To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Only Cripples Will Survive

 ONLY CRIPPLES WILL SURVIVE

Unthan’s Lesson

That life can involve the need to move forwards in spite of obstacles is one of the basic experiences shared by the group of people whom, with a carefree clarity, one formerly called ‘cripples’, before younger and supposedly more humane, understanding and respectful spirits of the age renamed them the handicapped, those with special needs, the problem children, and finally simply ‘human beings’.13 If, in the following chapter, I persist in using the old term, which has meanwhile come to seem tactless, it is purely because it had its traditional place in the vocabulary of the time that I am recalling in these explorations. Abandoning it for the sake of sensitivity, and perhaps merely over-sensitivity, would cause a system of indispensable observations and insights to disappear. In the following, I would like to demonstrate the unusual convergence of human and cripple in the discourses of the generation after Nietzsche in order to gain further insights into the structural change of human motives for improvement in recent times. Here it will transpire to what extent references to the human being in the twentieth century are rooted in cripple-anthropological premises – and how cripple anthropology changes spontaneously into an anthropology of defiance. In the latter, humans appear as the animals that must move forwards because they are obstructed by something.

The reference to rooting provides the cue, albeit indirectly, for the reflections with which I shall continue the explorations on the planet of the practising stimulated by Nietzsche – and, in a sense, also the contemplations on torsos introduced by Rilke. In 1925, two years before Heidegger’s Being and Time, three years before Scheler’s The Human Place in the Cosmos, the Stuttgart publisher Lutz’ Memoirenbibliothek printed a book with the simultaneously amusing and shocking title Das Pediskript: Aufzeichnungen aus dem Leben eines Armlosen, mit 30 Bildern [The Pediscript: Notes from the Life of an Armless Man, with 30 Illustrations]. It was ‘penned’ by Carl Hermann Unthan, who was born in East Prussia in 1848 and died in 1929 – in truth, it was written on a typewriter whose keys were pressed using a stylus held with the foot. Unthan unquestionably deserves a place in the pantheon of reluctant virtuosos of existence. He belongs to those who managed to make a great deal of themselves, even though his starting conditions suggested that he would almost certainly make little or nothing of himself. At the age of six or seven the boy, born without arms, discovered by chance the possibility of playing on a violin fastened to a box on the ground. With a mixture of naïveté and tenacity, he devoted himself to improving the method he had discovered for playing the violin with his feet. The right foot played the part of the left hand, fingering the notes, while the left foot moved the bow.

The young man pursued his exercises with such determination that after attending secondary school in Königsberg, he was accepted as a student at the Leipzig Conservatory. There, mastering an enormous practice workload, he reached a notable level of virtuosity. He expanded his repertoire, soon also including showpieces of the highest difficulty. Naturally the handicapped man’s violin playing would never have attracted such attention far and wide if it had been carried out in the usual form, without the element of acrobatic improbability. Before long, a vaudeville entrepreneur showed interest in Unthan. In 1868, still a minor, he began to go on concert tours, which, after stops in rural towns, took him to the European capitals, and later even across the ocean. He performed in Vienna, where he was introduced to the conductors Johann Strauss and Michael Zierer. In Munich he impressed the Hungaro-Bavarian military band leader and waltz king Josef Gungl by playing Gungl’s brand new composition, the ‘Hydropathen-Walzer’; he was especially flabbergasted by Unthan’s execution of double stops with his toes. After a concert at the ‘overcrowded grand ballroom’ in Budapest, he was reportedly congratulated on his virtuosic performance by Franz Liszt, who had been sitting in the first row. He patted him ‘on the cheek and shoulder’ and expressed his appreciation. Unthan notes on this incident: ‘What was it that made me doubt the authenticity of his enthusiasm? Why did it seem so artificial?’14 One can see: in this note, Unthan, who was already over seventy by the time he wrote Das Pediskript, was not simply touching on imponderabilities in relationships between older and younger virtuosos. Those questions, written down half a century after the scene they describe took place, were significant as a symptom: they reminded the author of a distant time when the illusion that he could be taken seriously as a musician, not merely a curiosity, was still intact. Even fifty years later, the author still felt the cold breeze of disillusionment in Liszt’s paternally sympathetic gesture; Liszt, a former prodigy himself, knew from experience what kind of life awaits virtuosos of any kind. So he would have known all the better what future lay before a young man who was to travel the world as a victor over a quirk of nature.

There is a widespread cliché among biographers: that their hero, who often has to go through arduous early years first, ‘conquers the world for himself’. In his mode of self-presentation, Unthan takes up this figure by following each anecdote with another and recounting the saga of his successful years as a drawn-out travelogue, moving from city to city and continent to continent. He tells the story of a long life in constant motion: on Cunard steamers, on trains, in hotels of every category, in prestigious concert halls and dingy establishments. He probably spent the majority of his career on dubious vaudeville stages, from which he would blow the baffled audience kisses with his feet at the end of his performances.15 The dominant sound in Unthan’s public life seems to have been the cheering and applause of those surprised by his presentations. Unthan’s ‘notes’, which can neither be called an autobiography nor memoirs – the closest category would be that of curiosities – are written in a language at once naïve and sentimental, full of stock phrases, echoing the diction of the factual account in the mid-nineteenth century; one can imagine the author’s tongue in the corner of his mouth while writing.

On every page of Das Pediskript, Unthan demonstrates his conviction that the success of his life is revealed through an overflowing collection of picturesque situations he has experienced. Unthan lays out his treasures like a travel writer of the bourgeois age – his first concert, his first bicycle, his first disappointment. These are accompanied by a host of bizarre observations: a bullfight in which the bull impaled several toreros; a sword-swallower who injured his throat with an umbrella; garishly made-up females of all ages in Havana in 1873, with ‘an odour of decay hovering over everything’, with dancing negresses: ‘We saw the most forbidden things imaginable’; a lizardeating event in Mexico; ‘sold out’ in Valparaiso, with the recollection that ‘the sun slowly sank into the still ocean. As if it were finding it difficult to leave …’ Seven hours of brisk swimming ‘without turning on my back’, and heavy sunburn as a result; his encounter with an armless portrait painter in Düsseldorf, a comrade in fate who painted with one leg – ‘there was no end to the questions and answers’, ‘he was full of vitality and good cheer. But most of our chats touched on deep matters nonetheless.’ His mother’s death: ‘there was a praying inside me, though I did not and do not know what it was praying’. Appearances in the Orient, where people are more distinctive: ‘a list of my most striking experiences alone would fill entire volumes’. Disappointment at the Holy Sepulchre, where ‘the most degenerate riffraff’ appeared to have gathered; arrest in Cairo, nicotine poisoning in Vienna, rifle shooting with his feet in St Petersburg, in the presence of Tsar Alexander III, guest appearance in Managua – ‘the city of León bore the character of decline’; a comet over Cuba; participation in a film entitled Mann ohne Arme [Man Without Arms]. On board the Elbe to New York as a fellow passenger of Gerhart Hauptmann, who has a brief conversation with the artiste. Then the New World: ‘Americans show a stimulating understanding in the face of the extraordinary.’ ‘ “You’re the happiest person I know”, said a man they called John D. “And what about you, with your money, Mr Rockefeller?”, I asked him. “All my money can’t buy your zest for life …” ’

Das Pediskript could be read as a sort of ‘life-philosophical performance’, using the latter word in its popular sense. Unthan steps before his audiences in the posture of an artiste whose special virtuosity on the violin, and later with the rifle and the trumpet, is embedded in an overall virtuosity, an exercise in the art of living that pervades all aspects of life – it is no coincidence that the picture section of the book primarily shows the author carrying out such everyday actions as opening doors and putting on his hat.

