How to Destroy Feminism, "Root & Branch"

 

It is well within our power.

Janice Fiamengo’s devastating new expose of feminism occasions some thoughts about how we might act upon her insistence that feminism is beyond reform or redemption and that it must be, as she says, “destroyed, root and branch”.

And if Dr Fiamengo’s book is not occasion enough, the trial of Lindsay Clancy for the gruesome murders of her own children — and perhaps even more, the chilling, mass-psychotic endorsement of those acts by both feminists (predictably) and millions of women under their influence — would seem to make the elimination of this deadly ideology an urgent imperative.

Dr Fiamengo’s scathing indictment of feminism sits atop mountains of less articulate discontent and legitimate anger. Even before the Clancy trial, the internet generally and the “manosphere” in particular were exploding with debates, arguments, and yes, enormous amounts of pointless chatter — all attesting to the ongoing breakdown of families, marriage, courtship, dating, sex, childbearing, childrearing, “relationships” generally between not only the sexes but also the generations, and finally, as she puts it, “civilization itself”. And now we might extend the list to basic human decency. This fear and anger proceeds from the growing realization that almost all of it results from feminist ideology.

Yet amid the growing consensus that feminism is a plague on our society, I also detect unbroken pessimism about the prospects that we can ever hope to rid ourselves of it. It is the most hazardous agenda of the left to criticize, and so hardly any effective opposition exists. From the quarters where we most expect resistance — conservatives and churches, for example — we find not only silence but active collaborators.

Dr Fiamengo herself refrains from offering solutions, and elsewhere she has expressed doubts about how to put an end to it. Others who attribute impending civilizational collapse to feminism are likewise at a loss to offer much hope. Another harsh academic critic of feminism, Dr Danielle Sulikowski (likewise recently interviewed on The Mansplainers), whose intriguing anthropological theory attributes civilizational decline to dysfunctional, feminist-inspired sexual dynamics, often ends her video interviews saying she sees no hope in checking the trends she describes and admits she can offer no remedies.

All this comes alongside a broader consensus that is now emerging in many fields of public affairs, perhaps most notably international politics, that contemplates the catastrophic decline of western global hegemony and even western civilization itself — predictions likewise frustratedly devoid of solutions. Seldom does this larger consensus connect the decline to sexual trends such as feminism (at least not openly), but the final result is the same.

So, can we really be rid of this pestilence?

Yes, and it is actually simple; it may even happen without our conscious or active effort. Feminism can be eradicated, unlike the way it imposes itself, without resorting to authoritarian measures or censorship or infringing anyone’s personal freedom.

It is true that little will be achieved by traditional political methods: voting, letter-writing, lobbying, litigation. Nor by engaging with the vast, largely feminine media industry catering to feminists and conveying chit-chat about “relationships”, he-said/she-said, celebrity gossip, other gossip, and similar self-indulgences.

Fortunately, the chatter is now superfluous. Janice has exposed the horrors of feminism — radical, liberal, “moderate”, socialist, the lot. Armed with this book, and a few others like it (many of which she cites),¹ the rest of us can concentrate our energy on using the power men still possess, not to complain about the problem but, as men have always done, to solve it.

What Is Needed

Breaking the back of feminism requires that men regain control of the two things that give women and feminists power: sex and children. Men can exercise their natural leadership role and free themselves, women, and their societies from the feminist-driven trainwreck by taking back their authority over the two things that naturally “empower” women and give feminists the leverage to inflict their tyranny over men and the rest of the society: sexuality and the reproductive system. These were the first things that feminists learned to control before they came to control, as Fiamengo shows, almost everything else.

Once men regain control over these two things, everything else will fall into place. Men’s secondary grievances will be easier to rectify. We can then all resume normal lives: finding mates, raising families, rebuilding our deteriorating civilization. We can even once again (strange as it may be to say) entrust children to the care of women.

Here Is How

So how do men regain their control over sex and reproduction? The first is relatively easy and provides the means to the second. In fact, many men have already embarked on this path without realizing it. They just need to do so with more determination and purpose.

Men can regain control over the terms of sex just like women do: by withholding it; by sexual self-control. This is already being provided spontaneously by the Marriage Strike: men’s impromptu boycott of marriage, families, and women generally. This is the larger importance of MGTOW, “incels”, and healthy versions of demands for male self-reliance. This trend is already starting to bite, which is why feminists and tradcons are so annoyed by it.

This in turn provides the leverage men need to re-establish iron-clad rights and authority over their children. Prior to the modern state’s quasi-totalitarian intrusion into private family life, this authority could just be assumed, not only by law, but simply through superior male strength. Nowadays, under the overweening state that effectively supersedes and neuters that strength, it is called “custody”, and it is bestowed by overmighty functionaries, from whom it can be re-acquired only by influencing or controlling the state power, which means taking it back from women and feminized men. Men must therefore use the leverage they are now steadily acquiring from the Marriage Strike to single-mindedly demand custodial authority over all children born within a legally binding marriage contract.

But demands must be backed by strength. Enough women can be persuaded to surrender their monopoly over reproduction, and even enlist themselves as allies to enact laws restoring paternal authority – but only if they are deprived of husbands and male attention for a time. Men exercising sufficient sexual self-control to boycott marriage and families are building the leverage they need to regain control over the reproductive system.

Those with public voices must be the ones to make clear to the world — including women, tradcons, churches, media, and the judicial/bureaucratic authorities — that these are the terms that men demand before they will return to engagement with women, mating, reproduction, and the rest. And they are the terms for resolving those manifestations of the crisis that agitate even the political class and mainstream media: birth dearth, fatherlessness, crime, shootings, plus many more ills from which they avert their eyes and hold their tongues but that lie within our power to remedy.

These conditions are not my opinion. The existing trend shows that they are a matter of objective fact.

Scolding and nagging and demonizing men are pointless. Nothing will change until the injustices of the custody machine are rectified. Change the laws and clean up the courts, and women — along with men, and children, and entire societies — will once again have families, along with the blessings and benefits that accrue from them: an abundance of happy and well-adjusted (and safe) offspring, social stability, law-and-order, economic prosperity, political freedom, constitutional rights, an enduring civilization.

Once men regain their authority over reproduction, feminism will wither. The cat women can still rant on about “inequality,” “wage gaps,” “male violence,” even “reproductive rights”, and whatever petty “unfairness” they care to concoct (“himpathy”? “gender washing”?), but no one will care. With fathers firmly ensconced as heads of their families, the cat women can no longer recruit massive numbers of teenage girls, and they will gradually age out of the population.

Is that not a pleasant thought?

1
An important virtue of this book is that Fiamengo is a professional scholar and cites sources. This is important not only for fairness but because it establishes a body of literature and shows the world that she did not dream all this up last week. Unlike our Tweets, this book and its documentation does not join a gazillion others out there in cyberspace. Politicians, judges, media, other scholars cannot dismiss it as some passing fad. Fiamengo cites a rich body of high-quality literature, published in mainstream publications and going back at least three decades, much of which is in danger of being forgotten. Some authors sacrificed enormously for their honesty, and some were so burned that they turned to other topics and never looked back: University of Arizona psychologist Sanford Braver’s book on divorced fathers; Helen Smith on the Marriage Strike; Melanie Phillips’ scathing book on gender politics; Cathy Young’s numerous articles on fathers and feminism, including a cover story in the The American Spectator; Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young’s books on misandry; plus more recent authors like William Collins, author of The Empathy Gap. She also cites my books, especially Taken Into Custody, where I likewise try to cite the many brave scholars and journalists who risked and often sacrificed their careers to challenge the injustices against fathers and children: Daniel Amneus on father custody; John Waters, who used (and gave up) his post on the mainstream Irish Times to expose the injustices; Kathleen Parker, who wrote a good book on men before being bought off by a cushy job at the Washington Post; Donna Laframboise’s series of exposes of domestic violence shelters in another mainstream newspaper; Canadian Senator Anne Cools’ outspoken criticisms of feminism; anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly, who single-handedly defeated the Equal Right Amendment and who valiantly took up the cause of fathers against resistance from her own organization. (I know I have omitted some who deserve mention.)

Links in the original article

StephenBaskerville.com

"Modify the standards of the in-group”: On Jews and Mass Communications

“To be successful, mass propaganda on the behalf of out-groups would have to modify the standards of the in-group.
Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.[1]

“The whole story is transparently barmy.” This is what Guardian journalist Jason Wilson had to say in a 2015 article discussing “conspiracy theories” about Cultural Marxism. Barmy, for the uninitiated, is a British informal adjective with the meanings “mad; crazy; extremely foolish.” Wilson continues by attempting to explain “the whole story”:

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think … The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

Re-reading this article recently, I wondered what Mr Wilson would say if I told him I possessed a document wherein an influential Jew linked to Marcuse and Adorno unambiguously sets out a scheme for the capture of the media, the mass brainwashing of White populations with multicultural propaganda, the manipulation of in-group culture to make it hostile to its own sense of ethnocentrism, the spreading of a culture of political correctness, and, ultimately, the co-option of the West by small ethnic clique pursuing its own interests under the guise of “promoting tolerance.” I wonder what he’d say if I told him the same Jew operated a network of hundreds, if not thousands, of other Jewish intellectuals engaged in the same single task — unlocking a psychological “backdoor” to White culture in order to completely reorient it. I think I’m correct in assuming that Mr Wilson would call me “barmy,” and accuse me of regurgitating the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I suspect he would believe I’m a fantasist and an anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist. I know he’d dismiss even the possibility that such a document might actually exist. And yet it does exist.

The Intellectual Context

It’s quite possible that none of you have heard the name Samuel H. Flowerman, but I can say with certainty that you all, in a sense, know him nonetheless. If you’re even remotely familiar with the Frankfurt School, then you’re familiar with one aspect of his work. And, as we will soon discuss, if you find yourself living in a culture brainwashed into self-hatred then you’re familiar with another, though related, aspect of his work. Flowerman, it must be conceded, has been largely forgotten by history. He lurks in larger shadows left by “the exiles.” But Flowerman was in some respects as crucial a member of the Frankfurt School circle as any other. Of course, he wasn’t German-born. Nor was he a member of the Frankfurt School for Social Research. Instead, he was born in Manhattan in 1912, the grandson of a jeweler who arrived by ship from Warsaw’s Jewish district in 1885. And yet he would later achieve enough influence within his own group, as both activist and psychologist, to act as Research Director for the American Jewish Committee, and, most famously of all, to direct and co-edit the Studies in Prejudice series with Max Horkheimer.

For most who have in fact heard of him, this is perhaps the greatest extent of their knowledge of Flowerman. But for an accident, it would certainly represent the limits of mine. Very recently, however, I was conducting some research on Jewish activism in the cultural background preceding Brown v. Board of Education, and found myself, as I have so many times before, tumbling down the proverbial rabbit hole. After initially focusing on the figures of Jonathan Kozol and Horace Kallen (whose influence extends well beyond the popularisation of what he coined “cultural pluralism”), I came across a 2004 article in the Journal of American History by Howard University’s Daryl Scott titled “Postwar Pluralism, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Origins of Multicultural Education.”[2] Scott mentioned Flowerman because of the latter’s desire (pre-Brown) to inject theories derived from Studies in Prejudice into the education system, believing that moulding children was one of the best methods to achieve long-term and sustained socio-cultural change [see here for evidence the policy is continued to this day by the ADL].

Flowerman, a fan of post-Freudian psychoanalysis, possessed a background in both the study of education and of mass communication, and this heavily informed his thinking and activism.[3] In particular, he was doubtful that mass propaganda could, by itself, directly affect significant change among the White masses and make them abandon their “prejudice and latent authoritarianism” [i.e. acknowledging their own ethnic interests]. He was fascinated instead by the way peer group pressure exerted influence on the individual school children he had studied, along with the potential influence of teachers as shapers of minds as well as mere educators. For example, in a 1950 article for New York Times Magazine titled “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” Flowerman argued that, in order to produce “personalities less susceptible to authoritarian ideas, we must learn how to select better teachers and to train them better; we must see them as engineers of human relations instead of instructors of arithmetic and spelling.”[4]

The combined result of his research and thinking in these areas was his argument that it should be desirable for people like him to obtain control over the means of mass communication. Not only, argued Flowerman, should this control be used for blanket “pro-tolerance” propaganda, but it should also actively reshape in-group standards — thus reforming peer group pressures to become antagonistic to in-group ethnocentrism. His (then) highly ambitious goal was a culture that policed itself: a politically correct culture in which Whites, via peer pressure, conformed to new values — values much more user-friendly to Jews. His views and goals were later summarized by Herbert Greenberg, a colleague and co-ethnic in the same field, in 1957:

Flowerman de-emphasized the value and effectiveness of propaganda as a technique for reducing prejudice. He also agrees with the conception that techniques based on group structure and inter-personal relationships are the most effective.[5]

Flowerman and Greenberg were just two members of what was effectively a series of interlinked battalions of Jewish psychologists and sociologists operating with a kind of religious fervour in the fields of “prejudice studies,” opinion-shaping, and mass communications between the 1930s and 1950s, all with the goal of “unlocking” the White mind and opening it to “tolerance.” In a remarkable invasion (and creation) of disciplines similar to the Jewish flood into the medical and race sciences in the 1920s and 1930s, Jews also flooded, and then dominated, the fields of opinion research and mass communications — areas of research that overlapped so often under Jewish scholars like Flowerman that they were practically indistinguishable.

