overseen some pretty rough economic times. Had any of these conditions been different, Reagan might not have won.

More importantly, America is much different demographically now than it was in the time between 1964 and 1980. I’m sure you have noticed that the proportion of whites in this country has decreased significantly since 1980. In 1980 the proportion of non-Hispanic whites was 79.6%. In 2014 it was 68.8% and shrinking fast. Given that the US government predicts that the Hispanic population will grow at the fastest rate (from 13.0% today versus 25.5% in 2060), that the Asian population will more than double (from 2% to 5%), and that the black population will hold steady at around 13%, we will have a significantly different future than what the Bill Buckley’s of the world could have dreamed of in 1964. In order for the GOP to be politically viable in this future, it will have to attract enough of these “brown” people to compete with a Democratic party which simply imports its constituencies. In the future, relying on the white vote just isn’t going to cut it.

What indication do we have that a return to conservativism would even be possible in such a landscape? And by “conservatism” I am using your definition of “small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility.” If we look at the Hispanics, the blacks, and the Middle-Eastern Muslims in their own parts of the world, nowhere do they share the same fealty to conservative principles that you do, Ben. In the vast majority of cases you find corrupt governments, crushing poverty, rampant crime, and unfathomable human rights abuses. In some senses, these people are more conservative than you are in that they seem to support strong, centralized, pre-Magna Carta-type governments that basically serve to enrich those who take part in it. Either that, or they are outright communists. From a distance these may seem like modern governments. They have constitutions, separate branches, court systems, elections, and the like. But really, these are only superficial similarities.

Your mistake, Ben, is to assume that large numbers of Hispanics, blacks, and Middle-Eastern Muslims will take to your brand of conservatism and reliably vote Republicans one day.  To put it bluntly, Ben, they will never get it. They never have in the past and, given their present nigh-socialistic voting record here in America, they never will. To people like Locke, Burke, the Founding Fathers, and other great political thinkers, government must allow for the most prosperity and provide the most safety for the most people. To the people who will one day inherit the Republican Party, government is mostly a tool with which to attack one’s opponents, bribe one’s constituency, and make one rich. That’s how it is in the Third World, and that’s how it will be when the Third World comes here.

So this #NeverTrump business is a killer, Ben. You say you are willing to risk a Hillary Clinton presidency in order for the GOP to spend another eight years in the wilderness finding its soul. But what will the Democrats do with the power you are so willing to cede them? They will invite even more brown people to immigrate to the US and they will grant amnesty to the ones that are already here illegally.

Democrats, liberals, leftists, whatever you want to call them, always rig the game in their favor. And the more “brown” people they bring in, the better. To them, we are the enemy. They understand that if diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means, then politics is the continuation of civil war by other means. And in politics, like in war, there is no substitute for victory.

So, why are you recommending a substitute for victory, Ben?

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz right now are the only candidates willing to hold back the brown tide (and, yes, that pun was intended). These two are the only ones that understand that unbridled immigration from the Third World is a bad thing. Maybe not from a race-realist perspective. But who knows? Maybe so. I understand that you like Cruz, but he is not the front-runner. He hasn’t captured the hearts and minds of Americans the way Donald Trump has. The voters just don’t want him as much as they want Donald Trump. And by disavowing Trump, you are not only expressing contempt for the millions of people who support him, you are also depressing the enthusiasm the remainder of the GOP may have on election day. Many of your readers and followers will either stay home or vote libertarian, with both outcomes making it easier for Hillary Clinton or (God help us) Bernie Sanders to win the election. And from that point, given our projected demographic changes, it will only be a matter of time before conservatives like yourself will lose all hope in winning the GOP nomination, let alone the White House.

Another question I would like to ask you: who is your counterpart on the left? What well-known and influential liberal pundit is out there saying #NeverHillary for her lies about Benghazi and her email scandal? What big shot left wing blogger is calling for #NeverBernie because he is a rabid socialist who wants to give away the store in order to bribe his constituency? Yes, these hashtags are out there, but they are tended to mostly by centrist Republicans or nobodies, and not by liberal pundits of your stature.