If one wanted to translate Unthan’s more general intuitions into a theoretical diction, his position would have to be defined as a vitalistically tinged ‘cripple existentialism’. According to this, the disabled person has the chance to grasp their thrownness into disability as the starting point of a comprehensive self-choice. This applies not only to the basic auto-therapeutic attitude as expressed by Nietzsche in Ecco Homo, in the second section under the heading ‘Why I Am So Wise’: ‘I took myself in hand, I made myself healthy again.’ Unthan’s choice applies to his own future. He places the following words in the mouth of the twenty-one-year-old who felt he had been released into independence: ‘I will seize myself with an iron first to get everything out of myself.’16 He interprets his disability as a school for the will. ‘Anyone who is forced from birth to depend on their own experiments and is not prevented from performing them […] will develop a will […] the drive towards independence […] constantly stimulates further experiments.’17The consequence is emotional positivism, which is accompanied by a rigorous prohibition of melancholy. Unthan’s aversion to every form of pity recalls similar statements in Nietzsche’s moral philosophy. Only constant pain, for example, might be capable of wearing down someone handicapped: ‘All other obstacles are defeated by the will, which forges ahead into the sunshine.’18 The ‘sunny attitude to life’ of the cripple who was able to develop freely leads, we are told, to a ‘higher percentage of zest for life’ than is the case for a ‘fully able person’.19Unthan ends his account with a summary in which he presents his confession: 

I do not feel lacking in any way compared to a fully able person […] I have never found anyone with whom, taking all conditions into account, I would have wanted to exchange places. I have certainly struggled, even more with myself than with my surroundings, but I would not give up those exquisite pleasures of the soul, which came about precisely through the struggles caused by my armlessness, for anything in the world.20So it is ultimately only a matter of giving the cripple a chance to develop freely: this thesis is the culmination of Unthan’s moral intuitions, which fluctuate between the urge for emancipation and the longing to participate. This free development should not be mistaken for a licence to aesthetic excesses, as called for in the Bohemian ideologies appearing at the same time. Allowing the cripple ‘enough light and air in his development’21 rather means giving him a chance to participate in normality. For the handicapped person, this reverses the relationship between bourgeois and artistes. Unlike bourgeois rebels against the ordinary, he cannot dream of following the people in the green caravan.22 If he wants to be an artist, it is in order to be a bourgeois. For him, artistry is the quintessence of bourgeois work, and earning a living through it is what gives him a sense of pride. On one occasion, the author remarks that he would not want to receive a fur coat for the winter as a gift from a noble sir, as Walther von der Vogelweide did: ‘I would rather earn the fur coat with my feet.’23 At the ethical core of Unthan’s cripple existentialism one discovers the paradox of a normality for the non-normal. What makes this existentialist in the stricter sense of the word is a group of three motifs whose development only took place in the twentieth century: firstly, the figure of self-choice, whereby the subject makes something out of that which was made out of it; secondly, the socio-ontological constraints affecting anyone who exists under ‘the gaze of the other’ – this produces the impulse of freedom, the stimulus to assert oneself against the confining power coming from the foreign eye; and finally the temptation of insincerity, with which the subject casts its freedom away to play the role of a thing among things, an in-itself, a natural fact. 

From the perspective of French existentialism, Unthan did everything right. He chooses himself, he asserts himself against the enslaving pity of the others, and remains the perpetrator of his own life rather than becoming a collaborator with the allegedly dominant circumstances. But the reason he does everything right – perhaps more right than can be expressed in any philosophical jargon – cannot be sufficiently illuminated with the thinking methods found left of the Rhine. The inadequacy of the French approach lies in the fact that the existentialism which developed in France after 1940 formulated a philosophy for the politically handicapped (in this particular case, for the people of an occupied country), while in Germany and Austria, the last third of the nineteenth century had seen the growth of a vitalistictherapeutically coloured philosophy for the physically and mentally handicapped, namely neurotics and cripples, that charged itself up with political, social-philosophical and anthropological ideas after 1918. While the occupation taught the French to associate existence (and existential truth) with resistance and freedom in the underground, Germans and Austrians had begun two generations earlier to equate existence (and existential truth) with defiance and compensatory acts. Thus the drama of ‘continental philosophy’ – to draw this once on the laughable classification of content-oriented thought by formalists across the water – in the first half of the twentieth century can only be understood if one bears in mind the contrasts and synergies between the older and more comprehensive Central European existentialism of defiance and the younger, more politically restricted Western European existentialism of resistance. The first goes back to pre-Revolution times, for example the work of Max Stirner, and continues – after its culmination in Nietzsche – until the systems of Freud, Adler and the later compensation theorists who became active in Germany; the second, as noted above, took shape under the 1940-4 occupation, with a history extending back via the revanchism of the Third Republic to the anger collection movements among the losers of the French Revolution, that is to say the early socialists and communists. Once one has understood the German model, one will easily recognize it in its caricatured forms left of the Rhine. What circulated on the Rive Gauche after 1944 as the doctrine of the Anti was the political adaptation of German cripple existentialism, whose adherents were committed to the ethics of the Nonetheless.

Unthan undoubtedly belongs to the earlier defiance-existentialist movement. Because of the special nature of his circumstances, however, he was not fully subsumed under this tendency. What sets him apart is a special form of ‘living nonetheless’ that isolates him from the heroistic mainstream and brings him into the company of artistes. His heroism is that of a striving for normality. Part of this is the willingness to be not simply an involuntary curiosity, but a voluntary one. One could therefore define his position as that of a vaudeville existentialist. Its starting point is the cunning of fate that commands him to make an artistic virtue out of an anomalous necessity. Driven along by strong initial paradoxes, the vaudeville existentialist searches for a way to achieve a form of ‘decent exhibitionism’. For him, normality is to become the reward for abnormality. In order to be at peace with himself, he must therefore develop a form of life in which his pathological oddity is transformed into the precondition for a successful assimilation. Hence the ‘armless fiddler’, as Unthan was known on American stages, could under no circumstances perform as a mere cripple, as was the custom in the European circus and even more in the freakshows across the Atlantic. He had to present himself as the victor over his disability and beat the gawking industry at its own game.