Even a quick review of lists of Past Presidents reveals that Jews were vastly over-represented in, if not dominated, the membership and presidencies of both the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and the World Association of Public Opinion Research (WAPOR). And of the four academics considered the “founding fathers” of mass communication research in America, two (Vienna-born Paul Lazarsfeld and Kurt Lewin) were Jews. Of the two European American founding fathers, most of Harold Lasswell’s graduate students were Jewish[6] (e.g., Daniel Lerner, Abraham Kaplan, Gabriel Almond, Morris Janowitz, and Nathan Leites) and he also sponsored the Institute for Social Research’s project on anti-Semitism.[7] The fourth, Carl Hoveland, had an equally Jewish coterie around him at Yale, where he operated a team of researchers along with Milton Rosenberg and Robert Abelson. Historian Hynek Jeřábek notes that Lazarsfeld’s influence in particular can’t be understated — by 1983, seven years after his death, “the directors of social research at the three largest media networks in the United States, CBS, ABC, and NBC were all his former students.”[8] Another Jew, Jay Blumler, has been called “a founding father of British media studies.”[9]

In fact, the Jewish dominance of the study of public opinion (and the potential for its manipulation) simply can’t be overstated. In addition to those already named, Joseph Klapper, Bernard Berelson, Fritz Heider, Leo Bogart, Elihu Katz, Marie Jahoda, Joseph Gittler, Morris Rosenberg, Ernest Dichter, Walter Weiss, Nathan Glazer, Bernard J. Fine, Bruno Bettelheim, Wallace Mandell, Hertha Hertzog, Dororthy Blumenstock, Stanley Schachter, David Caplovitz, Walter Lippmann, Sol Ginsburg, Harry Alpert, Leon Festinger, Michael Gurevitch, Edward Shils, Eugene Gaier, Joseph Goldsen, Julius Schreiber, Daniel Levinson, Herbert Blumer, I. M. A. Myers, Irving Janis, Miriam Reimann, Edward Sapir, Solomon Asch, and Gerald Wieder were just some of the hundreds of highly influential academics working in these fields that were born into Jewish families, associated heavily with other Jews, contributed work to Jewish organizations, married Jews, and yet concerned themselves with a degree of fanaticism with White opinion and ethnocentrism in America. This is to say nothing of their graduate students, who numbered in the thousands.

Despite some superficial differences in the titles of “opinion research,” “prejudice studies,” and “mass communications,” these academics all worked with each other to some degree, if not directly (in organisations or in co-written studies or papers) then via mutual associations. For example, it is a matter of historical fact that, in addition to three of the four founding fathers of mass communications research being Jews, all three were also very intimately involved with the Frankfurt School and the broader Jewish agenda to ‘adapt’ public opinion. Paul Lazarsfeld and Kurt Lewin, the two gurus of mass communication, together attended a 1944 conference on anti-Semitism organized by the research department of the American Jewish Committee (headed by Samuel H. Flowerman) and the Berkeley faction of the Frankfurt School in exile (headed by Theodor Adorno).[10] David Kettler and Gerhard Lauer also point out that Lazarsfeld was in regular communication with Max Horkheimer, was “strongly supportive of the Horkheimer Circle and its work,” and even furnished the latter with “notes and recommendations for the Horkheimer Circle’s unpublished ‘Anti-Semitism Among American Labor.’”[11] He was also a colleague at Columbia with and close confidante of, Leo Lowenthal.[12] By the late 1940s, Lazarsfeld’s ex-wife and mother of his child, Marie Jahoda, had even come to act as an American Jewish Committee liaison between Horkheimer and Samuel H. Flowerman, and co-wrote a number of articles on “prejudice” with Flowerman in Commentary.

One should by now begin to see clear connections forming between the American Jewish Committee, the Frankfurt School, “prejudice studies,” Jewish dominance of the academic field of “mass communications,” and, finally, the flow of influence from this field into the mass media (most clearly in the positions at CBS, ABC, and NBC quickly obtained by Lazarsfeld’s students). These connections will be important later.

A reasonable working hypothesis for such a sudden concentration of mutually networking Jews (often from different countries) in these areas of research would be that Jewish identity and Jewish interests played a significant part in their career choices, and that the trend was then accelerated by ethnic nepotism and promotion from within the group. Jeřábek appears to concur when he states that “Paul Lazarsfeld’s Jewish background, or the fact that many people around him in Vienna were Jewish, can help to explain his future affinities, friendships, or decisions.”[13] Setting aside the deep historical context of conflict between Jews and Europeans, a contingent and contemporary explanation might be that Jews were moved into fields involving mass opinion and perceptions of prejudice because they were deeply disturbed by the rise of National Socialism.

A more general, but, perhaps more convincing explanation considering their activities over time, is that these Jews were in fact disturbed by any form of ethnically defined and assertive White host culture. For example, some of the foreign-born academics listed above, such as Marie Jahoda and Ernest Dichter, had even been arrested and detained in pre-Anschluss, pre-National Socialist Vienna as cultural and political subversives in the early 1930s. They then made their way to the United States or the United Kingdom where they more or less continued the same behavior. It is highly likely that these individuals sought both to understand and change the mechanics of opinion and mass communications in their host populations in order to make it more amenable to Jewish interests. When they were effectively exiled from one host population they merely transplanted their ambitions to a new one. The only alternative hypothesis, long used in Jewish apologetics for any similar instance of Jewish over-representation, is that huge numbers of mutually networking Jews convened in these disciplines purely by accident. Nathan Cofnas and Jordan Peterson, for example, might argue that Jews accidentally entered these areas of study en masse simply because they possessed high IQs and liked living in cities.

The problem with such reasoning is that the work produced by these academics and activists was so highly focused against White American opinion, rather than appearing random or accidental, that it strongly indicates these scholars entered the field of mass communications with a clear and common agenda. For example, Jewish mass communications scholar Bernard Berelson was not just a researcher in public opinion, but also conducted a series of propaganda tests on how to make White Americans find their own ethnocentrism abhorrent. In 1945 he conducted a study in which a cartoon was shown to the public that made connections between Fascism and American culture. The cartoon, titled “The Ghosts Go West…,” showed ghosts leaving the graves of Hitler, Mussolini, and Goebbels, and flying to America carrying a banner that read: “Down with Labour Unions, Foreign Born, Jews, Catholics, Negroes.” The message was clearly that “intolerance” in America was basically the demonic ghost of fascism. Interestingly, however, the study found that Jews exposed to the cartoon were so fixated on the banner that they missed the underlying message altogether and believed the cartoon was a far right creation. The potentially confusing nature of the piece meant it was never deployed as a “pro-tolerance” propaganda weapon.[14]

Berelson was also later a colleague and friend of Frederick S. Jaffe, the Jewish then-Vice President of Planned Parenthood. Both Jaffe and Berelson later became somewhat notorious because of a memo (known in history as the Jaffe Memo) sent in 1969 from the former to the latter, in which anti-White sociopath Jaffe put forth his own series of protocols that included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This table contained proposals such as compulsory abortions for out-of-wedlock births, sterilizations for women with more than two children, encouraging homosexuality, and encouraging women to work. Both would also later work together on the infamous 1972 Rockefeller Commission Report which incorporated many of Jaffe’s proposals. We thus see more links between Jewishness, “prejudice studies,” the discipline of mass communications studies, and anti-White Jewish activism more generally.

In reality, the work of all these scholars orbited the same themes, if not openly, then more secretively (as in the case of Lazarsfeld’s work with the Institute for Social Research). Marie Jahoda, the ex-Austrian subversive, produced a series of studies that were mere variations on the theme of White ethnocentrism, something she pathologized most famously in Antisemitism and Emotional Disorder (1950).[15] In the same year, Morris Janowitz and Bruno Bettelheim worked together to produce Dynamics of Prejudice.[16] Meanwhile Joseph Gittler produced such works as “Measuring the Awareness of the Problem of Group Hostility,”[17] and “Man and His Prejudices.”[18] Herbert Blumer produced “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.”[19] Fritz Heider worked with Kurt Lewin and Solomon Asch on unlocking the ways in which conformity could alter group behavior and individual opinions.[20] Ernest Dichter believed his studies of the mass communications in marketing could lead to the development of persuasive techniques that could “stop the new wave of anti-Semitism.”[21] The work of Walter Weiss concerned “mass communication, public opinion, and social change as they bear on changing racial attitudes.”[22] And aside from his secretive work with the Institute for Social Research, Paul Lazarsfeld, while working at the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, introduced the notion of “social bookkeeping,” a systematic service that would note and evaluate “prejudice” in any material appearing in mass media of communications. I could go on.

What we see here is the origins of an extensive Jewish joint enterprise in which the unlocking and alteration of White American public opinion is the goal. This is not conspiracy theory, but an established and provable fact. In a sense, the Frankfurt School, or Institute for Social Research, was the tip of an iceberg. The work of Horkheimer, Adorno et al, both drew from, and enthused, a large and growing army of Jewish academics working in the fields of public opinion and mass communications. This was a body of academics and activists keen to translate theories on “prejudice and the authoritarian personality” into action — to change the opinions and thinking of the host population. They would go on to develop forms of testing and analysis to further these goals, and their students would go on to take dominant positions in the fields of the mass media and mass communications. In many cases these academics speak openly of the need for control of the media and the mass dissemination of sophisticated propaganda (all of which could be tried and perfected at the expense of their universities in the name of ‘prejudice research’). Of all these activists, however, none produced a work more bluntly subversive than Samuel Flowerman’s 1947 essay “Mass Propaganda in the War on Bigotry.” It is to the protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman that we now turn our attention.


“Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war.”  Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.[1]

The Protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman

Samuel H. Flowerman, as Research Director at the American Jewish Committee, as colleague of the Institute for Social Research, and as a kind of hub for the expansive Jewish clique of mass communications scholars, was at the center of the drive to put Jewish “opinion research” initiatives into practical action. The clearest articulation of what this practical action would look like was articulated in his 1947 essay, “Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry.” Flowerman’s foremost concern was that, although millions of dollars were being spent by organisations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League on propaganda, propaganda may not by itself be sufficient for the mass transformation of values in the host population — in particular, for the weakening of its ethnocentrism.

Flowerman begins by explaining the format and extent of existing efforts: “Millions of leaflets, pamphlets, cartoons, comic books, articles — and more recently radio and movie scripts — have been produced and disseminated in the propaganda war (429).” Flowerman’s use of the language of warfare is of course interesting in itself and will be discussed further below. For now, we should focus on what Flowerman lists as the five aims of the “propaganda war”:

1. “The restructuring of the attitudes of prejudiced individuals, or at least their neutralization.”
2. “The restructuring of group values toward intolerance.”
3. “The reinforcement of attitudes of those already committed to a democratic ideology perhaps by creating an illusion of universality or victory.”
4. “The continued neutralisation of those whose attitudes are yet unstructured and who are deemed “safer” if they remain immune to symbols of bias.”
5. “Off-setting the counter-symbols of intolerance.” (429)

Flowerman concedes that the level of work and control required to achieve these aims would be extensive, and that the project was highly ambitious, seeking nothing less than “successful mass persuasion in the field of intergroup relations (429).” But he is equally clear in the conditions required for such success.