Now, why is that? It is because liberals aren’t stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot. In their minds, a bad Democrat excels a good Republican always.

So why are you shooting us in the foot, Ben? Why are you trying to sabotage our best hope to maintain a white majority in this country? Why can’t you realize that Donald Trump at his worst is still preferable to any Democrat at their best?

And I get that The Donald has flaws. I agree with your litany of them, so there is no need to recapitulate here. In many ways, a vote for Donald Trump is like a vote for Sonny Corleone. He’s a hothead; a big, swinging, d*ck, as it were. In a world in which the white majority in this country were not under threat, I probably wouldn’t vote for him either.

But as a thought-experiment, let’s analyze the Trump fiasco you predict. Suppose in the worst possible scenario, President Trump gives us higher taxes, higher unemployment, increased inflation, increased debt, increased Obamacare, reckless spending, unbalanced budgets, ham-fisted trade policies, greater restrictions on gun rights, and more funding for Planned Parenthood. If, in the face of such a catastrophe, President Trump were to simply follow through on his promises to 1) deport illegal immigrants, 2) build a wall between the US and Mexico, and 3) begin a precedent of banning Muslim immigration, it would be a net gain.

It will be a net gain because it will be the first step in stemming the tide of nonwhite demographic dominance. After a certain point, this tide will be irreversible. It will also be a net gain because it will issue a new age of mainstream white identity politics. It will signal the time when whites can once again be proud of who they are and what they have done to make this country great. And that includes contributing much to conservatism.

I implore you to dissociate yourself from #NeverTrump. Perhaps you should also apologize to the millions of people you have offended by not acknowledging even one good reason to support Donald Trump. Seriously, by not tipping your hat to any of The Donald’s good qualities, you’re basically saying that his millions of fans are idiots. This is what you’re supposed to do to Democrats, not Republicans.

What particular statements have you made that were so offensive? Here is a particular ripe one:

And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.

Crypo-racist”, eh? You find that worse than the overt anti-white racism of the left? You’ve experienced it yourself, Ben. How can you equate a few insults David Duke throws at you over Twitter with the near-riot that ensued at CSULA in which a mob of liberals tried to shut you down? And make no mistake, Ben, that happened because they see you as white, and you had the temerity to say things liberals disagree with.

“Quasi-tyrannical?” What does that even mean? Are you saying that, once elected, Trump will just take over and become a tyrant? Are you willing to stand by such a claim?

“Pseudo-strong?” Really? Are you not aware that Bernie Sanders is more concerned about fighting “Islamophobia” than fighting Islam? Are you not aware of Hillary Clinton’s humiliating apology tour after Benghazi? Our current president can’t even name our enemies as militant Muslims. Does this speak strength to you?  At least Donald Trump stands up for the truth when he says the Muslims hate us. At least he promises to ban at least some Muslim immigration. At least he says he’ll “bomb the sh*t” out of ISIS. Can you imagine any Democrat having chutzpah to speak like that?

And really, Ben, who would you rather have in the White House if there is another 9-11 attack? A Democrat who would respond with focus groups, hashtags, and James Taylor concerts? Or a guy like Donald Trump who won’t hesitate to go medieval on medieval people and get real vindictive about it too.

Oh, and you expressed concern that Donald Trump might order our military to commit war crimes. Would you consider 9-11 a war crime, Ben? How about the London bombings or the Madrid bombings or Boston Marathon bombings or the San Bernardino bombings? Were they war crimes? If we want to win this war on Islamic terror, sooner or later we are going to have to adopt the ruthless tactics of our enemies. Our enemies don’t seem to care too much about war crimes. So why should we? It’s not like ISIS is a signatory of the Geneva Convention.  So if this means overdoing it in some cases, good. It will save more lives in the long run. The point is never to prolong a war but to end it as quickly as possible.

Why are you trying to prolong the war on terror by opposing the one candidate not afraid to end it?