The achievement of this success confirms Unthan’s unusual position, which is once more occupied by various outstanding artists today. By managing to develop the paradoxes of their mode of existence, the handicapped can become convincing teachers of the human condition – practising beings of a particular category with a message for practising beings in general. What Unthan conquered for himself was the possibility of becoming, as a cripple virtuoso, a subject that can be beheld and admired to the same extent as it can be exhibited and gawked at – exhibited primarily by the impresarios and circus directors often mentioned, seldom favourably, in Das Pediskript, stared at by an audience whose curiosity often gives way to moved enthusiasm within a short time. When the existentialism of defiance is heightened into its vaudeville form, we see the emergence of the cripple artiste who has chosen himself as a self-exhibitable human. In the race against the voyeuristic curiosity of the normal, which must constantly be won anew, his self-exhibition pre-empts mere sensation. For him, the dichotomy between life and art no longer exists. His life is nothing other than the hard-won art of doing normal things like opening doors and combing one’s hair, as well as less normal things such as playing the violin with one’s feet and dividing pencils in the middle through a gunshot triggered with the foot. The virtuoso of the ability to be normal can rarely indulge in the luxury of depressive moods. Living in the Nonetheless imposes an ostentatious zest for life on those who are determined to succeed. The fact that things may be different on the inside is no one’s business. The land of smiles is inhabited by cripple artistes.

(...)

YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR LIFE

On Anthropotechnics

PETER SLOTERDIJK

Friday, October 10, 2025

Tired of living, but scared of dying


More explicitly, the plight in which the ego finds itself entangled is the following: The ego would like to have all its desires fulfilled, which means not having desires any longer; but not having desires any longer would be the death of the ego; so the ego would like to continue having desires!

The appeal of old myths evoking the nostalgia of a primordial Eden, of a Paradise Lost where everything was immersed in everything, distinctions were non-existent and harmony reigned (all desires fulfilled), clashes with the will of the ego to continue, that is to continue to have desires. The ego is the living contradiction consisting in trying to experience “totality” and “individuality” at the same time. And, as in the Spiritual “Old Man River”, the ego is “tired of living, but scared of dying.”

The idea of improving itself in order to cope with the situation may appeal to the ego.
Doctors, analysts, even magicians may be consulted for that purpose. But even along this road there is little salvation, because the ego puts up resistance when some considerable measure of success is in the offing. The ego is afraid of changing too much since that would go counter Wits basic need of identity.

There is an old story which I will adapt freely to the situation.

A Young Lady Made out of Salt.

Once upon a time there was a young lady made out of salt who felt such a strong attraction towards the sea (from which she was born) as to wanting to be reabsorbed by it.
One day she made the first step into the water, but two toes of the wetted foot dissolved rapidly. The young lady retreated in anger since, of course, she did not want to lose her individuality. So she turned her back on the sea and started fighting in order to affirm herself more and more, as a separate entity, hoping (senselessly) to come thereby closer and closer to the sea. The young lady, in other words, wanted to become the sea again and, at the same time, to continue to be herself.

She tried to reconcile what is reciprocally incompatible.

Is Man a Useless Passion?

If, at that point, we look for a conclusion, we may be tempted to adopt the celebrated one put forth by Sartre: “Man is a useless passion”. Were it so, the only way open to man would be to bear with courage his radical, inescapable unhappiness.

But thus to conclude is to interrupt the process of understanding. Before doing that, in any case, let us carry this process a bit further.

Is man a useless passion? I would rather say that the ego is. In trying to define the ego we have found that it resists attempts to describe it statically, that is according to the traditional  Aristotelian logic based on “substance” or “essence” whereas it lends itself to be explained in terms of passionate activity, meant to satisfy an impossible desire.

The ego deceives itself into thinking that its real problem is the satisfaction of this or that desire, being led astray by a world which appears composed of durable and lasting things and therefore productive of lasting happiness. This world is only a creation of language, but the ego ignores that and acts according to its false belief.

However, the human being who, under the impact of language, becomes an ego, has the possibility of awakening which, if developed, would destroy the ego. Usually that possibility is dormant; the ego takes itself, its activity very much for granted. The obviousness of the world of words with all its implications is so deep and generally acknowledged that whenever it is questioned, astonishment and derision arise.

A Pirandello Play

In a famous Pirandello play (“Six Characters in Search of an Author”), there is a dialogue between a character (fully conscious of its condition as “character”) and the producer (who performs the role of a man in flesh and blood) during which the former expresses its doubts about the so called self-identity of the latter.

Here is the relevant part of that dialogue:

“FATHER (the character): … and once again I ask you in all seriousness; ’Who are you?’ PRODUCER (turning to the Actors in utter amazement, an amazement not unmixed with irritation):
What a cheek the fellow has! A man who calls himself a character comes here and asks me who I am!
FATHER (with dignity, but in no way haughtily): A character, sir, may always ask a man who he is. Because a character has a life which is truly his, marked with his own special characteristics. And as a result he is always somebody! Whilst a man … And I’m not speaking of you personally at the moment … Man in general … can quite well be nobody.
PRODUCER: That may be as it may? But you’re asking me these questions. Me, do you understand? The Producer! The Boss!
FATHER (softly, with gentle humility): But only in order to know if you, you as you really are now, are seeing yourself as, for instance, after all the time that has gone by, you see yourself as you were at some point in the past… With all the illusions that you had then … with everything … all the things you had deep down inside you … everything that made up your external world … everything as it appeared to you then … and as it was, as it was in reality for you then! Well … thinking back on those illusions which you no longer have … on all those things that no longer seem to be what they were once upon a time … don’t you feel that … I won’t say these boards … No! … that the very earth itself is slipping away from under your feet, when you reflect that in the same way this you that you now feel yourself to be … , all your reality as it is today … is destined to seem an illusion tomorrow?
PRODUCER (not having understood much of all this, and somewhat taken aback by this specious argument): Well? And where does all this get us, anyway?
FATHER: Nowhere. I only wanted to make you see that if we (again, pointing to himself and to the other Characters) have no reality outside the world of illusion, it would 13 be as well if you mistrusted your own reality The reality that you breathe and touch today … Because like the reality of yesterday, it is fated to reveal itself as a mere illusion tomorrow.

The poor producer does not feel the earth slipping away from under his feet, he is so sure of himself, or perhaps sometimes he does but he is so scared by it that he does not pursue this terrible feeling.

Every now and then, men (producers or not) have a glimpse of their fundamental situation.
They may see the world and themselves with new eyes. When that happens everything shows itself as a reverse of what appeared before; everything seems unreal if compared with the usual, customary reality.

Usually these flashes of awareness are without consequences; just one of those fleeting thoughts which have no impact at all on the kind of life one leads. And even if this sort of realisation happens rather frequently, it can be discarded for a variety of reasons; because, for instance, one sees in it a temptation of the Devil against the Divine affirmation: “The world is not an illusion and you have an immortal soul”; or because the carpe diem is made to prevail.
So, many seeds are wasted. However there are instances in which they give their fruits. But a fertiliser is necessary for that. That fertiliser has a common name: attention. But it must be an attention of a special kind as we shall see presently.

(...)

It is an attention which watches reality in the making, moment by moment, in the here and now of every moment. In fact everything happens in the here and now; there is no other lived time than the here and now, but usually we are not conscious of it.