Flowerman’s first condition is “control by pro-tolerance groups or individuals of the channels of mass communication.” (430) Since Flowerman’s entire context of “pro-tolerance” activism was essentially Jewish, we may assume he is strongly implying that the channels of mass communication should fall into Jewish hands. Since “control” in Flowerman’s phrasing is not qualified, and since many newspapers, radio stations, and movie production companies were already in the hands of “pro-tolerance” Jews, the implication is also present that this control should be absolute. In addition, notes Flowerman, total control of these channels may still not be sufficient in itself. The host population will still need to be exposed to the productions of mass communications, and this was to be assured via “force, commercial monopoly, and/or crisis (designed or accidental).” (430) Only then would ‘pro-tolerance’ forces see “the persuasive devices and techniques of the elite playing upon the susceptibilities of the manipulated.” (430) Flowerman closes here with reference to Erich Fromm’s theory that people have “a desire to be controlled.”

The second of Flowerman’s conditions for “successful mass persuasion in the field of intergroup relations” is saturation. This condition, like that of control and monopoly of the channels of mass communication, is intended as absolute. In other words, the message of “pro-tolerance” was to be ubiquitous and all-pervasive — beyond what was possible in 1947 and probably beyond what could even be conceptualized in 1947. In Flowerman’s words: “In addition to the large sums of money currently being expended on tolerance propaganda, significantly greater sums would probably be needed to achieve the degree of saturation — as yet hypothetical — required.” (430) The general idea here is to increase the “flow of pro-tolerance symbols” as a proportion of “the total stream of communications.”

In November 1946, a three-day convention, partly organized by Flowerman, was held in New York, bringing together “experts in the general field of public relations, including advertising, direct mail, film, radio, and press; professional workers on the staff of national and local agencies specifically concerned with fighting group discrimination; and social scientists from the universities and national defense agencies.”[2] Jews, of course, dominated all of these areas, and the list of attendees included the previously mentioned figures Bruno Bettelheim, Sol Ginsburg, Hertha Herzog (radio research director of McCann-Erickson, Inc.), Julius Schreiber, Paul Lazarsfeld, Joseph Goldsen, and Morris Janowitz. One of the findings of the mass communications scholars present at the convention was that even control and saturation may not be sufficient to ensure a transformation of opinions and values in the demographic majority. This was the case when the propaganda encountered particularly strong-minded individuals, or when the propaganda got lost in the overall stream of communications that one encounters in the course of everyday life. Flowerman thus writes with frustration that “we are developing a nation of individuals who work, worry, love, and play while news commentators, comedians, opera companies, symphony orchestras, and swing bands are broadcasting. This continuous onslaught for ‘something for everyone’ results in a kind of ‘radio deafness.’” (431) In order to overcome this obstacle, Flowerman returns to a key aspect of his first condition — the use of crisis (he writes that this can be “designed or accidental”) to focus attention on delivered propaganda. Flowerman writes:

As for overcoming the ‘radio deafness’ to commercial announcements and the general atmosphere of make-believe of radio entertainment, only symbols associated with acute crisis would seem to have a chance. For the great bulk of American people racial and religious intolerance is not regarded as a critical situation. … The absence of critical stress serves to diminish levels of attention to pro-tolerance symbols. (431)

Practical contemporary examples of what this tactic might look like would be the ubiquity of pro-diversity propaganda in the aftermath of Islamic attacks, Charlottesville, school shootings, moral panics about racism, ADL hype about the ever-present threat of anti-Semitism, murders by immigrants, and migrant drownings in the Mediterranean. The point here is that regardless of context, “crisis” is to be manufactured into almost every situation in order to focus attention on the real goal — the successful delivery of “pro-tolerance” messages, even (or especially) in circumstances in which tolerance has proven deadly, to the host population. Jews or, in the more ambiguous phrasing, “the agents of pro-tolerance,” would thus need to achieve (in Flowerman’s own words) the ambitious trifecta of “control, saturation, crisis.” (432) Crisis is therefore Flowerman’s third condition.

The fourth condition is the achievement of an alteration of predispositions in the individual via modification of their surroundings and peer pressure. Here Flowerman argues that “pro-tolerance” propaganda should not rely on intellectual means but instead on “social perception, which is affected by the predispositions of the audience. In turn, these dispositions are affect-laden attitudes which may have been produced by parents, teachers, playmates, etc.” (432)

The point here is that Flowerman and the mass communications clique believed that their propaganda would be better received by the masses if the psychological context of reception was itself changed. In other words, people raised in the demographic majority who are imbued with a sense of communal pride, social responsibility, cultural achievement, and national purpose are unlikely to be predisposed to be receptive to messages on behalf of outsiders. Some intervention in peer interactions and peer culture was thus necessary in order to break up such an obstacle to the reception of “pro-tolerance” propaganda. As just one example, we return here to Flowerman’s 1950 article for New York Times Magazine in which he argues for the training of teachers “as engineers of human relations instead of instructors of arithmetic and spelling.”[3] Children can thus “engineered” to be more receptive to “pro-tolerance” propaganda in adulthood.

This condition bleeds into the fifth — the manipulation of the basic instinct of humans to conform to group standards. Flowerman writes:

Consciously or unconsciously, individuals use group frames of reference in social situations even when they are physically separated from the group. … The strength of group sanctions is a potent force to reckon with even for an individual with a strong ego. … It would appear, then, that to be successful mass propaganda on behalf of out-groups would have to modify the standards of the in-group. … Mass pro-tolerance propaganda, to be successful, would have to change such values, which would be difficult to imagine without control, saturation, crisis, etc. (432)

What Flowerman is proposing here is essentially a revolution in values, after which a politically correct culture emerges where the demographic majority becomes self-policing and antagonistic to its own ethnic interests. In this environment — achieved via “control, saturation, crisis”— the strength of group sanctions among the White American in-group is directed towards manifestations of in-group ethnocentrism instead of outsiders. It’s nothing less than a proposal for the cultivation of White guilt and pathological altruism, and the diminishment of White ethnocentrism and cultural pride.

The sixth condition is the cultivation of influential figures on behalf of the “pro-tolerance” agenda. This required great subtlety. Flowerman writes that the research of his mass communications colleagues and co-ethics shows the targets of their propaganda:

are willing to assign to some individuals a stamp of approval which they deny to others … We know that many leaflets written and endorsed by popular heroes and accepted even by prejudiced individuals are often dismissed on the ground that they are being distributed by minority groups in their own self-interest. Many prejudiced individuals cannot conceive of such distribution by dominant groups. (433)

What Flowerman is here complaining of is the fact that some members of the demographic majority are perceptive enough to accurately point out the real origin of “pro-tolerance” propaganda, and to dismiss it on those grounds. By “minority groups,” the coy Mr Flowerman of course means Jews. He then cites a specific case:

In an experiment being conducted at the University of Chicago by Bettelheim, Shils, and Janowitz, veterans were exposed to pro-tolerance propaganda including a cartoon by Bill Mauldin. A prejudiced respondent, sharing the general esteem in which this popular soldier-cartoonist is held by ex-GI’s, said that he had regarded Mauldin as a “regular guy” but he supposed that if you paid a man enough you could get him to do anything; this respondent believed that the material he saw was being distributed by “a bunch of New York communists.” (433)

Thus we see the pathologisation of a veteran because he perceived with stunning accuracy the hand of subversion behind the use of a popular icon to promote an agenda entirely alien to his interests. Despite exceptions such as this veteran, the overall susceptibility of the masses was deemed sufficiently high for the strategy of “sponsorship” to be progressed. As a result, reports Flowerman,

propagandists, recognising the need for impeccable sources of authority, are producing material endorsed by popular heroes in sports, entertainment, and in the armed forces. Recently a plan has been developed to promote the insertion of full-page newspaper advertisements paid for and sponsored by “respectable” local business organizations. The effect of this campaign will have to be determined. (433)

Developed alongside his colleagues in the Institute for Social Research and the mass communications clique, these, then, are Flowerman’s six conditions for a radical transformation of values in the White American demographic majority:

1) Control of the channels of mass communications;
2) Saturation with Pro-tolerance messages;
3) Crisis, designed or accidental;
4) Diminishment of Cultural Pride and Self-esteem;
5) Cultivation of Self-Punishment and Group Self-Sanctioning;
6) Sponsorship of willing dupes or traitors.

Although these six conditions form most of the body of “Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry,” Flowerman also spends some time discussing the ideal content of “pro-tolerance” propaganda. In this regard, he comments:

The most striking feature, the spearhead, of propaganda, is the slogan. … Current pro-tolerance or anti-intolerance slogans urge unity and amity, warn against being divided by differences of race and religion, describe our common origin as immigrants to these shores, remove myths about racial differences, and denounce bigots and bigotry. Some popular slogans are: Don’t be a Sucker!, Americans All —– Immigrants All, All Races and All Creeds Working Together etc.

Don’t Be A Sucker! was the name of a wartime film produced by the Army Signals Corps at a time when it was working heavily alongside Jewish Hollywood executives and script writers; its film production center was headed by Col. Emmanuel ‘Manny’ Cohen.[4] According to Wikipedia, the film:

has anti-racist and anti-fascist themes, and was made to educate viewers about prejudice and discrimination. The film was also made to make the case for the desegregation of the United States armed forces. An American who has been listening to a racist and bigoted rabble-rouser, who is preaching hate speech against ethnic and religious minorities and immigrants, is warned off by a naturalized Hungarian immigrant, possibly a Holocaust survivor or escapee, who explains to him how such rhetoric and demagogy allowed the Nazis to rise to power in Weimar Germany, and warns Americans not to fall for similar demagogy propagated by American racists and bigots. In August 2017 the short film went viral on the internet in the aftermath of the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and various copies have been uploaded to video sharing sites in the past year.

Flowerman was dissatisfied with the slogans of his time, however, believing them to be too “general in nature, vague as to goals, and unspecific as to methods.” (434) He believed that merely defining fascism as the enemy was insufficient because, at that time, the host population believed “fascism was strictly a foreign phenomenon characteristic particularly of Nazi Germany.” Propaganda depicting fascism as the enemy was therefore going to be ineffective in making the host population see its own values as oppositional and requiring destruction. Referring to works like The Authoritarian Personality, Flowerman writes: “Studies abound in which subjects subscribed to tenets of fascism although they rejected the fascist label itself. The pervasiveness of prejudice in so many individuals makes it difficult to set up a real enemy.” (434) He acknowledges that “in much anti-intolerance propaganda” the enemy is defined as “white, native-born Protestants,” but makes it clear that he wishes this to be expanded “for logical and psychological reasons.” One gets the impression that “Diversity is our Strength” and “Fight Hate” would have been much to his satisfaction.

*****

We now find ourselves returning to our point of departure. “The whole story is transparently barmy,” said the Guardian’s Jason Wilson when discussing “conspiracy theories” about Cultural Marxism. Consider again what he says this “conspiracy theory” amounts to:

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think … The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

In light of the facts addressed in this essay, such a theory would seem thoroughly borne out, with the only required alterations being that the process started before the 1960s and involved many more figures than the staff of the Institute for Social Research. The problem with people like Wilson is that they are proof of the very ‘conspiracy theory’ they refute. Raised in a controlled media, saturated with pro-tolerance propaganda, psychologically blasted with crisis after crisis, stripped of cultural pride, consumed by White guilt, and influenced by purchased “sponsors,” he is the perfectly gullible product of the protocols of Samuel H. Flowerman and the mass communications clique.

Not barmy, but more or less ridiculous, Wilson becomes an intellectual pygmy biting at the heels of his betters — those who, like the veteran in the study of Bettelheim, Shils, and Janowitz, see the true origin of the propaganda and are pathologized for their perceptivity.

[1] Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(4), (1947) 429-439.

[2] S.H. Flowerman and M. Jahoda, “The study of man – can prejudice be fought scientifically?” Commentary, Dec., 1946.

[3] S. H. Flowerman, “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” New York Times Magazine, April 23 1950, 31.

[4] See for example, Richard Koszarski, “Subway Commandos: Hollywood Filmmakers at the Signal Corps Photographic Center,” Film History Vol. 14, No. 3/4, (2002), 296-315.

[1] Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(4), (1947) 429-439.

[2] D. M. Scott, “Postwar Pluralism, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Origins of Multicultural Education,” Journal of American History, Vol 91, No 1 (2004), 69–82.

[3] For an example of Flowerman’s thoughts on Freud and psychoanalysis see S. H. Flowerman, “Psychoanalytic Theory and Science,” American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 415-441.

[4] S. H. Flowerman, “Portrait of the Authoritarian Man,” New York Times Magazine, April 23 1950, 31.