Anyway, I hope you come away from this letter knowing where you went wrong. Please reverse yourself and admit your mistakes. We will forgive you, I promise.

And yes, I understand that as a Jew you have been the recipient of a large amount of anti-Semitic attacks ever since swearing off Donald Trump. I know David Duke has given you a hard time. I am sorry you had to go through that. I have been condemned by liberals for being white, male, and straight enough times to sympathize. I am not going to call you a kike, Ben.

But I will remind you that for every Aaron Copland composition or Yehudi Menuhim recording out there, there were Jews from the Frankfurt School who worked for decades undermining traditional American values. For every successful Jewish department store chain, there were Jews behind the formation of the NAACP and other radical organizations that promote the poisonous lie of racial equality. For every polio and hepatitis B vaccine, there have been Jews dominating major Left-wing political organizations for over a century. For every Jewish high-tech entrepreneur, there have been Jews in government like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein and countless others who want to strip away our rights to defend ourselves and make it easier for us to abort our babies.

I could go on with both the good and the bad, Ben, and I recognize that Jews in America have enhanced our culture in many positive ways. But I think it is reasonable to assume from all this that Jews in government, the media, and academia tend not to like white Americans very much. We get scorned, ridiculed, and maligned by Hollywood. Our traditional values are constantly under attack by our own government. Whenever we have a conflict or altercation with nonwhites, we are treated with extreme suspicion in the mainstream press. We are forbidden to speak the truth about race and act in our own racial interests. And many of the people opposing us are wealthy, influential Jews. Is it anti-Semitic just to notice this, Ben?

So when another political pundit like yourself publicly disavows the first presidential candidate in recent memory whose promises actually coincide with the racial interests of white people, it makes perfect sense that some whites would respond by saying, “Here we go again. Another smarty-pants Jew in the media who hates us and wants to shove us into a corner.” I can’t go to bat for David Duke. But I can go to bat for the millions of Americans who share his pain and are too afraid or powerless to confront you about it.

So, I think there are two ways to solve this. You can recant your Trump bashing and dissociate yourself from this #NeverTrump business (and I hope that whatever anti-Semitism you have experienced coming from the right won’t impede your decision to do this).

Or you can do the following:

In forty years, when all the Muslims brought in by the Democrats you helped usher into power make it too hot for you, as a Jew, to live in America (as is currently the case for Jews in France), and you are forced to make the reasonable decision to flee to Israel, why don’t you take a few million of us white gentiles along with you? Because if it gets too hot for you, it will sooner or later get too hot for us as well.

Oh, what’s that you say? You can’t do that? Israel has walls to keep out illegal immigrants and laws to preserve its racial Jewish majority? Oh, right!

So, remind me again why we shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump?


Spencer Quinn

Trump or Death: Obama Blames Cultural-Marxist, Soros-Funded Violence on Trump

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Judge a man by his enemies, to understand his effectiveness.

Anonymous, George Soros, the Neocons, Social Justice Warriors and their allies in the entertainment industry, the Republican establishment, the Democrats, the mainstream media... just a partial list of those individuals/entities uniting to stop Donald J. Trump

And now, Barack Obama. ['It has to stop': Obama blames campaign-trail rhetoric for violence at Donald Trump rallies, Business Insider, 3-15-16]:
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that "vulgar and divisive" language was damaging America's reputation abroad and leading to violence at GOPfrontrunner Donald Trump's rallies.

"I'm not the only one in this room who's more than a little dismayed about what's been happening on the campaign trail recently," Obama said to a group of lawmakers at a Capitol Hill luncheon.

In a thinly veiled shot at Trump, Obama said offensive rhetoric had been aimed at women, minorities, and Americans who "don't look like us or pray like us or vote like we do."

Obama added, however, that protesters had engaged in "misguided attempts" to shut down that speech, adding that we "live in a country where free speech is one of the most important rights that we hold."