This attention, therefore, is not discriminatory, has no preferences. It is focussed on what happens to be there.

All this represents a radical change with respect to what we usually do. We interpret immediately a group of sensations and we use a name to symbolise them. To take again an example already made, we say: “I am hungry”, but—paradoxically as it may seem—we know very little the sensations

the sensations which are behind those words. We certainly feel hungry but more than that we know we are hungry; we do not spend time in order to experience those sensations; rather we run to eat something.

This new attention is without presuppositions because any possible presuppositions are or should be converted into an object to be attentive to. It is a detached attention as if answering an eternal question: What happens? What happens here and now?

[The ego experiences not only the present (or, better, what is present) but also remembers the past and anticipates the future. This remembering and anticipating gives the ego a sense of duration, of its temporal extension in the two directions. But memory has its limits; so, beyond these the ego imagines a further past conceived as a (mythical) primordial age; it does the same with the future, especially the far distant future, seen as a kind of Utopia where peace and harmony, as in that glorious past, would reign. In so doing, the ego creates eternal values of a secular or religious nature. The main reason why the ego indulges in this activity is its strong tendency to escape from the present. The ego seems to be alienated from what happens here and now; it takes refuge in projecting itself in to other times already gone or to come. Blaise Pascal had already noticed it: “Man does not know how to live in the present; he is veiled by the shadows of the past or by his planning of the future.” What matters to the ego is to refuse the limitations of the present; it revolts against its being just what it is and nothing else, its apparent insignificance. And words are an excellent vehicle to get out of the now. Everybody remembers the old story of the three stone-cutters who, to the same question, “What are you doing?”, each one gave a different answer: the first said, “I am cutting stones”; the second, “I am earning a living”; and the third, “I am building a cathedral.“ The power of words is such that their meanings can considerably exceed the restricted area of the here and now. Through language the ego quits easily the things which happen in the present, in order to go into the abstract; this is why words poorer and poorer of content and richer and richer in fascination are frequently used.
So the ego has a strong tendency not to be there, where in any given moment it actually is.]

From essay Birth, Life and Death of the Ego
Carlo Gragnani


Extracts from Opioids for the Masses: Big Pharma’s War on Middle America And the White Working Class

 We spoke to Brandeis University opioid policy expert Dr. Andrew Kolodny to get a sense of how to properly understand what has been happening.

“To start with, the correct way to frame the opioid crisis is an epidemic of opioid addiction,” Kolodny told us. “The reason we’re experiencing record overdose deaths and that we’re seeing fentanyl and heroin in parts of the country we’ve never seen it before, and outbreaks of injection related diseases, and births of opioid dependent babies, is all because of the increase in opioid addiction coming from prescription opioids.” 

Noting the 900 percent increase in opioid addicts between 1997 and 2011, he said the majority of overdoses are among those already addicted. But this is by no means the whole story. “I have a friend who lost his daughter who was seventeen. It was the night before she was going to college, and she was at a party,” Kolodny said. “She was experimenting for the first time and took an 80 mg OxyContin which is a very high dose. One pill, and Emily died.

“That said, I really don’t agree with framing this as a ‘drug abuse’ crisis, because that implies we have a lot of people behaving badly and accidentally killing themselves while behaving badly and recreationally. Some people became addicted because they abused opioid prescriptions and liked the feeling, but more are dependent and continue to use opioids not because they feel good but because when they are not taking them they feel sick.

**

We now live in an America where working class, predominantly White, rural people whose parents and grandparents would have spat at the idea of shooting up are now living and dying with needles in their arms. And they are doing it in extremely large numbers. Many, including Dr. Kolodny, describe this as an “epidemic.” But is it really an epidemic? The world “epidemic” implies a disease spreading naturally, due to some pathogen. The “pathogen” idea makes it easy to get caught up in debating the best strategies or treatments for combatting this “natural occurrence,” just as you would an outbreak of the bird flu. It sounds inevitable. The only hope is to treat the disease and hope the “epidemic” subsides.

In truth, this crisis isn’t about a naturally occurring pathogen infecting the population. Centuries ago, it was possible to claim ignorance about the effect opiates have on patients. But the lessons of history are easy to learn if only we’d look. This wasn’t inevitable. There were guiding hands behind designing these drugs, obtaining regulatory approval, and marketing them to patients and doctors. Whether by plan or criminal negligence, this crisis wouldn’t have occurred without human action. Something set this in motion. Someone in the long chain of events that got us here were derelict in their duties or knew what they were doing. Maybe both.

Because this has both human intervention and a human death toll, maybe the more correct lens to view this through is not that it is an epidemic, but rather a crime. If one patient is deliberately and knowingly administered a deadly drug, we might treat it as murder, but now that the death toll is over 400,000, we call it an “epidemic”? What changes an event from a crime to a public health issue?

The full human cost is not simply an accounting of the dead, but includes the impact of despair and hopelessness that follows in the wake of opiate addiction and abuse. There is, as Adam Smith said, “much ruin in a nation.”

We began our investigation into this crisis by considering the places hardest hit by opiate addiction, overdoses, and deaths. To our surprise, the hardest hit areas were home to certain rural and working-class American communities—exactly those who had most successfully resisted drugs in the past.

The fact that “flyover America” is most affected by the crisis explains the relative paucity of coverage in the news. Rural White Americans are those least likely to receive sympathy from coastal media and politicians. Both the leadership of the left and right often take rural and working-class Americans for granted. But these Americans are part of the backbone of this country. They comprise a surprising percentage of our armed forces. They contribute a disproportionate amount to the Federal tax coffers. And historically, they have provided the labor that made America the industrial superpower of the modern world. Without them, America simply won’t be the same.

**

If a pharmacy fills two hundred prescriptions of all types on an average day, then today about twenty-five of those will be for opioids. That’s far and away the biggest single category of prescriptions filled in a pharmacy. That’s in every pharmacy in America, every single day.

*   *   *

In very large measure, this blizzard of opioid prescriptions really started with Purdue Pharma. “Blizzard” here is not a capriciously chosen word, by the way. According to court filings, a member of the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma the maker of OxyContin, told attendees of the drug’s 1996 launch party that the drug’s takeoff would be “followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition,” according to filings and records produced in Massachusetts v Pursue Pharma et al. And he was right. OxyContin was the most successful pharmaceutical product launch in American history. It buried the competition in the years since. In that same period of time, OxyContin and its competitors also buried hundreds of thousands of Americans. 

According to the CDC, from 1999 to 2017, more than 700,000 people died from a drug overdose. Around 68 percent of the more than 70,200 drug overdose deaths in 2017 involved an opioid. In 2017, the number of overdose deaths involving opioids was six times higher than in 1999, counting both prescription opioids and illegal opioids like heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl.

**

Viral videos of people overdosing in public are now too common, like that of Ron Hiers and his wife, Carla, who shot up heroin in a Walgreens in Memphis, Tennessee and passed out at a bus stop. As Time described it in an article and video titled “Life after Addiction,” Hiers is “bent backward over a bus-stop bench, eyes closed, head brushing the ground and a cell phone in his outstretched hand. It rings, but the man doesn’t move. A few feet away, dangerously close to the road, a woman lies face down on the sidewalk, her legs buckled under her. She tries to get up but can’t make it, and collapses back down in a heap.”