[5] Herbert Greenberg, “The Effects of Single-Session Education Techniques on Prejudice Attitudes,” The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1957), 82-86, 82.

[6] Ido Oren, Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, (2003), 13.

[7] Thomas Wheatland, The Frankfurt School in Exile (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), 384.

[8] Hynek Jeřábek, Paul Lazarsfeld and the Origins of Communications Research, (New York: Routledge, 2017), 18.

[9] James Curran, “Jay Blumler: A Founding Father of British Media Studies,” in Stephen Coleman (ed) Can the media save democracy? Essays in honour of Jay G. Blumler (London: Palgrave, 2015).

[10] John P. Jackson and Nadine M. Weidman, Race, Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press), 176.

[11] David Kettler and Gerhard Lauer, Exile, Science and Bildung: The Contested Legacies of German Emigre Intellectuals (New York: Palgrave, 2005),  184.

[12] James Schmidt, “The Eclipse of Reason and the End of the Frankfurt School in America,” New German Critique 100 (2007), 47-76, 47.

[13]Jeřábek, Paul Lazarsfeld and the Origins of Communications Research, 23.

[14] Bureau of Applied Social Research, “The Ghosts Go West”: A Study of Comprehension, (Unpublished), 1945, Directed by Bernard B. Berelson. Cited in Flowerman, S. H., “Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry,” 438.

[15] See for example, “The dynamic basis of anti-Semitic attitudes,” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, (1948); “The evasion of propaganda: How prejudiced people respond to anti-prejudice propaganda” The Journal of Psychology, 23 (1947), 15-25; Studies in the scope and method of “The authoritarian personality. (New York, NY, US: Free Press, 1954); “Race relations in Public Housing,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7, No. 1-2 (1951).

[16] Morris Janowitz and Bruno Bettelheim, Dynamics of Prejudice (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950).

[17] Joseph Gittler, “Measuring the Awareness of the Problem of Group Hostility,” Social Forces, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec., 1955), 163-167.

[18] Joseph Gittler, ”Man and His Prejudices,” The Scientific Monthly, 69 (1949 ), 43-47.

[19] Herbert Blumer, ““Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position,” Pacific Sociological Review, 1 (Spring 1958), 3-7.

[20] Irvin Rock and Stephen Palmer, “The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology,” Scientific American, Dec 1990, 84-90, 89.

[21] Ernest Dichter, The Strategy of Desire (New York: Routledge, 2017), 15.

[22] Bert T. King and Elliott McGinnies, Attitudes, Conflict, and Social Change (New York: Academic Press, 1972), 124.

Dark Metaphysical Forces

If Young’s framework is even directionally accurate, and if even a fraction of the perspectives shared in this book are true, they are hard to rationalize as mere incompetence. In other words, it’s hard to conceive that our drift into false paradigms is purely the result of innocent mistakes.

Perhaps false paradigms are being propagated intentionally. Not many people would be needed to enact such an agenda if they can use blackmail, bribery, threats, and mind control to manipulate key individuals in society.

But why would such social engineering be important? What would entice people to brainwash the public? And how could such an agenda remain over long periods of time if people have relatively short lifespans?

The answers might lie in the domain of consciousness—realms that transcend purely physical considerations. Perhaps there are nonphysical, spiritual forces that have much longer time horizons than humans do, and they work through humans in order to enact their goals. Why they might want to do so is open for speculation, but a common theory is that dark forces literally feed off of human energy—in particular, human suffering.

Within a consciousness-centric metaphysical framework, the existence of such forces is plausible. For instance, the famed computer scientist Alan Turing stated in 1950 that the statistical evidence for telepathy is “overwhelming,” which led him to then state: “It does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies.”13 Put another way, once we accept that consciousness is not localized to, or dependent on, a brain, then it’s possible for forms of consciousness to exist that don’t have physical bodies. Broadly speaking, they’re often referred to as spirits. Maybe they even have an ability to take on different forms (known as shapeshifting).14

Along these lines, Helané Wabheh’s book The Science of Channeling (2021) compiles scientific evidence for the ability of humans to “tune in to” some of these nonphysical intelligences.15 Sometimes this can occur through voluntary invocations, but it also seems possible to tune in without being aware of it. If our brain has an antenna-like quality, then this is possible. After all, we don’t really know where our thoughts originate. It might be the case that an individual’s consciousness is constantly being influenced without the person’s explicit knowledge. Therefore, the ability to manage emotions and beliefs seems critical.

In my book An End to Upside Down Contact (2022), I document a wide variety of encounters with nonphysical forces, some seemingly benevolent and others not. The focus of the forthcoming discussion is on the darker forces. This focus is necessary because of the unquestionably deceptive nature of our reality. However, it’s important to acknowledge that benevolent forces seem to be real too. Practically speaking, if everything in the world were purely evil, it’s implausible that we’d even have the freedom to question  paradigms. Additionally, our world is filled with loving acts, which is suggestive of a benevolent spiritual force. Likewise, there are many otherworldly experiences, reported historically and in modern times, in which people have direct mystical encounters with seemingly benevolent beings—often reporting indescribable states of “unconditional love” and even being miraculously healed. Preston Dennett gives many examples in his 2019 book, The Healing Power of UFOs: 300 True Accounts of People Healed by Extraterrestrials.16Or consider Anita Moorjani’s case. She was healed after having a transformative near-death experience in 2006. She was in a coma during a bout with terminal cancer and has since tried to put into words the shift that her consciousness underwent: “What I can only describe as superb and glorious unconditional love surrounded me, wrapping me tight as I continued to let go. It didn’t feel as though I had physically gone somewhere else—it was more as though I’d awakened, perhaps finally being roused from a bad dream. My soul was finally realizing its true magnificence. And in doing so, it was expanding beyond my body and this physical world.”17 Her doctors were stunned when her tumors disappeared following the resuscitation.

Regarding darker forces, consider the work of Richard Gallagher, MD. He is a Princeton and Yale graduate and a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College who has personal experience with patients suffering from “demonic possession.” He details such accounts in his book, Demonic Foes: My Twenty-Five Years as a Psychiatrist Investigating Possessions, Diabolic Attacks, and the Paranormal (2020). He states his conclusion: “A segment of [the] invisible world seems to be mysteriously but remarkably hostile to human beings and seeks their physical and spiritual destruction. On rare occasions, like some kind of cosmic terrorist, that segment shows its true colors.”18 [emphasis added]

In fact, there are some instances in which individuals intentionally summon such dark forces. Earlier this was alluded to in the discussion of the “sex magick” ritual engaged by Jack Parsons (one of the early influences at NASA), with assistance from

 L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of the Church of Scientology). One has to wonder if this sort of ritual was just the tip of the iceberg. The Telegraph summarized the situation well in its 2017 article titled “Sex, rocket science, and Satanism: Meet Nasa’s real hidden figures.”19

There is, in fact, a long history of secretive, heinous, and sophisticated rituals that date back to biblical times. They have also been described in different forms by the Aztecs and Egyptians, among others. The intent of many such rituals is to call in dark spirits, likely for the purpose of obtaining power.20The rituals give vital insights into the psychology of evil and might help us understand the drive behind deception in our world. Only minor snippets will be covered here because the details are so unpleasant.

Although many instances of ritualistic abuse are hidden, some cases have been uncovered over time. In fact, they are discussed explicitly in state laws in Idaho and Illinois, and there are clear patterns to the activities. What follows is an excerpt from a law in Idaho (1990), and the law in Illinois is similar:

18-1506A. RITUALIZED ABUSE OF A CHILD — EXCLUSIONS —PENALTIES — DEFINITION.

(1) A person is guilty of a felony when he commits any of the following acts with, upon, or in the presence of a child as part of a ceremony, rite or any similar observance:

(a) Actually or in simulation, tortures, mutilates or sacrifices any warm-blooded animal or human being;

(b) Forces ingestion, injection or other application of any narcotic, drug, hallucinogen or anaesthetic for the purpose of dulling sensitivity, cognition, recollection of, or resistance to any criminal activity;

(c) Forces ingestion, or external application, of human or animal urine, feces, flesh, blood, bones, body secretions, nonprescribed drugs or chemical compounds;

( d) Involves the child in a mock, unauthorized or unlawful marriage ceremony with another person or representation of any force or deity, followed by sexual contact with the child;

(e) Places a living child into a coffin or open grave containing a human corpse or remains;

(f ) Threatens death or serious harm to a child, his parents, family, pets or friends which instills a well-founded fear in the child that the threat will be carried out; or

(g) Unlawfully dissects, mutilates, or incinerates a human corpse.21

Along these lines, Anne Johnson Davis’s autobiographical book Hell Minus One: My Story of Deliverance from Satanic Ritual Abuse and My Journey to Freedom (2008) describes her experiences as a victim as a young girl. The foreword of the book was written by a Utah detective from the state attorney general’s office who investigated that case. He confirmed that the perpetrators wrote confession letters detailing their crimes and added, “They confessed to us—in person. The allegations were confirmed.”22

This is significant because such allegations are often dismissed as products of “false memories.” Yet this is a validated case. In other instances, it’s indeed difficult to know what is real, particularly because the rituals often involve drugging and forms of torture designed to suppress memories. But in Davis’s case, her memories came flooding back later in life (which isn’t uncommon), and through unique circumstances, she was able to confront the perpetrators who decided to confess. Often the abused individual might just be considered crazy, with no way to validate the memories.

The bigger point here is this: If even some cases are real, then we can gain insights into the broader spiritual war that we all might be involved in (whether we know it or not).

In Davis’s case, she recalls seeing dark spirits entering into the ritual.23 Jay Parker endured similar abuse as a child, including incest, and he experienced dark energies directly. When interviewed by  filmmaker Sean Stone, he recalled that a dark intelligence seemed to possess his parents while they were engaging in nefarious acts. Parker says, “My father’s eyes would flash black, solid black,” as would his mother’s.24 [emphasis added]

Along similar lines, a 60 Minutes Australia episode that aired in 1989 featured a young British girl who was subjected to ritual abuse after being brought into the circle by her own grandmother. A psychiatrist validated her experiences as real and not the product of a psychotic or imaginative mind. Clearly traumatized (almost despondent and emotionless), she spoke about being brought to a place in the English countryside that looked like a “castle.” She said the route to get there was intentionally hidden from the victims. She also noted that the people there were “very rich” and had an ability to destroy evidence of murders with chemicals. They also referred to “Lucifer,” as she recalled. She detailed the horrors to which she was subjected, including being raped, being forced to have an abortion, and then being forced to eat the fetus.25Survivors of such abuse often describe links to powerful people—even governments. Anneke Lucas, for instance, was sold by her mother into a murderous pedophile ring in Belgium with “VIPs” and people “on the world stage.” Ritual abuse was involved as well.26 She documents her accounts in her 2022 book Quest for Love: Memoir of a Child Sex Slave. Another example is Serena Faith Masterson, author of I Am Serena (2020), who was born into a satanic cult and sold into the US government’s mind-control program. As a result of this torture, she developed dissociative identity disorder, including over 300 unique personalities. Only through a rare and miraculous series of events was she able to heal and tell her story. Her message is ultimately uplifting: she feels strongly that her soul grew from the experience and that she is able to contribute to the healing of others as a result. She seems to imply that suffering, while horrific in many ways, can paradoxically lead to healing and growth.

There are many cases that show a link between dark metaphysical forces and power structures in our world. Sean Stone’s documentary Best Kept Secret (2021), and John DeCamp’s book The  Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska (1992) provide additional insights, including links with child-sex trafficking and child pornography. Another important resource that validates the reality of ritual abuse is a more than 500-page compendium featuring essays from more than twenty-five contributors, titled Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-First Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social, and Political Considerations (2008).

The point of acknowledging this dark underbelly of our world is not to dwell on evil but rather to acknowledge reality. When we ask, Why is there so much deception in our world? What is driving this?, we’re forced to consider these deeper energies that might be behind it.

Parker sums it up by saying that “the suffering and dissatisfaction of the human soul is what feeds the [dark] spirits….It’s all an energy game….We are cattle for them, and we feed them.” Yet, in spite of the unspeakable abuse he endured, he still feels that the benevolent force is greater: “Divine love is much more powerful than anything else.”27 [emphasis added]

13As cited in Radin, Entangled Minds, 73.

14See Gober, An End to Upside Down Contact, 134–37.

15Wahbeh, The Science of Channeling. For a further discussion of Wahbeh’s work, see Gober, An End to Upside Down Contact.