"In response to those attempts we've seen actual violence and we've heard silence from too many of our leaders," he said, before praising House Speaker Paul Ryan for decrying the divisive rhetoric. "Too often, we've accepted this as somehow the new normal. And it's worth asking ourselves what each of us has done to contribute to this vicious atmosphere in our politics."

"I suspect that all of us can recall some intemperate words that we regret," he continued. "Certainly, I can. And while some may be more to blame than others for the current climate, all of us are responsible for reversing it. For it is a cycle that is not an accurate representation of America, and it has to stop."

He made the statement not to be politically correct, he said, but to shed light on how "corrosive behavior" undermined "our democracy and our society and even our economy."

"This is also about the American brand," he said. "Who are we? How are we perceived around the world? The world pays attention to what we say and what we do."
American brand?

The entire world is trying to get to America or they are trying to pour into Europe, just so they can have a free slice of this American brand (courtesy of the dwindling white Americans/Europeans subsidizing it).

Anonymous, George Soros, the Neocons, Social Justice Warriors and their allies in the entertainment industry, the Republican establishment, the Democrats, the mainstream media... just a partial list of those individuals/entities uniting to stop Donald J. Trump.

Add Barack Obama to the growing list, a man whose time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. has inadvertently awoken millions to the reality of their own dispossession.

America is irredeemable: so who cares about the American brand?


Who cares?

What should be frightening to those managerial-elites currently piloting the ship of western civilization, steering it directly to eventual amalgamation with the rest of the world, is this: Trump dared come along at a precisely the right moment when people were ready for the next era of western civilization, not its undoing.

Give me Trump or give me death.

The Breitbart Defections: Was It all about Jewish Hostility toward Trump?

via The Occidental Observer

Lying antarian Jew Trump attacker,
Michelle Fields
Given the seismic events shaking up the American political scene, the resignation of a 28-year-old female journalist from Breitbart seems a trifling  matter indeed. But in fact it throws into sharp relief why the rise of Donald Trump has Jewish conservatives in an uproar.

It is a tangled tale that began when Michelle Fields claimed she had been roughly manhandled by Trump’s campaign manager in the crowd around the front-runner during his campaign in Florida. The charge led to counter-accusations, then more accusations. Video and photographic evidence was ambiguous, to say the least, and it did not help when it was revealed that Fields has a history of workplace dramas or that she has a book out in June.

This is when things began to get really messy. The editor of Breitbart, Joel Pollack, held off fully accepting Fields claim, subjecting it to proper scrutiny. Then he seemed to walk it back, suggesting in a follow-up Breitbart article that Fields had misidentified the alleged assailant.

Apparently enraged by the editor’s unwillingness to lend full-throated support, this triggered a mass resignation, led by Fields, her main supporter Ben Shapiro, and three other members of staff.

So far, so complicated, but this is where it gets really interesting because, as it now emerges, l’affaire Fields was really just the spark that set off long simmering internal divisions over Breitbart‘s support of Trump.

And what everyone has been to coy to mention is that those who walked out are not only bitterly opposed to Breitbart’s support of Trump, they are also mainly Jewish. While Fields herself is not Jewish, most of the other movers in this affair are, including the Washington Post reporter who claims he witnessed the incident.

Of the five journalists who have resigned from Breitbart, at least three  strongly identify as Jews and the fourth is probably Jewish. The fifth is Michelle Fields herself and she is of part Honduran descent. (Fields recently made the list of 9 Hot Jewish Republican Women. She then tweeted: “Very flattered, you guys. But I’m not Jewish.”)

A survey of the Twitter comments have made it clear that a simmering Jewish antipathy to Breitbart’s support to Donald Trump was the real reason behind the mass departure. Both Ben Shapiro and his father David, who wrote for the site under a pseudonym, and who has also resigned, are both Orthodox Jews and strong Israel supporters.