In another heart-breaking scene, a mother lies sprawled on the floor of the toy aisle in a retail store in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Her two-year-old daughter, dressed in pink “Frozen” pajamas, cries and screams, vainly trying to wake her mother up.

Such stories, unthinkable a generation ago, can be found all across White Middle America. Flyover America. The Heartland.

A grandmother and her partner in East Liverpool, Ohio, are found sprawled out in the front seat of an idling car while her four-year-old grandson, still dressed in dinosaur pajamas, sits in the back.

Even the survival stories can make you feel a bone-deep kind of sadness. In Jacksonville, Florida, a young woman candidly told a local news station of her struggles with opioids that started when she was prescribed them at the age of sixteen to alleviate the pain of ovarian cysts. Twelve years later, she was still fighting addiction.

“I remember doing the pregnancy test, putting it on the ground and shooting up while I was waiting for the test results to come back,” Crystal Harrison told First Coast News. “I was prescribed them for about two months, and when the prescription ran out I started looking in the street for them. I went from Lortab to Oxycodone to heroin to fentanyl, and all it was just, it’s been a downhill effect since I was sixteen until now twenty-eight.”

She’s had to be revived with Narcan three times. She sought treatment, and as of the time of her interview in the fall of 2018, she had been clean for six months and regained custody of her three children. Assuming she beats the odds and stays clean, the cost in lost time with her children and to her health has already been levied, and it’s all because of a drug she should have never been prescribed.


*   *   *


In a way, it’s simple. Their first taste came from a person they trusted most—their doctor. Some might sneer at “pill poppers” for a moral failing, but the number one way Americans are introduced to prescription opioids is when they get them for acute pain for minor or major surgeries. The second most common way is wisdom tooth removal. The average age of the recipients of opioids for wisdom tooth removal is around seventeen years old.

So, we turned to a different kind of doctor for some answers: Dr. Robert Valuck, professor at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science. Valuck is a fit and gregarious man with grey peppered in his brown hair. He can hold forth on the broad scale and history of the opioid crisis, in part because he saw it unfold in real-time, but also because it’s a passion he has made a part of his field of study. 

And he has no qualms about naming those he considers most responsible, the merchants of this crisis. “There’s a confluence of factors over a long period at play but you start in the early 1980s with the increased attention to treatment of pain and the recognition of pain,” Valuck says. “There was a lot of talk about the under-treatment of pain in the 1980s and in some ways there was a little truth to that, but the narrative was completely different. No one was talking about ideas like pain-free or ‘painkillers.’ I don’t like that word ‘painkiller.’ There’s no such thing.” Interestingly, addicts often describe opiates not as eliminating pain, but making it so they simply don’t care about the pain.

While the explosion of opioid prescriptions for pain treatment and pain management began in earnest in the early 1990s, Valuck said that one of the prime movers for the push cited by pain management experts, doctors, and especially pharmaceutical companies was something printed in the January 10th, 1980 issue of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

It wasn’t a study or anything even close to so weighty. It was a single-paragraph letter to the editor. Here is the full text of it:


Addiction Rare in Patients Treated With Narcotics


To the Editor: Recently, we examined our current files to determine the incidence of narcotic addiction in 39,946 hospitalized medical patients who were monitored consecutively. Although there were 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic preparation, there were only four cases of reasonably well documented addiction in patients who had no history of addiction. The addiction was considered major in only one instance. The drugs implicated were meperidine in two patients, Percodan in one, and hydromorphone in one. We conclude that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.


Jane Porter

Hershel Jick, MD

Boston Collaborative Drug

Surveillance Program

Boston University Medical Center

“Even now the authors admit it wasn’t supposed to be carte blanche for opioids. This wasn’t a real study. It was basically a larger-case anecdote,” Valuck said. “This became something cited hundreds and hundreds of times as evidence for the fact that opioids were not addictive, if used legitimately. The claim was that it was less than 1 percent or one-tenth of a percent that became addicted and it showed no such thing.”

The truth was, Porter and Jick had analyzed a database of patients hospitalized at Boston University Medical Center. These were patients in a hospital given small doses of opioids for acute pain, not long-term pain. The drugs were administered by staff, not the patients themselves, and were delivered only in the hospital.

But pharmaceutical companies and pain management advocates were off and running. The Joint Commission is a prestigious national non-profit that accredits and certifies nearly 21,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. They claimed that facilities needed to create a plan for addressing levels of pain and what to do about it. This sounds reasonable in and of itself – nobody wants to live in pain.

But consider the American Pain Foundation. While also official sounding and apparently reasonable, they were anything but. Valuck describes the American Pain Foundation as “a money laundering organization for the pharmaceutical industry.” Funding records bear this out. According to an investigation by ProPublica, fully 90 percent of its funding came from Big Pharma. It was the chief advocate for the proliferation of opioid pain relievers and expanded pain management as part of the medical practice for decades. That is, it was the chief advocate until it abruptly closed its doors in 2012, just as it came under intense Congressional scrutiny.

“The American Pain Foundation launched a campaign to make pain the ‘fifth vital sign,’” Valuck said. The Joint Commission joined them, and in 2001 rolled out its pain management standards which supported the idea of the fifth vital sign. “They said you have to assess and address it. They were not saying you had to use opioids but to assess and address it,” Valuck said. “That set the foundation.”

That may sound benign to a layman but think about it. What are the four things you get checked every time you go to see your doctor? It’s always body temperature, pulse rate, respiration rate, and blood pressure.

 “Now, every person at every visit to the doctor would get assessed and asked about it,” Valuck said. “It would put the issue top of mind, and plant the idea that any pain they had should be treated. But pain is not a vital sign. It is a symptom.”

So, taking together all of this, Valuck said, you had a generation of doctors taught to think of pain as a “vital sign” and that any and all pain had to be managed or ameliorated. It created a culture where doctors and patients alike viewed pain not as part of the human experience, or a natural warning sign, or even as a consequence, but rather as something that had to be eradicated.

Concurrent with the rise of the concept in medicine of perpetual pain management and eradication came the inclusion of pain management as part of the patient experience with government payment plans.  “Then there were discharge surveys for Medicare and Medicaid patients. Satisfaction surveys of care. Now granted... only a random sample of patients get these... but they were asked about how their pain was managed,” Valuck said. “And until only recently, scores on the pain segment were tied to higher and lower levels of reimbursement for the provider. I can’t think of a more perverse incentive for hospitals and providers to overprescribe.

“It created a perverse incentive to give everyone Vicodin. ‘Are you in pain? Have some Vicodin,’” Valuck said, mimicking the dismissive attitude.

But was it just misguided medical policies and a simple push from Big Pharma that got us here? “Don’t underestimate the power of marketing... the pharmaceutical companies never did,” Valuck said.