16See Gober, An End to Upside Down Contact. Also see Dennett, The Healing Power of UFOs.

17Anita Moorjani, “The Day My Life Changed: February 2, 2006,” https://www.anitamoorjani.com/my-nde.

18Gallagher, Demonic Foes, 11.

19Vincent, “Sex, rocket science, and Satanism: Meet Nasa’s real hidden figures,” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/02/17/sex-rocket-science-scientology-meet-hidden-figures-behind-nasas/.

20See, Gober, An End to Upside Down Contact, 57–66.

21Illinois Statutes Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses §-33. Ritualized abuse of a child, https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-stsect-720-5-12-33.html; Idaho Statutes, https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH15/SECT18-1506A/.

22Davis, Hell Minus One, 85–93 (Kindle).

23Ibid., 1858–1863 (Kindle).

24“RAW: Sean Stone with Jay Parker,” https://robertdavidsteele.com/sean-stone-with-jay-parker/.

25SATAN’S CHILDREN – SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE (60 MINUTES AUSTRALIA), https://www.bitchute.com/video/I1bHD2JyfmEg/.

26REALWOMEN/REALSTORIES, (UNCUT) Anneke Lucas: Sold by my mother into a pedophile network at six years of age, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxD6VUcxZ0. Also see 58 Tsakiris, Anneke Lucas, Recovering From Unimaginable Evil |441|, https://skeptiko.com/anneke-lucas-recovering-from-unimaginable-evil-441/.

27“RAW: Sean Stone with Jay Parker,” https://robertdavidsteele.com/sean-stone-wit

h-jay-parker/.

An End to theUpside Dow Cosmos

Rethinking the BigBang, Heliocentrism, the Lights in the Sky and Where We Live

Mark Gober

Apeirophobia - The Fear of Infinity

Figure Head
-People in Houses- 

Figure Head begins his career doing statistical analysis of complex matrices then fuses fractals with chaos theory and proves Euclidean geometry incompatible with Einsteinian relativity. He even publishes outlandish proofs for Riemann’s hypothesis and Goldbach’s conjecture involving logarithmic properties of infinite infinities in determining prime probabilities. The institution frowns upon his conclusions and shrugs them aside, but he continues to fund his research travelling as a motivational speaker.  -  Tonight’s talk:

Apeirophobia - The Fear of Infinity 

“Good Evening folks. Forms are a fallacy of human perception. We label repetitive manifestations necessitated by the system as separate but similar entities when in fact nothing is separate and so everything is similar. The Universe, everything that is, Our mass of matter in motion perpetually molds and shifts, adapts and changes, repeats as a constant result of itself, but never fully separates into an other. It is One. You and I, the stars and space.

If you blur your vision enough, forms disappear and you are left with nothing but a mass of color in motion. There is no word that describes the blur, but perhaps you make one up. Then you make a habit of making up words for blurs and start recognizing similarities - you label tree blurs, rock blurs, other animal blurs and maybe even atom blurs. This allows you to compare and categorize, make judgments, and express artistic concerns about the blurs, but the fact remains that the boundaries between blurs are perceptual, not actual. We know no two trees, rocks, animals, or atoms are exactly alike, but if no two things are exactly alike, We have no way to measure what constitutes one thing or it’s other. If no two things are exactly alike then there must be only one true form that is everything.

We know that sub-atomic particles are constantly in motion, but on a smaller scale than We can perceive. We know that the planet beneath Us is constantly in motion, but on a larger scale than We can perceive. We know the Universe is perpetually changing and in motion, but We perceive most things as unchanging and still. Then We use language to label this fallacious stillness. We recognize similarities in the stillness and create categories and definitions. We forget all about Our faulty premise and attribute a priori importance to these forms We perceive; though in fact knowing no two things are truly separate and everything’s constantly moving.

Asbestos and Pin Head walk in the auditorium's side entrance and have a seat. “You there, how many numbers are there between 0 and 1?” 

Asbestos smiles and answers. “There are no numbers between 0 and 1.” 

“That’s right. Now how many between 1 and 2?” 

“None again, unless you count decimals.” 

“So there are no numbers between consecutive numbers in Our counting system unless divided into fractions of themselves. Decimal point included, how many numbers between 0 and 1” 

“After the decimal there are an infinite number of numbers.”

"So integers perceived as whole remain consecutive, but once conceptually fractionated are necessarily separated by infinite possibility. Thank you, Asbestos. Once you divide perception into forms, once you give separate labels to pieces of the same pie, you’ve begun a necessarily infinite regress of division. We’re all baked into the pie already trying to cut Our custard reality into manageable chunks, but meanwhile We’re forgetting about Our whole number before the decimal point.

Since math involves manipulating quantities, it assumes there is more than just a oneness to all existence. Numbers like words allow reality to be divided and regrouped. Math is a game like language, and mathematicians are numerical poets expressing Our quantitative perceptions.  As for language, it gives some permanence to an ever-changing universe. And there is comfort in the permanence, but also stagnation. Change is a necessary element in perfection, and We’re all part of the perfect equation.

-  We don’t perceive Ourselves as such, but humans are over 70% water. So suppose you’re standing in the ocean, where do you draw the line between the water that encompasses you and the water that composes you? As you stand, the ocean sinks into your pores, gets swallowed and lodged in your orifices. Meanwhile thousands of skin cells and millions of your molecules float away into the ocean. At what point does the ocean start being you and when do your skin cells start being ocean? For that matter, why is your water alive but the ocean’s isn’t? But that’s a whole other issue.

Even if your water’s not wet standing on dry ground, every millionth of a second, trillions of your atoms are replaced by surrounding atoms. Then as you breathe, you become and feed upon on the molecules around you. When does the air cease to exist out there and become part of you? When it passes your lips or when it hits your bronchioles or only when the alveoli suck out the sustenance?

Food, air, water, bacteria, everything that surrounds you is constantly coming into and leaving from your body. In fact, you preserve your human existence by consuming these things around you. You even eat the lives of others in such a way that it’s impossible to say when the things you consume stop being deliciously prepared plants or animals and start being you. Is it the first greasy atom that interacts with your Kentucky fried fingers or the first savory swallow that shrinks through your sphincter or only when the proteins and complex fats break down and feed your hungry cells? 

At what point are you separate from everything else in any meaningful sense? There is no you in you and there’s no out there out there. There is only one life, one consciousness, one source of matter and energy, and it is eternal and it is everything. It is God and you are God constantly creating the world anew every instant.

-  When writing this lecture, my word processor kept showing a grammatical mistake when I typed the tautology nothing is nothing. It suggests I replace the second nothing with anything. Nothing is anything. 

Scientists see no boundary to the Universe, no center of expansion, nor do they know what the Universe is supposed to be expanding into. But it’s both necessary and contradictory for there to exist infinite nothing outside a finite Universe. Thereby inflationary cosmology’s potential something they call nothing defies its definition upon existence. The only reconciliation is to agree with my word processor. Nothing isn’t nothing. Nothing is anything, and the anything’s infinite.

Now, this is important. 

Big bang theorists think the Universe is finite yet began as an infinitely dense, hot and infinitesimally small singularity. The theory also maintains that since then, the Universe has been expanding and cooling. This means shortly after the space-time singularity, certain aspects of the Universe (heat, density, and size) somehow changed from infinite to finite. We must either accept this mathematical impossibility, or that space-time singularities are extremely small, hot, and dense, but are not infinitely so. And if this is true, it means at some measurable heat, size and density, all physical laws break down. Like at 100 googolplex degrees, 100 googolplex grams per negative cubic centimeter all laws of temperature and density hold, but at 100 googolplex and 1, everything changes allowing space-time itself to enter or exit existence.  Big bang theorists also think the Universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old, yet We’ve recently discovered huge galaxies and quasars 15 billion light-years away from Us. Based on Einstein and Hubble’s own equations, this means that fifteen billion years ago, the fabric of space-time was stretched at least 15 billion light-years across, and gigantic celestial bodies were already formed. These are both quite incompatible with current inflationary cosmology. To top it off, We can’t observe the red-shifting of galaxies beyond the Hubble radius because they’re approaching and possibly breaking the light barrier at the very bounds of Our perception. Theoretically We’re left with few options. Either galaxies break the light barrier past the Hubble radius where We’ll never see them or they mysteriously disappear for another reason, because We don’t yet see a boundary, just the infinite anything.

Everything in space rotates round bound in elliptical orbits or swings unbound in parabolas and hyperbolas. The Earth spins on its axis at 1000mph, around the sun at 66,000mph. Our solar system orbits the Milky Way at 500,000mph and the galaxy speeds through the known Universe at 1,000,000mph. Then the known Universe likely orbits another, larger, more central entity at even greater speed etc. I highly doubt this fractal trend of orbital motion ends in the mysterious non-orbital expansion from a singularity. And if so, what resultant force from the big bang is responsible for beginning both space-time’s expansion and matter’s orbital motion? For the outward expansion of space-time and the orbital motion of matter to co-exist in the same Universe, the original acting force either exerted its power in a spiraling, circular pattern, or matter mysteriously developed the motion on its own.

Whichever way, the spiral and other fractal shapes, are abundant in nature, and I suggest the logical progression from quantum physics to cosmology suggests not the expansion of a singularity that defies causality, physics, and mathematics, but instead a timeless, fractally infinite and infinitesimal Universe in perpetual centrifugal motion around itself.
- 
Logically, if you divide a second in half and in half again and again, this process continues forever. Likewise, if you divide a chunk of matter in half again and again, there should always be half your last division left over. And mathematicians agree that any number but zero may be divided ad infinitum. Quantum theorists, however, think the process of dividing time and matter reaches its end long before infinity. At some point far past their ability to see, they claim there’s a fundamental particle of matter and a fundamental unit of time of which there is nothing smaller or shorter. 

Since it’s crucial to higher math, but impossible to prove or disprove, mathematicians assume infinity in their equations. Likewise, science can never prove nor disprove the necessary fundamentality of any supposed fundamental particle, but every time someone gets a new microscope they think they’ve found the end. I propose instead of always supposing they’ve reached the limit, why don’t scientists take after mathematicians and assume infinity in their experiments? By all means continue the further telescoping and magnification of matter, but concede that each time We’ve seen further into the macro and micro-unknown, technology throws down the gauntlet, and God picks it up with seemingly infinite resources, from galaxies and quasars to stars and planets, moons down through molecules to atoms and protons and quarks and gluons and so on and so forth. The fractal unknown forever taunts Our limited perceptions from afar, no matter how deep We reach, so why not assume infinity until We’re somehow given real reason not to?

Science can only prove what We can test with tools and Our senses, but it’s more likely that ultimate answers lie far beyond Our perceptions and any tools We can fashion to aid them. Even if some Unified Field Theory proved perfectly consistent with Our every observation, I’d still be suspicious of some finite answer’s eerie consistency, and forever wonder if something undetectable lay one step further. Personally the only Unified Theory that satisfies my deepest concerns is Infinity as Truth in all facets of existence. Matter is infinitely divisible, time is eternal, and speed is limitless for something We can’t see. I present Infinity as the Anti-Unified Field Theory, a concept We grasp but can’t understand - it dangles around Our minds taunting Us with its necessary Truths but never allows Us access to it’s eternal complexity, like God.
- 
The blasphemy scientists are committing is eliminating the infinite aspects of Our Universe. Einstein thinks light’s the fastest thing, Planck thinks strings are the smallest and shortest things, Hawking thinks the big bang’s the first thing, I think they’re all limiting themselves trying to stop one step before infinity. 

We’ve already observed instantaneous, non-local correlation in entangled particles, some physicists insist there exist tachyons faster than light, others say halos around black hole event horizons break the barrier due to time dilation. Whatever the explanation We keep pulling over for Einstein’s ultimate speed limit. Then quantum theorists step-up and create one-dimensional superstrings that walk the Planck between quantum mechanics and Einstienian relativity.  Finally, cosmologists and astronomers play their finite observations in rewind and find a Big Bang Beginning as inexplicable and unsatisfying as you’d expect from science.