The two remaining resignations include the National Security correspondent Jordan Schachtel who, last year, removed the following tweet from his account: “With my German-Jewish heritage I will always remain a proponent for robust immigration.”
Schachtel’s resignation statement reveals the depths of his opposition to Trump.
“Some of us have been fighting behind the scenes against the party-line Trump propaganda for some time, but without any success, unfortunately.
Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign. I signed my contract to work as a journalist, not as a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network. As recent events have proven, there is no longer a point in trying to reform the company from within, so I must step aside with my dignity intact.”
A brief review of Schachtel’s journalism reveals a heavy focus on themes of interest to Jews. Here he is writing about a German pro-Israel group that supports Pamela Geller. Here he is writing about Al-Queda for Germany’s main anti-Semitism blog SearchlightHere he is writing for Breitbart about how PhD’s have been restored in Poland to Jews persecuted by the Germans.

The resignation statement of associate editor Jarrett Stepman too, revealed that it was antipathy to Breitbart‘s support of Trump that was behind the decision.
In my opinion we are working with or perhaps even taking direction from a presidential campaign, which is unacceptable journalistic behavior. I believe Breitbart News is becoming less of a news site and more of a propaganda organization dedicated to the Trump campaign.
Breitbart News has also now openly embraced the “Nationalist/Populist” viewpoint, which is in direct opposition to limited-government conservatism that channels the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It is becoming impossible for conservatives like myself to continue working for the organization, which now relentlessly pushes a perspective directly at odds with my fundamental beliefs.
No confirmation on whether Jarrett Stepman is Jewish, though his fiance Inez Feltscher certainly seems to be and she has written of how her parents fled Soviet totalitarianism in Poland. Stepman has written articles such as this one attacking Palestinians for setting light to an Israeli flag.

The important figures on the periphery of this story are strongly identified Jews as well.  One is the man who told Michelle Fields she had been manhandled by Trump’s campaign manager. He is Ben Terris, a Washington Post reporter.

Another prominent Jewish supporter of Michelle Fields is her boyfriend Jamie Weinstein  who is a prime mover in affair because, as editor of the Daily Caller, he was one of the first to reveal the allegations. He then accused the Trump team of being thugs.

(Another departure was of Kurt Bardella who appears to be of East Asian descent. He was not a staffer but a PR consultant. Again he cited his personal opposition to Trump meant it had been a decision he had been mulling over for some time.)

These divisions expose some of the contradictions that lie at the heart of right-wing Jewish activism. For Jewish conservatives are happy to make all the right noises when they wage war on political correctness; against campus feminists and Muslims – especially in defence of Israel — but when a real uncompromising warrior comes along who wants to tear down the cultural Left, defend the family, Christianity, and borders, that’s a quite different kettle of fish — especially when that warrior refuses to take campaign donations from organized Jewish groups.

Rightly, these same Jewish conservatives think that there is no telling where this will end.  Will this newly awakened White constituency look beyond the feminists and illegals to the real root of the problems that have brought the country down?