*   *   *


Big Pharma first marketed prescription opioids such as hydrocodone to treat pain. They claimed, leaning on the conventional wisdom of the Porter-Jick letter and what came after, that these drugs carried minimal risk for addiction. There are dozens of companies that manufacture and market opioids and synthetic opioids, but the biggest name in the business, especially when it comes to marketing, is Purdue Pharma run by the Sackler family.

Mortimer Sackler was the patriarch of the Sackler dynasty until his death in 2010. The second son of Jewish immigrants from Ukraine and Poland, Sackler and his three brothers became the leaders of a small pharmaceutical company in the 1950s. By the mid-1980s, Purdue Pharma was still a small concern, but Mortimer Sackler had big ideas on how to grow its product line.

“Mr. Sackler... is associated with a lot of well-known products like Valium and Librium, but he invented peer-to-peer influencing, thought leader influencing, and how to get doctors to sell to each other,” Valuck said.

That is to say, rather than relying on the typical “cute sales rep” that would go from doctor’s office to doctor’s office, Purdue spent tens of millions on programs to convince physicians to lean on one another to favor certain Purdue products over other pharmaceutical brands. Doctors, most of whom hold themselves in high esteem, naturally hold their peers and their peers’ recommendations in high esteem.

Purdue Pharma was a pioneer in campaigns geared towards patients directly, such as the “Get Your Life Back” campaign that was basically preparing the market for Purdue and the Sackler’s greatest achievement—the launch of OxyContin in 1996.

It all worked all too well.

“OxyContin was the most successful launch in the history of modern medicine,” Valuck says. By 2001, something like 80 percent of Purdue’s gross revenue of $3 billion came from OxyContin sales. And according to the New Yorker, OxyContin had generated for Purdue “some $35 billion in revenue” by 2017. The Sackler family had gone from owners of a relatively modest pharmaceutical company in the mid-1980s to the nineteenth wealthiest family in America in 2016, according to Forbes.

Pharmaceutical companies like Purdue and others continued the full-court press. Strategies included paying middlemen to get around state regulations and even going so far as to allegedly bribe doctors to prescribe opioid medications.

“They knew what was going on. They knew [OxyContin] was more addictive than they let on. They knew it wasn’t a twelve-hour medication. And it will eventually get proven in court,” Valuck said. “They’ve already paid multiple hundred-million-dollar judgments—they’ve already admitted that [it] doesn’t last as long as they claimed.”

More than forty states are involved in a multi-district litigation in Ohio. Hundreds of counties and municipalities have their own lawsuits. Whether Purdue survives or not is in the cards, but the damage to Americans has already been done. If the tobacco company lawsuits are any guide, little of the settlement money will end up in the pockets of victims. More likely, it ends up in government hands, which will then distribute it to corporate recovery programs with maddeningly ineffective recovery statistics. Either way, the price will be paid by Middle America.

Some media attention has been paid to the incredible body count the opioid epidemic has wrought, but there has been very little sense of emergency, and no sense of urgency. Not the way there was with the crack epidemic of the 1980s. Particularly not at the level of national policy and national media.

At the state level, some of the regions hardest hit have cracked down on “pill mills” where unscrupulous doctors took cash for prescriptions in storefronts that would pop up and disappear from month to month. And they’ve passed limits on the amount or duration of opioids physicians can prescribe. Of course, as mentioned before, this has only resulted in a grim game of drug choice “Whack a Mole” with those enthralled to opioid dependence seeking illicit sources like heroin and fentanyl.

The addictive nature of opioids has been known for over a century. Today, it isn’t simply anecdotal. We can almost measure the likelihood of addiction to the tablet. According to Valuck, there is a 6 percent chance a person given just 6 tablets will be taking opioids a year later. This comes from a survey of over half a million patients, not a letter to the editor of a medical journal. “And if you give a patient three weeks or more of tablets, say 60-90, there is a 20 percent chance they’ll be taking opioids a year later. Give them forty days—it’s a 40 percent chance. We know how this works,” he said. The calculus of opiate addiction is as consistent as it is depressing.


*   *   *


Many states have passed regulations limiting opioid prescriptions, and medical guidelines increasingly stress that opioids be avoided when possible for acute pain such as a new injury, or for patients who are post-op. There are new systems in various states where prescribers can look up a patient’s entire prescription history with other prescribers to ensure that the patient isn’t “doctor shopping.”

But there’s still the problem of illicit opioids, synthetics, and the persistent problem of those who have taken opioids for chronic, long-term issues.

“The most reduction has been in acute pain, but we’ve not gotten our hands on chronic pain, those who are physiologically dependent,” Valuck said. “There’s no real data to support opioids as long-term pain relief, and yet there are data emerging that people on opioids for longer periods are developing hyperalgesia,”—which is characterized by a patient receiving opioids potentially becoming, paradoxically, more sensitive to pain.

“These people aren’t addicts but they are physiologically dependent. In these cases, we’re really not treating pain but treating withdrawal. And they are teetering on the edge of addiction. It just robs the spirit and it robs a person of purpose,” he said. “Anyone can be tapered off but it takes time and commitment,” Valuck added. “That’s the next big challenge.”

**

Most people don’t associate Alabama with coal mining, but Jasper was once among the leading producers of coal. That’s part of the reason why there’s such a gap between the rich and poor here. It’s also why the area suffers problems similar to better-known coal areas like the towns in Kentucky and West Virginia. At its height there were half a dozen coal mines, two sandstone quarries, four hundred coke ovens and a foundry, according to the Daily Mountain Eagle.

Mining and its associated trades are hard, repetitive work that easily give injuries to the common workers, while making large profits for the owners. These injured workers were a natural target for pharmaceutical companies going back to the 1980s, when they began pushing for more aggressive treatment of pain.

“Physicians were prescribing it like crazy,” said Matt Brown, chief of staff at Addiction Recovery Care in Louisa, Kentucky. “We’re from coal country. It’s a lot of manual labor and a lot of injuries. And when the coal jobs go away, people still have their prescriptions. They have a dependence on the drug and a need to make money on the side.”

Government subsidies helped fuel Jasper’s addiction. As coal jobs started disappearing, Medicare and Medicaid ensured that retired or unemployed patients would still be able to get their medications. Moreover, the price of opioid tablets on the street was high enough in recent decades that many could sell pills to others while still having enough left to satisfy their dependence, perversely replacing some of the income lost to globalization. Ironically, patient health may have been at greater risk by having health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid than not having it, due to the lack of interest the government showed in how it was being used and affecting people’s lives.

**

Allred has seen people come before him looking like they have every chance at getting cleaned up and their life back together, but too often it doesn’t work that way. He has pages of heart-breaking stories where he’s done everything he can for someone and he still gets word weeks or months later that they’re back in jail or dead. He’s seen people who actually get cleaned up do so too late and end up having severe medical problems from the damage they’ve already done to their heart or liver.

“You shouldn’t be thirty-three or thirty-four and having to deal with open heart surgery or liver failure,” Allred tells us. “The saddest thing for me though is seeing younger people, millennials, coming through here, and I can see exactly what’s coming for them and they don’t get it.”