The frantic search for fundamental particles, universal boundaries, other endings and attempts to finitize the Anything into sets of symbols shows a human fear of infinity that’s driven many crazy. Reality may be finite and expressible, but if it isn’t then We’ll all die believing whatever current chaotic theory they throw at infinity instead of honoring its integrity, by believing it over any inconsistent set of finite meanderings. 
- 
Why is it that so many truly important math equations, scientific theories, and philosophical refutations end in an infinite regress? We always take this as a sign of failure when it could be the answer popping up over and over again. Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy give opposite requirements for proof and Truth. For a scientific theory, mathematical formula, or logical argument to be proven it must contain the ability to be falsified so that experimentation can further refine it’s validity. But Truth by necessity cannot be disproved, and thus would not contain the ability to be falsified. So if Truth was looking your theory straight in the eyes, the institution shuts it down - an unfalsifiable theory cannot be tested and what cannot be tested cannot be verified true. So if ultimate Truth lay in infinity, which I assure you it does, science will never concede it; it’s up to you.

The origin of the Universe endows necessary Truth on one of two equally unfathomable options: an uncaused cause or infinity. Rationally they are mutually exclusive but equally valid - neither makes sense, and one of them is right. Thus a rationally based decision to your personal opinion of the origin of the Universe leads to an impasse.

Emotionally, however a decision can be made for, infinity feels awe-inspiring in its complex simplicity whereas an uncaused cause is an incomprehensible paradox and feels like betrayal. A first cause is a He, She, or It out there above rationality and causality, necessitating hierarchy on nature. But infinity is Us, Our Universe, all matter in perpetual motion and interaction together. You know where I stand. Plato said there’s too many slaves in caves; I say there’s too many people in houses these days. The walls are keeping Us separate and the roofs are scaring out infinity. Goodnight.”

The crowd disperses and Asbestos catches up with his old friend Figure Head. He invites him to a church gathering at the library on Sunday then sends Pin Head on special assignment to deliver word of the gathering to another friend.

Asbestos Head By Eric Dubay

Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood

 

A Note on Jews and Feminism

My recent review of Janice Fiamengo’s The Goddess that Failed cited her summary of a study by four Israeli social psychologists of a personality trait they called “TIV,” or the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. Fiamengo considered it valuable as a description of a kind of woman frequently met with in feminist circles, and I agree. I also noted in my review that the Israeli origin of the researchers might not be an accident: readers of this site are familiar with the salience of victimhood within the self-concept of many Jews. I did not explore this question in the review, because I wished to keep the focus on Prof. Fiamengo’s ideas, but will try to address it briefly here.

Here, as a reminder, is Fiamengo’s summary of the TIV type:

Passionate belief in one’s victimhood creates an identifiable personality type, one that ruminates on grievance and interprets all experiences through the victimhood lens. Belief in victimhood need have no correlation with actual experience of victimization. The victim personality is characterized above all by a strong need to have one’s suffering recognized. With this need comes a conviction of immaculate morality, a resulting inability to accept criticism or disagreement, and a profound lack of empathy for those perceived as enemies. The researchers also found that people with a victim personality believe themselves justified in taking revenge on those who appear to oppress them. Even when presented with facts and evidence to rebut their beliefs, they are unwilling to relinquish their worldview, which becomes intimately associated with their sense of self. Anger at others and the belief in innocent victimhood create a toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness.

A look at the original paper by the Israeli psychologists (which can be read here)* reveals that the ethnic angle did not escape the authors’ attention. They refer explicitly to the cult of the holocaust, and recognize that it can represent a moral hazard for their own people by way of the TIV personality. Good for them: we all know what epithet would have been assigned to any gentile researcher bold enough to make the same point.

Group differences are statistical, and the TIV personality presumably occurs at different rates in different races and ethnicities. It is likely to be elevated among Jews, although it would probably be futile to expect any objective research on this question in our current cultural and intellectual environment. But the TIV type can and does occur within other races.

Indeed, much group conflict over the past forty years has been aptly described as a “victimhood sweepstakes” wherein not only Jews and feminists but blacks, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other identity groups competitively jockey for moral authority by signaling their victimhood. The only group not allowed to participate in the sweepstakes—White, heterosexual, able-bodied men—are by now a distinct minority of the American population (possibly a third). So the increasing prominence of the personality type described by these Israeli researchers would seem to help explain many aspects of our historical moment, and not just feminism or Jewish-gentile conflict.

Anyone who writes against feminism as I do eventually encounters the thesis that it is all simply a product of Jewish subversion, often backed up with long lists of prominent Jewish second-wave feminists. Here is a popular graphic currently doing the rounds on the internet that embodies this thinking: (under the text)

This view is historically myopic: it requires that one’s familiarity with feminism be limited to the American second wave, usually dated from 1963. But feminist ideas have been widely circulating in the West since the eighteenth century, and not only in the form of Mary Wollstonecraft’s celebrated tract. A review of long-forgotten German debates for and against the “emancipation of women” in the 1780s and -90s, for example, reveal that there is not much novel in twentieth century feminism (cf. Klaus Epstein’s The Genesis of German Conservatism pp. 229–236). Indeed, we have plentiful evidence that similar ideas were discussed in ancient Athens, as witness book 5 of Plato’s Republic and Aristophanes’ comedy The Assemblywomen. Western man did not need the Jews to invent feminism for us.

It remains true, however, that Jews have been massively overrepresented in second wave feminism—by far the most successful version, as they have been in other forms of twentieth-century radicalism, and this calls for explanation. A good place to start might be the work of the above-discussed Israeli psychologists on the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. If Jews are indeed especially susceptible to this “toxic stew of self-righteousness and moral blindness,” it would explain much of their involvement in destructive movements such as feminism without our having to assume the existence of a conscious conspiracy to subvert alien races.

* https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/2020-gabay.pdf

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

The New Elders of Zion

 

[Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. - author has very limited intelligence and learning, he belives that Jesus haven't existed and Christianity was invented by Jews to undermine Western Civilization despite the fact most of intellectual work in Middle Ages was done in monasteries nevertheless in area of negative Jewish influence on Western Civilization is quite competent VB]

Anyone who has looked into the Jewish Question, and even many who have not, likely have at least a passing awareness of the infamous document known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—or ‘Protocols’ for short. This small booklet, which first emerged in Russia around 1900, purports to lay out something of a plan for Jewish world domination.[1] Loosely organized into 24 short essays or individual protocols, this rambling, anonymous work portrays itself as a sort of ‘meeting minutes’ or ‘lecture notes’ from an evidently prominent and influential speaker, talking to a group of (presumably) Jews, explaining the means and mechanisms by which they will dominate individual nations and eventually the world via a master leader called “the Sovereign.”

As one might imagine, such a work has been roundly condemned as one of the most anti-Semitic publications of the 20th century. It has also—owing to its anonymity and fuzzy origins—been regularly denounced as a “forgery”; this assertion relies primarily on textual similarities to passages from an 1865 book by a Jewish writer, Maurice Joly, titled Dialogue in Hell. And because it is a forgery, we are told, the work as a whole is bogus and invalid, and therefore ought to be utterly disregarded.

But this, of course, is nonsense. Even if the writer lifted certain passages from Joly’s book as he was writing in (say) the late 1800s, that does not invalidate any truths in it; it simply reveals the author to be a bit of a plagiarist. The protocols could still be legitimate versions or encapsulations of some actual Jewish plan. But since we do not even know if the writer was a Jew (conveying in summary form an actual plan) or a non-Jew (attempting to make the Jews look bad), it is almost impossible to make clear and accurate determinations here.

As for myself, I do claim some knowledge of the origins and context of the Protocols, having edited and translated a new edition of this work in 2023: Protocols of the Elders of Zion: The Definitive English Edition, published by Clemens & Blair. This work includes the full Protocols in a new, readable American English translation, as well as early commentaries from 1920 and 1921, and later analyses by National Socialist and contemporary thinkers. In what follows below, I will be citing this edition.

First appearing in print in Russia in 1903, the Protocols gained some initial traction there during the first Russian Revolution of 1905, a conflict (really, a civil war) in which a force led by the Jew Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jew Vladimir Lenin violently confronted Czar Nicholas II; the Jews were defeated, but their actions would certainly have at least given credence to a Jewish movement to dominate Russia.

Then came World War One in 1914. The war raged in Europe for three long years, often devolving into a trench-warfare stalemate. England, though, was in increasingly difficult shape, especially into the second half of 1916; in the Battle of the Somme that year, they lost upwards of 600,000 soldiers. Becoming desperate for assistance, the Brits then made a “contract with Jewry” (Temperley) by which they agreed to help the Zionist Jews obtain a homeland in Palestine, if American Jews would bring the U.S. into the war against its will. Pressure on Woodrow Wilson quickly intensified, and he yielded in April of 1917, declaring war on Germany. Britain then reciprocated by drafting the Balfour Declaration, which was signed in November of that year.[2]

Then in March 1917, Russian czar Nicholas was ousted, paving the way for a Jewish-Bolshevik takeover of that nation in October. Jewish activity culminated in late 1918, when Germany collapsed and was defeated, thanks in large part to the revolutionary activity of German Jews like Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, Karl Radek, and Kurt Eisner. Thereafter, Jews led the formation of the so-called Weimar government in Germany, dominating that nation for several years—until the rise of Hitler.

Thus, in relatively quick succession, it became obvious to many people that Jewish wartime activity had led to their taking power in Russia and Germany, and demonstrated their dominance over Britain and America. The Jews truly were “taking over the world.” Consequently, the then-15-year-old Protocols, once a curiosity, could now be understood as a very real, very serious plan for world domination. Non-Jews everywhere had to face the Protocols as a literal blueprint for action, and to deal with it accordingly.

“Ruler of the Rulers”

We need to keep in mind two things at this point. One: The state of Israel obviously did not yet exist when the Protocols were written; Israel would not come into being until a UN General Assembly vote in 1947, and was not declared by the Jews until 1948.[3] For the writer(s) of the Protocols, they could only speculate about a future Jewish state in Palestine, which certainly was not imminent in 1900.[4]

Two: World power, however, was another matter. Well before 1900, Jews were already considered by many to be de facto “rulers of the world.” As early as 1798, German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that “the wealth of the Jews…apparently exceeds per capita that of any other nation at the present time”.[5] In 1823, the poet Lord Byron wrote “all states, all things, all sovereigns [the Jews] control”.[6] In 1843, Bruno Bauer observed that “the Jew…determines the fate of the whole [Austrian] Empire by his financial power. The Jew…decides the destiny of Europe”.[7] And perhaps more than Europe. In an essay of 1860, Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked on Jewish toughness, brought on by years of persecution and suffering: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew, has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth”.[8]

By 1850, German composer Richard Wagner could complain that much of European society was controlled by Jews. It was no longer a question of “emancipation” of the Jews but rather of coming to grips with their power. He wrote: “According to the present constitution of the world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipated; he rules, and will rule, so long as money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force.” Where money rules, Jews rule: this was his message. Hence, “Jewry itself is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.” In a follow-up essay of 1869, Wagner noted that the European press was “entirely directed by Jews”; control of the press, combined with their accumulated wealth, resulted in a Jewry that was “the mightiest organization of our time”.[9]

In 1873, writer Frederick Millingen published a booklet entitled “The Conquest of the World by the Jews.” There, he wrote that “the Jews…are now the wealthiest and most influential class of men; and [they] have attained a position of vast power, the likes of which we do not meet in all history”.[10] Specifically with respect to Germany, in 1879, journalist Wilhelm Marr issued an influential essay, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom,” decrying the fact that “Jewry has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis.” Into a naïve and innocent Germany “penetrated a smooth, crafty, pliable Jewry” that defeated “the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices”—that is, by exploiting his weaknesses. “Germany is finished,” concludes Marr.[11]

In 1880, Laurent Oliphant could write about the Jews’ “financial operations of the largest scale.” “Owing to the financial, political, and commercial importance to which the Jews have now attained,” they have become an indispensable ally in any future conflict.[12] Then, in his influential book Jewish France (1885), French journalist Edouard Drumont made a shocking and frankly unbelievable claim: “Jews possess half of the capital in the world.” Commenting specifically on France, he noted that the total wealth of that nation was around 150 billion francs, “of which the Jews possess at least 80 billion”—that is, slightly more than half.[13] A decade later, historian Goldwin Smith confirmed this view: “Judaism is now [in 1894] the great financial power of Europe, that is, it is the greatest power of all”.[14]

All this, then, had emerged and was circulating in intellectual circles well before the final version of the Protocols was written. Any talk there about world rule was not mere speculation; it was well underway. It was realistically attainable. And it was within grasp. All they had to do was stick to the plan.