The indispensable Morgoth’s Review has mulled over all this and pointed out the strategems of the Jewish political right-wing:
In order to perpetuate [the narrative put forward by right-wing, Zionist Jews that the left and Islam are the source of America’s problems], it is necessary to allow Islam to be pilloried relentlessly, [and] we might also get some juicy articles about Black criminality which hint at race realism. In other words, the more Zionist leaning Jews on the Right have been throwing other protected groups under the bus for geopolitical gains and they have done this as being anti-Political Correctness, seemingly having forgotten why Political Correctness was invented.
But why be satisfied with the flabby gristle of feminism or the bloody pork chop of Islam when, in the distance, there’s a huge succulent rack of ribs called ”The Jewish Question” for the, newly awakened, dissident mind to grapple with? All it takes is a surge of confidence, or Donald Trump, and the masses begin to return to the source, and worst of all is that Jews such as Ben Shapiro can no longer count on the brain-inhibitor in the gentile mind to dissuade them because that would be “Politically Correct.”
The new stridency and confidence in the White constituency engendered by Trump has not gone unnoticed. As Shapiro himself has said at his own blog:
There is no question that a disquieting number of Trump supporters hate Jews as Jews. I have criticized President Obama in blunt fashion; I have defended Israel’s right to self-defense against the Palestinians consistently; I have bashed Ron Paul. I have never received the amount of anti-Semitic hate I currently do each day for the crime of criticizing The Great Trump. …
It’s not just me, of course. Jake Tapper of CNN now says he’s received anti-Semitic tweets “all day.” My friend Bethany Mandel, another orthodox Jew who opposes Trump, just bought herself a gun out of fear of unhinged Trump supporters. John Podhoretz of Commentary says he receives tweets consistently from “literally neo-Nazi White supremacists, all anonymous…I don’t think I can attribute being a supporter of Trump to being a validator or an expresser of these opinions, but something was let loose by him.” Noah Rothman of Commentary tweets, “It never ends. Blocking doesn’t help either. They have lists, on which I seem to find myself.”
This isn’t Trump’s fault. Politicians often have supporters they can’t stand and don’t control. But one thing is Trump’s fault: Trump has been reaching out to these supporters. They feel empowered by his rise not merely because they agree with his policies, but because of the language Trump uses and the people with whom he associates.
And that is what is really going on in the Breitbart affair — a yawning gulf between the two Jewish views on how to deal with Donald Trump. For the editor, Joel B Pollack, Trump is someone whom the Jews can work with and eventually control. For Ben Shapiro, Trump represents a huge danger to Jewish hegemony and must be stopped now. In other words the argument between Pollack and Shapiro revolves around the question that is as old as time itself, namely: Is it good for the Jews?

For Shapiro, Trump is guilty of this mysterious force known as “nationalist populism”  which is surely the establishment version of “dog whistling” and means that the grassroots ordinary folks are getting too big for their breeches.

It would be fair to say that most of the organized Jewish conservative community takes the Shapiro line. Across the Jewish media the kvetching is endless. Here, in an example from Forward, Noam Neusner cuts straight to the chase:
Donald Trump, the most likely Republican candidate for president, has built within our party the nearest thing America has ever seen to a European nativist working class political movement. Such movements, to put it mildly, have never been good for the Jews or allies of free thought and the free market.
Jewish Republicans are not slow to make the usual comparisons with Hitler and Neo-Nazis. For non-Jews like Glenn Beck in National Review, for whom the only issues are his vision of the constitution and the size of government, this was a wonderful chance to show their loyalty.

Despite Trump’s conciliatory noises towards the Jews, he seems to have very little support among the Jewish conservative community. What is interesting is that no-one doubts that Trump will stand by Israel. Rather, it is his giving a voice to the White dispossessed that is causing concern. Of course, all this is heavily coded as this article makes clear.
Instead, Trump is seen as a threat to the vision of a bigger, more inclusive GOP, which many leading Republican Jews have advocated.
“In order for us to become a party [of anyone] other than white men, we need to be reaching out,” Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, told the Forward. Coleman, an RJC board member who is supporting Graham’s primary bid, said, “I think Trump’s language and perspective is a long-term negative in terms of building the party.”
In the same article others are willing to be more explicit.
“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump,” said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. “It’s very off-putting and disturbing ….”
Trump has also drawn the backing of an enthusiastic contingent of white nationalists. “You’ll see it a lot on the Internet,” said Wurtzel, who is active on Twitter. In a New Yorker article published in late August, writer Evan Osnos quoted Richard Spencer, head of a white nationalist think tank, saying that Trump embodies “an unconscious vision that white people have — that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country.
Despite the thinness of Michelle Fields’ claims, the mainstream media is still backing her all the way provided she uses her new platform to bash the campaign of Donald Trump. But, given the thinness of her case, it may turn out that filing a police report on her “assault” may be her undoing.

In an incendiary article on his reactions to his former colleague,  Breitbar editor Pollack was described as “Shapiro’s friend and fellow Orthodox Jew.” That post was soon deleted but nobody in the know would have missed that reference to the real ethnic contours of what was happening.