He pauses for a moment and shakes his head. “Everything we do seems like it’s one step forward and two steps back,” Allred says. That’s not to say there hasn’t been progress, but Jasper has the same problem we observed in Kentucky. Even as they crack down on pill mills, heroin and Fentanyl slide right in to fill the gap.”

**

Adam is a slender man in his early fifties with piercing green eyes and a cautious demeanor. Joshua, in his early twenties, shares his father’s eyes and build. He’s an engineering student at an Ivy League university nearby.

Father and son share something besides their appearance. They share an addiction to opioids.

We’re at their house for the better part of a warm June day. It’s spacious and well appointed, in a classic style befitting the community. Adam’s wife serves us iced tea from a silver tray. Their family has roots in the area here that go back before Civil War. They’re deeply involved in the community and donors to the arts in Philadelphia. They don’t want to get more specific than that. The circles they run in are, in the end, a small world.

“I took a bad fall cycling,” Adam says, his wife settling warmly beside him on their large leather couch. Josh, in a navy golf shirt, sits on an ottoman. “I had to have surgery on my knee. Despite decades of practice, I’d never actually had to take any kind of painkiller stronger than ibuprofen.

“The first day after I was foggy, but by the second or third day I was really looking forward to my next dose. You’d think of all people I would have known what was happening, but it’s like it triggers something in you that short-circuits your logic and your knowledge. It’s like I knew what was happening and just didn’t care. I enjoyed the sense of well-being too much. And after all, I’m a doctor. I would know exactly my limits,” he snorts, self-derisively.

“Six months later and I was taking five Vicodin a day, and having to cover my tracks for some pretty shady tactics I was using to get them,” he says.

Adam considers himself lucky. It was his wife, not the state board or any controlling authority, that confronted him about his abuse of opioids. “She saved me,” he says. Adam checked himself into a high-end recovery clinic that specializes in helping medical professionals who have addiction issues. After a month, he says he was clean. But he still attends NA meetings twice a week with Joshua.

As a junior in college, Joshua fell into abusing Adderall, as many students do. The energy and focus he got from its use left him with powerful headaches that lasted days. His fraternity brothers came through for him, hooking him up with a steady supply of opioid pills.

“It didn’t take long for me to go from using them for headaches to using them for fun,” he says.

After Adam had returned from rehab, he told his family about his addiction. That’s when Joshua realized that if a man he so admired and was as strong as his father could succumb to addiction, then surely he had already.

“It was the hardest thing in the world to tell my dad, days after he was out of rehab, that I was addicted as well,” Joshua tells us. Joshua joined an out-patient program close to his parent’s home and that summer he too got clean.

“The thing is, and what makes me angry about it when I let it, is that through rehab and meetings, both my son and I are in recovery, but we will always be addicted. We’ll never be sure that we won’t ever have a moment of weakness again. We’ll have to always be on guard. And our worst fear is that some injury might befall one of us, and that we’ll have to face the possibility of needing pain medications,” Adam says. “Nothing can ever make us whole.”

**

Lawyers, Drugs, and Money

Want to know why political policies and solutions failed? Consider the following statistics from the Center for Public Integrity:

Drug companies and allied advocates spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade; by comparison, a handful of groups advocating for opioid limits spent $4 million. The money covered a range of political activities important to the drug industry, including legislation and regulations related to opioids.

The opioid industry and its allies contributed to roughly 7,100 candidates for state-level offices.

The drug companies and allied groups have an army of lobbyists averaging 1,350 per year, covering all 50 state capitals.

The opioid lobby’s political spending adds up to more than eight times what the formidable gun lobby recorded for political activities during the same period.

For over a decade, a group called the Pain Care Forum has met with some of the highest-ranking health officials in the federal government, while quietly working to influence proposed regulations on opioids and promote legislation and reports on the problem of untreated pain. The group is coordinated by the chief lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin.

Two of the drug industry’s most active allies, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, have contacted legislators and other officials about opioid measures in at least 18 states, even in some cases when cancer patients were specifically exempted from drug restrictions. State lawmakers often don’t know that these groups receive part of their funding from drug makers.

Five states have passed laws related to abuse-deterrent opioids and scores of bills have been introduced, with at least 21 using nearly identical language that some legislators said was supplied by pharmaceutical lobbyists. Pharmaceutical companies lobby for such laws, which typically require insurers and pharmacists to give preferential treatment to the patent-protected drugs, even though some experts say the deterrents are easily circumvented.

So it’s pretty obvious they’ve gamed the political remedy. Those politicians that Big Pharma haven’t bought outright, they’ve managed to hoodwink with concern troll-style doubletalk—helping to write the very rules and regulations that they want in the guise of fighting the opioid crisis and delivering better patient care. By spreading their tentacles around Washington, DC and state capitols across the country, Big Pharma has made it well-nigh impossible for any actual regulatory crackdown, or even oversight with any teeth.

Surely, then, the courts could offer a solution?

After all, as we noted in the previous chapter, there have been hundreds of cases brought against Big Pharma, with some measures of victory. But the victories, in terms of the dollar amounts, the damage to corporate reputation, and the imposition of judicial orders in lieu of regulatory crackdown, have been picayune. Ultimately they have slowed the pace of the opioid industry juggernaut about as much as bugs splatting on the windshield slows a tractor trailer on the highway. 

In the latter half of the 2000s and into the 2010s, as the opioid epidemic consumed the American landscape, states and the US Department of Justice began the long slog of bringing lawsuits against Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers. The damage just couldn’t be ignored any more. A flood of lawsuits followed from municipalities and others. Eventually most of them were combined under a single umbrella in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

And this is where it became a case “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” to quote Macbeth.

Because when you look at the big legal decision against Purdue Pharma that was announced in late August 2021, even as we were finishing this book, it became clear that there is no judicial will to bring justice against the perpetrators of this crime.

“Purdue Pharma Is Dissolved and Sacklers Pay $4.5 Billion to Settle Opioid Claims” reads The New York Times headline of September 1st, 2021. 

“The ruling in bankruptcy court caps a long legal battle over the fate of a company accused of fueling the opioid epidemic and the family that owns it,” declares the secondary headline. 

The news would appear grim for the Sackler tribe and Purdue Pharma, if the story were taken at face value. 

Under the terms of the deal reached in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, New York, Judge Robert Drain ruled that Purdue Pharma was dissolved as a corporate entity, and that the owners and the Sackler family would pay more than $4.5 billion in fines, fees and restitution. That money is supposed to be paid out throughout this decade, with the lion’s share coming from the former Purdue entity and from projected profits of the “public interest” drug company that will emerge from Purdue’s corpse.

The king is dead, long live the king, it seems. It is also a cruel twist that the new company will focus on making drugs to fight opioid addiction. First they sold America the disease, then they get to sell America the cure for that disease. 

The details of the agreement and order provide that Purdue agreed to plead guilty in federal court to three counts of felony conspiracy to violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The penalties under the deal include a $3.5 billion criminal fine and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, the former of which is to be paid out in installments through 2030.  