And here it becomes clear, I think, that the identity of the author(s) of the Protocols is perhaps irrelevant. The document describes in fair detail the “Jewish plan” from ages past: Acquire wealth by hook or by crook, use that wealth to corrupt the government, and then use governmental power to tilt the playing-field even more in the favor of Jews. Strive, ultimately, for world control. Do all this while, at the same time, taking every opportunity to debase, degrade, humiliate, and destroy the Goyim (non-Jews); the world is a zero-sum game, and every loss for gentiles is a gain for Jews. Hold no moral code but “Jewry first.” Might makes right, and ends justify the means. This has been the plan for three thousand years, and it is the plan today; it has worked in the past, and it will surely work in the future. “God” (Yahweh) promised this to the Jews long ago, and he has proven true to his word. This is the message of the Protocols. Whether it is the exposé of an actual Jewish cabal or the work of some Jew-hating anti-Semite does not really matter. It lays out the actual plan in stark terms for all to see. We can either act on it, or choose to ignore it.[15]

Two Relevant Questions

In the remainder of this essay, I will focus on two issues: First, how does the plan look today, in light of recent world events? And second, who might plausibly count as the new “Elders of Zion”—that is, who are the most influential Jews (in America, at least), those who might be leading the charge toward Jewish domination?

Let me begin, then, by working through the protocols in sequence, pulling out some select passages that have a particular resonance today. In what follows, the reader must bear in mind that, here in America, both major political parties are dominated by Jewish money. Republicans receive at least 25% of their political funding from Jewish sources, and Democrats at least 50%.[16] Hence, the actions of both parties are reflective of Jewish wants and interests. American politics are Jewish politics, pure and simple.

In the end, the reader must judge for himself whether or not the following quoted passages conform to current events—passages that are now at least 125 years old.

“I will describe our system, both from our own viewpoint and from that of the Goyim” (P1, p. 77).[17] The word ‘goyim’ (plural of ‘goy’) is a Jewish term of contempt for non-Jews. This immediately marks it as a (nominal) Jewish document, one in which non-Jews, or gentiles, are viewed with utter disdain. This latter point is hardly contentious; if there is one dominant trait of Jewry from millennia past, it is a kind of misanthropy—a hatred for all non-Jews.[18] Such an attitude is well-documented in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, and in the Shulchan Aruch. This misanthropy has been a virtual hallmark of the Jewish people for thousands of years, and it holds as true today as ever; it is the key component of the Jewish supremacism that drives nearly all rich and powerful Jews.

“This task [of crushing those in power] becomes easier if the [Goy] ruler himself has embraced the idea of freedom, of ‘liberalism’” (P1, p. 77). Liberalism, loosely defined as a broad freedom of thought and action, has proven useful to Jews because it gives them license to unleash all sorts of detrimental, damaging ideas and institutions upon otherwise innocent people. In a tightly-run society that operates with oversight, moderation, and regulation, Jews are constrained in their options; in a free and liberal society, “anything goes,” and Jews have a free hand.

“Guided entirely by shallow passions, superstitions, customs, traditions, and sentimental theories, the mob becomes embroiled in party dissensions that prevent all possibility of reaching an agreement, even one based on perfectly sound reasoning. Every decision of the mob depends upon an accidental or prearranged majority… (P1, p. 78). In a democracy, the “mob,” the masses, rule; but their decisions are based on all sorts of irrational things (“shallow passions,” “superstitions,” etc.). Party strife—like ‘left’ versus ‘right’—overrides sound thinking and good judgement, even as the Jewish overseers are able to “prearrange” the outcome by manipulating the people via mass media.

“He who desires to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. Noble and popular qualities—like honesty and frankness—become vices in politics, as they will defeat a leader more rapidly than the most powerful enemy” (P1 p. 78). Jewish politics sinks to the lowest common denominator. Moral virtue in a politician is not only irrelevant, it is a handicap.

“Given the present instability of all authority, our power will be more unassailable than any other because it will be invisible until it is so well-rooted that no cunning can undermine it” (P1, p. 79). Jews are masters at hiding both their own identity and the effects of their action. Jewish power is indeed largely invisible to the common man; it takes a fair amount of effort to uncover the truth, even in this Internet age.

“The fact that the representatives of the nation can be replaced [via elections], delivers them into our power and practically places their appointment in our hands” (P1, p. 82). American elections are essentially a continuous string of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel candidates. When one leaves office, a new one is “elected” to take his or her place. Exceptions like Kentucky’s Thomas Massie are rare and largely powerless to effect change. Very recently, we have seen a slight shift toward more anti-Israeli (never anti-Jewish) rhetoric, but it remains to be seen how significant this will be.

“It is necessary for us that, whenever possible, wars should bring no territorial advantages; this will shift war to an economic basis and force nations to realize the strength of our predominance” (P2, p. 83). Jewish-instigated wars have shifted, since WW2, from territorial gains to economic gains; from territorial defeats to economic defeats. At one time, territory was important, but once Jews gained their Jewish state in 1948, territorial advancement became largely irrelevant—except of course for Israel, which has a never-ending thirst for more land—the Greater Israel project. (The Protocols are rife with explicit double-standards: rules that hold for Goyim but not for Jews.)

“The administrators chosen by us from among the people in accordance with their capacity for servility will be inexperienced in the art of government; consequently, they will easily become pawns in our game…” (P2, p. 83). Virtually all prominent politicians, and most minor ones, are utterly subservient to Jewish interests and Jewish money. Their careers live or die upon their conformance with the Jewish-Israeli line. This has been true for at least 50 years in America, but it is more obvious now than ever; just consider how many politicians call for a complete end of aid to Israel; for a prosecution of Israeli war crimes; for an open discussion about the pervasive role of Jews and Jewish money in government, business, academia, press, and entertainment—zero. Utter servility is the name of the game today.

“There is one great force in the hands of modern states that arouses thought movements among the people: the press. The press’ role is to indicate necessary demands, to register complaints of the people, and to express and promote dissatisfaction. The triumph of free speech is incarnated in the press; but governments have been unable to profit by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it, we have attained influence, while remaining in the background.” (P2, p. 84). Jews own, control, or otherwise dominate all the major US media corporations: Comcast (Brian Roberts), Disney (Dana Walden, and recently Bob Iger), Warner Bros (Michael DeLuca), Paramount Skydance (David and Larry Ellison), and Fox (Zionist Murdoch family, likely part-Jewish).

“Thanks to the press, we have gathered gold in our hands, although it cost us rivers of blood and tears. It cost us the sacrifice of many of our own people. But every sacrifice on our part is worth a thousand Goyim before God” (P2, p. 84). Of the ten richest Americans, at least five are Jews: Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Michael Dell. (Possible Jewish heritage of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would of course add to this number.) Not far down the list are other Jews, such as Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Yass, Stephen Schwarzman, Miriam Adelson, Marilyn Simons, Henry Samueli, Len Blavatnik, and Dan Gilbert. Much of their wealth comes from high tech, which is now effectively part of “the press.”

“Today I can tell you that our goal is close at hand. Only a small distance remains, and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent—the symbol of our people—will be complete. When this circle is completed, then all the European states will be enclosed in it, as in unbreakable chains” (P3, p. 85). The EU flag is circle of gold stars on a blue background; it was designed primarily by a Jew, Paul M. G. Levy. Europe is certainly under Jewish control today—both internally and indirectly, via the power of the U.S.

“To induce the lovers of authority to abuse their power, we have placed all forces in opposition to each other, having developed their liberal tendencies towards independence. We have encouraged every undertaking in this direction; we have placed formidable weapons in the hands of all parties, and made power the goal of every ambition. We turned governments into arenas in which party wars are fought out. Soon, chaos and bankruptcy will appear everywhere” (P3, p. 85). Political strife is an excellent means by which to distract from the real problem, namely Jewish manipulation and control of society.

“We, on the contrary, are concerned with…the degeneration of the Goyim. Our power lies in the chronic malnutrition and weakness of the worker, because through this he falls under our power and is unable to find either strength or energy to combat it. Hunger gives capital a greater power over the worker than any sovereign legal authority under an aristocracy. Through misery, jealousy, and hatred, we manipulate the mob and crush those who stand in our way” (P3, p. 86). Junk food, drugs, alcohol, chemical preservatives, sugar, contrived pandemics—all these serve to addict and sicken the masses, who then can barely function in their daily lives, let alone spend time and effort on serious political matters.

“This hatred [of the upper classes] will be still more accentuated by an economic crisis, which will stop financial transactions and all industrial life. Having organized a general economic crisis by all possible underhanded means, and with the help of the gold that is all in our hands, we will throw great crowds of workmen into the street, simultaneously, in all nations” (P3, p 87). An excellent anticipation of the Depression, which was likely induced by Jewish action.[19] This also anticipates later economic crises such as the 1973 oil crisis, the junk bond crisis of the late 1980s, the 2008 housing collapse, and the Covid recession—and now the Iran War financial crisis.

“As things stand, as an international force, we are invulnerable; if we are attacked by one state, we are supported by others” (P3, p. 88). In 2003, Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said “Today Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” He was speaking of Jewish control over the US military and the executive branch. Of course, Israel is looking very vulnerable at the moment, thanks to Jewish overreach in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza; but even a defeat there will not mean the end of the power of world Jewry. As long as they own or control trillions of dollars, they are effectively “invulnerable.”

“We will create a strong centralized government, so as to collect social forces under our power” (P5, p. 91). Jews have always pushed for centralized governmental control, which makes it much easier for them to manipulate the levers of power. A decentralized system is much harder to control. Consequently, we have seen massive pressure for a large centralized government in the US (since 1900) and in Europe—hence the formation of the EU.

“All the wheels of government mechanism move by the action of the motor that is in our hands, and that motor is gold” (P5, p. 92). Money indeed is the decisive factor in U.S. politics, and Jews, by far, donate more political money than any other interest group.

“We must direct the education of the Goy societies so that their arms will drop hopelessly at their side whenever they face any task where initiative is required. The intensity of action resulting from individual freedom of action dissipates its force when it encounters another person’s freedom. This strikes a heavy blow against morale, yielding disappointments and failures” (P5, p. 93). Western academia is in a disastrous state, both in the U.S. and Europe. Jewish money, administrators, and faculty have utterly distorted the traditional strength of academia, and a Jewish-inspired “woke” ideology contaminates all levels.

“We must be able to overcome all opposition by provoking a war with the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose us. Should, however, those neighbors, in turn, decide to unite against us, we must respond by creating a world war” (P7, p. 97). A remarkable anticipation of both World Wars, not to mention the Cold War, Iraq Wars I and II, Afghanistan War, Ukraine-Russia War, and now, the U.S.-Israeli Iran War. Major wars are marvelously beneficial to Jewish interests; they earn wartime profits, they realign global power structures, and they kill lots of Goyim.

“[T]o sum up our system of enslaving the Goy governments of Europe, we will demonstrate our power to them by assassinations and terrorism” (P7, p. 98). Israel is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism globally, and the Israeli Mossad is the leading organization for political assassination—closely followed by the Jewish-influenced U.S. military and CIA.

“As it is not yet safe to give the responsible government posts directly to our brother Jews, we will give them to people whose record and whose character are so terrible that there is a vast gulf between them and the people. Such leaders would face nothing but condemnation and imprisonment, should they disobey our orders. This fact will force them to protect our interests, to their dying day” (P8, p. 99). American Jews directly hold many positions of power (something like 35 current members of Congress, along with cabinet positions and one Supreme Court justice), but the remaining non-Jews are almost uniformly of bad character even as they pander to Jewish-Israeli interests. Jewish blackmail surely keeps many of them in line—likely including President Trump.

“We have already effectively destroyed all governments but our own, even though, nominally, many still remain. At present, if any government protests against us, it is done only as a matter of course, and at our desire, and by our order; this is because their anti-Semitism is necessary to enable us to control our lesser brethren” (P9, p. 100). Most Western governments—and many elsewhere—are currently hopelessly dysfunctional or otherwise “destroyed.” Good governance would be a hinderance to Jewish power, and therefore it will be undermined wherever possible. The specter of ‘anti-Semitism’ is routinely raised in all Western nations, both to rally all Jews and to frighten the masses into yet more protective policies toward Jews.

“We have affected legal procedure, electoral law, the press, personal freedom—and most important of all, education: the cornerstone of free existence. We have misled, corrupted, deceived, and demoralized the Goy youth by education along principles and theories known by us to be false but which we ourselves have inspired” (P9, p. 101). Self-evident.

A Blatant Double-Standard

The second half of the Protocols moves into a more future-oriented mode of discourse, explaining the coming social order when the Jewish Sovereign is in charge. Notably, many of the things that Jews promote today, under Goy rule, will be eliminated under Jewish rule; this is because they desire harmful and disruptive measures now, but will need relative peace and stability once in power. Double-standards are pervasive. Again, the only rule is “Jewry first.”

“When we injected the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed; the states became infected with a mortal disease, namely, the decomposition of the blood. It is only necessary to await the end of their agony” (P10, p. 105). Jews have been leading forces in the push for unrestrained immigration, ‘open borders,’ and lax enforcement of visa rules. This was true in the US under several past presidents (Trump is something of an exception, although his actual success at routing out millions of illegals remains to be seen), and it is true of Europe, which has been flooded by at least 20 million Africans and Middle-Easterners since 2000. Racial mixing (“decomposition”) is good for the Goyim because it weakens their genetic integrity and identity; but it is bad for the Jews, who prohibit it by Jewish law.

“To accomplish our plan, we will engineer the election of presidents whose past record contains some hidden scandal—then they will be faithful executors of our orders, for fear of exposure, and from a natural desire to retain the privileges, advantages, and dignity connected with the position of president” (P10, p. 106). Compare to the Protocol 8 passage cited above.

“We must exhaust everyone by dissension, hostility, struggle, hatred, and even martyrdom, hunger, inoculation of diseases, and misery, so as to make the Goyim see no other solution than an appeal to our money and our total rule” (P10, p. 107). Self-evident.

“[W]e have already managed to subjugate the minds of the Goyim to such an extent that almost all of them see world-events through colored glasses that we put over their eyes…” (P12, p. 111). Thanks to Jewish control of the press, media, educational institutions, and entertainment industries.

“All the periodicals published by us will seem to be of contradictory views and opinions, inviting trust in us, and thus appearing attractive to our unsuspecting enemies; in this way, they will be caught in our trap and made harmless. … [Of special importance] will be our ostensible opposition, which, at least in one of its publications, will represent the opposition to us. Our real enemies will mistake this seeming opposition as belonging to their own group, and thus will show us their cards. … Those fools who believe that they repeat the opinions expressed by ‘their’ newspapers will be repeating our opinions or those that we desire them to have” (P12, p. 112). This is an excellent description of the idea of ‘controlled opposition’ in press and politics. Jewish control extends to all media, and thus all media, ‘left’ and ‘right,’ are compatible with Jewish interests; consumers don’t see this influence and thus believe that ‘their’ media are honest and correct.

“We will be able to persuade or confuse [the masses], sometimes printing the truth, sometimes lies, referring to facts or contradicting them, according to the way they are received by the public, and always carefully testing the ground before stepping on it. We will surely conquer our enemies because they will not have the press at their disposal in which to fully express themselves” (P12, p. 113). It is important for the Jews to have total control over media, otherwise the truth might slip out. No truly dissenting voices shall be allowed. Alternative media shall be sued, defunded, harassed, and ‘cancelled.’

“To prevent [the masses] from reaching any independent decisions, we will divert their minds with amusements, games, hobbies, passions, and public cultural centers. We will soon begin to offer prize contests through the press, and sports of all kinds” (P13, p. 115). The over-hyped and over-commercialized nature of television and professional (and college!) sports is self-evident. Such pastimes serve to vent public anger and dissatisfaction, and distract again from the real problems and control mechanisms of society.

“In the so-called advanced countries, we have created senseless, dirty, and disgusting literature” (P14, p. 118). Jews lead the charge in all aspects of pornography—print, film, and Internet. OnlyFans, Vixen Media, Grindr, Aylo/Pornhub, Vivid, and Gamma Entertainment are all Jewish-led or -owned porn distributors.

“You have no idea how easy it is to bring even the most intelligent Goyim to a state of unconscious gullibility, and, on the other hand, how easy it is to discourage them by the smallest failure—or merely by ceasing to applaud them, thus enslaving them for the sake of achieving new success. To the same extent as our people ignore success for the sake of carrying out their plans, so are the Goyim ready to sacrifice all their plans for the sake of success. Their psychology makes the problem of direction easier for us. Those who appear to be tigers are as stupid as sheep; nonsense filters through their heads” (P15, p. 121). Comment unnecessary.

“Our rule will simulate the God Vishnu, who resembles us physically; each of our hundred hands will hold one of the levers of the social machine” (P17, p. 129). Jews do indeed seem to be everywhere at once. There is scarcely an aspect of government or culture in which they do not have an active hand.

“Through cleverly-compiled historical textbooks, we have indirectly given publicity to [political] martyrdom as though done for the sake of human welfare. Such an advertisement has multiplied the number of liberals and has swollen the ranks of our agents by thousands of Goyim” (P19, p. 133). Political rebels, agitators, ‘antifa,’ and so on—that is, those on the extreme radical left—serve as agents of Jewry. Such people believe themselves to be working for radical equality, radical justice, and radical freedom, but in the end they only further the Jewish cause.

“In order to teach the people obedience, they must be taught modesty. And to accomplish this, the production of luxuries must be limited. [Once in power,] we will thus improve public morality, which has been demoralized by competition resulting from luxury” (P23, p. 143). Once again, rules for thee but not for me. Corrupting luxury abounds today, but will be greatly restrained when it serves the Jewish power structure.

“I say once again that people blindly obey only the hand that is strong and entirely independent of them—the hand that wields a sword of defense against the blows of social misfortune. Why should the Sovereign have an angel’s heart? The people want to see in him the personification of power and might” (P23, p. 143). Present-day Israel, and Netanyahu in particular, fashion themselves as Jewish world-powers. In their actions against innocent and disarmed Palestinians, or against the innocent masses in Lebanon and Iran, Israeli Jews reveal themselves to be ruthless and brutal killers; they evidently believe that this shows “strength.” It rather shows them to be genocidal psychopaths, for which no punishment can be too harsh.

The New Elders

Who, then, are the specific individuals guiding “Israel” to its supposed future glory? Who are the new Elders of Zion?

Netanyahu and his immediate advisors are obvious candidates, and they indeed seem to play the role. Pathologically, they seem to believe that the nations of the world should, and will, bend to their will. They cajole, bully, bribe, and coerce other national leaders to serve their interests, often successfully. Trump in particular seems to be in Netanyahu’s back pocket; with all due bluster and hot air, Trump thrashes around wildly in his policy but, in the end, at least so far, seems to do essentially what the Jews want him to do.

But it is not only Netanyahu, of course. It is the entire Jewish power structure in America that also works on him, just as it worked on all past presidents. So who are these leading individuals, these American ‘power Jews,’ who function to implement the age-old plan of the Protocols?

Some names are obvious: We can start with the wealthiest Jews and those with the highest levels of political power. Above I cited by name the 13 richest Jews in America; they certainly count as modern-day Elders. But it is not merely the richest; there are at least 300 Jewish billionaires in the US, and it depends how active they are in trying to shape American, and global, society. Lesser billionaires can sometimes take a more active social/political role, typically because they are super-donors to the Democrats. Among these, I would include William Ackman, (net worth $9.1 billion), David Geffen ($9 billion), George Soros ($7.5 billion), Paul Singer ($6.7 billion), Stephen Mandel ($5 billion), and Tom Steyer ($2.5 billion).

In addition to the richest, there are those Jews in high positions within the federal government, some of whom are mere multimillionaires. Chuck Schumer, for example, wields significant political power but is worth only some $7 million. Other assertive Jewish senators include Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff (Bernie Sanders also makes this list, though he is, in some ways, an anti-elder). Then we have the most influential representatives: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Lois Frankl, Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, and Brad Sherman. Next, we may include the leading Jews in the Trump administration: Steve Witkoff, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, and Ron Lauder. And of course, we cannot fail to include Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

As a third general group of ‘new Elders,’ I would name those Jews who lead our major technology and media organizations. Above I cited six leading media Jews who certainly make the list. And some of the richest (cited already) are also tech or media leaders. In addition to the above, I would include Adam Mosseri (Instagram), Safra Catz (Oracle), Arthur Levinson (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Alex Karp (Palantir), Gary Cohn (IBM), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and Andy Jassy (Amazon).

As a fourth group, I will include Jews who lead powerful organizations within the U.S., by which I refer to Jonathan Greenblatt (ADL), Ted Deutch (American Jewish Committee), and Betsy Korn and William Daroff (Jewish Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations).

Finally, there is a group of miscellaneous Jews who wield power in various other ways. These individuals include political figures such as Rahm Emanuel (former Obama chief of staff), JB Pritzker (governor of Illinois), Josh Shapiro (governor of Pennsylvania), Douglas Emhoff (husband of Kamala Harris), and Josh Stein (governor of North Carolina). Also in this group, I would place film producers Steven Spielberg and (yes) Harvey Weinstein, who, at age 74, is incarcerated and faces ongoing litigation over his 100+ suspected sexual assaults but is still worth some $25 million and still influences events in Hollywood and beyond. I also include here the leading American representative of the infamous Rothschild family, Lynn Forester de Rothschild.[20] Lastly, a mix of various influential figures: Alan Dershowitz (lawyer), Seth Klarman (CEO of Baupost), Arthur Sulzberger (New York Times), David Solomon (Goldman Sachs), Steve Tisch (New York Giants football), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots football), Mark Cuban (minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball and co-founder of 2029 Entertainment), and Josh Kushner (LA Lakers basketball, and brother to Jared). In all, 66 individuals.[21]

Lest the reader lose track of all these names, here they are again, in alphabetical order:

There they are, 66 names: my nominees for the 2026 edition of the new Elders of Zion. Each one guaranteed to work on behalf of Jews and Israel, each guaranteed to put “Jewry first.” I’m sure each reader will have his or her own nominees, perhaps a much larger list; so be it. At least the discussion has begun.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at

 www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] There are claims that the Protocols were written as early as 1818, but these are not credible. At least in final form, they must date to the late 1800s—though we cannot rule out that some early ‘proto-Protocols’ were drafted much earlier. The final document mentions Friedrich Nietzsche (Protocol 2) who only came to prominence after 1888; it mentions a French prime minister, Leon Bourgeois (Protocol 16), who served from 1895 to 1896; and it has two textual references to Zionism (Protocols 3 and 5), which did not exist in any meaningful sense until 1897. The final composition was certainly after these dates.

[2] The Jewish “homeland” of Israel would not come into being until 1948, thirty years after the Declaration. For the full story of the “contract with Jewry,” see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2025).

[3] A UN General Assembly vote, incidentally, has no force of law; that can only come from a Security Council vote, which did not happen. Technically, therefore, Israel was never legally authorized by the UN.

[4] Note that the “King of Israel” is mentioned four times in the text, but there, ‘Israel’ refers to the Jewish people, not the nation-state.

[5] Anthropology (1798/1978), p. 102.

[6] “The Age of Bronze.”

[7] Cited in Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” The Marx-Engels Reader (1978), p. 49.

[8] “Fate,” in Conduct of Life (1860).

[9] “Jewry in Music,” cited in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (2022), pp. 7-43.

[10] Cited in Classic Essays, p. 64.

[11] Cited in Classic Essays, pp. 95-124.

[12] The Land of Gilead (1880), p. 503.

[13] In The Jew in the Modern World (2011, Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, eds.), p. 315. Chapter One of Drumont’s book is reproduced in Classic Essays, pp. 125-146.

[14] Essays on the Questions of the Day (1894), p. 260.

[15] One man who did act on it was Henry Ford. He became aware of the Protocols around 1919 and was so impressed that it prompted him to initiate his famous “International Jew” series, which began in May 1920; see my published edition The International Jew: The Definitive Edition (2024; two volumes).

[16] See the white paper “The Jewish Vote,” by Gil Troy (2016).

[17] That is, Protocol #1, cited at page 77 of the above-mentioned edition of 2023.

[18] I won’t elaborate here; for details, see my book Eternal Strangers (2025).

[19] According to Louis McFadden, congressman from Pennsylvania, “Paul Warburg…engineered the Great Depression”—as stated in the Congressional Record of 1931. See One Honest Man (2026; Clemens & Blair).

[20] She is apparently a converted Jew, having married prominent Jew Andrew Stein in 1983 before marrying E. Robert de Rothschild in 2000.

[21] Jews attach much symbolic importance to the number six, so this is an appropriate total.

Thomas Dalton

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/thomasdalton/