That’s it. That’s the extent of their criminal charges—violating business laws and regulations. And while Purdue must make public some thirty million documents, emails, and records that detail some elements of Purdue’s role in the opioid crisis, it won’t reveal the full extent of their malfeasance. 

A few emails that have been made public in the course of the bankruptcy trial already are pretty damning, as reported by STAT News, with links to the full documents included.

In one email exchange dating back to January 1997, Purdue executives were hyper-concerned about Merck Medco, the national pharmacy benefit management firm, which was warning doctors that using OxyContin for chronic pain treatment could lead to addiction and abuse.

Richard Sackler told executives in the email chain that such concerns about addiction had to be “obliterated” as it threatened their move into the non-cancer pain management space:

I think that [Dr.] Paul [Goldenheim] has a good point, but we should consider that “addiction” may be a convenient way to “just say ‘NO’’’ and when this objection is obliterated, they will fall back on the question of cost. Unless we can give a convincing presentation that [Purdue’s] products are less prone to addiction potential, abuse or diversion than [other opioid] products. I think this can be done, but I defer to BK [Dr. Robert Kaiko] and RR [Dr. Robert Reder] and other experts.

In another email going back to 1996, the year OxyContin was brought to market, Sackler told executives that he wanted to highlight Purdue’s dogged willingness to fight any patent infringement by competitors so that the company would be “feared as a tiger with claws, teeth and balls.”

Another email exchange between Sackler and Michael Friedman, head of sales and marketing, came in 1997, where Friedman told Sackler that there was a false impression among physicians that OxyContin wasn’t as strong as morphine and that he didn’t want to correct that misperception because it was helping sales. 

“It would be extremely dangerous at this early stage in the life of the product to make physicians think the drug is stronger or equal to morphine,” the email states. “We are well aware of the view held by many physicians that oxycodone is weaker than morphine. I do not plan to do anything about that,”

Sackler replied, “I agree with you.”

Despite all this obvious, criminal intent, none of the executives are facing jail time.  

“Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice,” said Purdue Chairman Steve Miller, who joined the company leadership in July 2018, just before Purdue filed for bankruptcy.

As for the Sackler family? They are separately on the hook for—wait for it—just $225 million. 

This for a family with a current estimated net worth of between $11 billion and $13 billion, which during these suits revealed they had personally moved $1.36 billion into offshore—and therefore untouchable—accounts, according to court records from this very same bankruptcy court, which Judge Drain specifically addressed in his ruling, according to The New York Times coverage of the judge’s decision. In fact, it’s suspected that the Sacklers transferred more than $10 billion out of the company between 2008 and 2017, as scrutiny of the company increased. Via The New York Times:“This is a bitter result,” he said. “B-I-T-T-E-R,” he spelled out, explaining that he was frustrated that so much Sackler money was parked in offshore accounts. He said he had expected and wished for a higher settlement.

Trey Garrison

Thursday, October 9, 2025

The Tyranny of Human Rights - Kerry R. Bolton


Foreword   By Dr. Tomislav Sunić   

Kerry Bolton’s book might just as well carry the title The Decline of the West, Part 2, or short of that, it can be catalogued as a sequel to Oswald Spengler’s work. By using a descriptive and theoretical approach in his heavily footnoted prose, the author describes the endtimes of what was once known as Western civilization. The only problem is that each passage of this book could easily evolve into a separate volume. Each page of the book is replete with dozens of proper names and names of a variety of political organizations to the point that the reader must take a break and read each passage twice.

Moreover, given Bolton’s usual custom of providing a massive amount of bibliographic references, the following pages aren’t designed for an ad hoc perusal or some passing right-wing coffee shop entertainment. This is a very serious piece of scholarly work which requires from a reader of the following pages at least some background in different fields of social science. For those lacking time or patience, or those who might find the book too heavy-handed, it may serve as a good reference for studying the rise and fall of the West.

Bolton is at his best when providing the causal nexus leading up to the catastrophe unfolding now in the West. The Sovietization of the Western politics, the resurgence of primal mannerism among masses of Westerners, the primitivization of conduct in citizens’ mutual relationship, the brutalization of the English langue—all these new social pathologies did not drop from the moon. Neither are these signs of the ongoing decay a product of a single special interest group. The chapters of the book trace the historical origins of this chaos. The merit of the author is his willingness to demolish the myth of the much-lauded social contract theorists, the founding fathers of the modern replacement mystique: Jean Jacque Rousseau, John Locke, and their future liberal-leftist fellow travelers. Their daydreams of an expendable man, man as a blank slate, man as a tabula rasa creature, waiting to be perpetually reborn in an imaginary Lalaland, was bound to give birth to what came to be known first as the Lysenkoist-Bolshevik experiment and which we know today under the name of multicultural SJW, BLM, Antifa, LGTB, including hundreds of other outlets of “world-improvers” in the West. In fact, the communist Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s because its own egalitarian multiracial aspirations had been better achieved in practice in the Western liberal global village. The chapters dealing with the distortion of language are particularly important, all the more as language generates political concepts and the way how we communicate with each other. The much used abstract expressions, such as “human rights” or “humanity,” having originated during the American and French revolutions, are critically analyzed by the author. Similar upsurge in lexical imprecisions, such as the expressions “ethnic sensitivity training,” or “affirmative action,” being now part of the US legalese, are directly borrowed from the now defunct Sovietspeak. A separate book could be devoted by Bolton to his brief passage on Alice behind the Looking Glass and her encounters with the polysemic Humpty Dumpty. The Orwellian double-talk used by Humpty Dumpty had its natural outcome somewhat later in the Soviet Union—albeit not as a nursery rhyme but as a deadly legal procedure against wrong-thinkers.

Other than providing a theoretical framework for his analyses Bolton prods into chapters of daily politics and illustrates his prose with the description of current Western movers and shakers. Chapters that follow read often as detailed police reports on the moral corruption, coupled with self-denial of the political class in the West. New Zealand, a country of the author’s actual residence, is also briefly discussed as a small tip of the melting iceberg. The old Rousseauistic imagery of the “noble savage” transpires now in the general self-abnegation process by New Zealand Whites toward the Māori people. The “noble savage” in the Pacific Rim must be treated now as a new superego of Whites; he must be hailed as a new deity guiding the sinful White into the glorious future—regardless whether his or her name is Nelson Mandela or George Floyd or Nanaia Mahuta. In fact, even the so-called great replacement in the West, that is, storms of Afro-Asian migrants on their way to Europe, is a logical process that perfectly ties in with the doctrine of liberalism and its twin brother communism.

In hindsight one may wonder whether the political heavyweights mentioned in the book and their disciples sitting now in DC, London, and Brussels are engaged in a deliberate process of lying, or whether they are just unwilling subjects of their own self-delusion. Whichever way they have chosen, the whole course of Western civilization appears nevertheless to have been, over the last two hundred years, a patent exercise in Western self-destruction. 

Dr. Tomislav Sunić

Monday, October 6, 2025

The Absolute Imperative


See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

Galatians 6:11

Who Is Allowed to Say It?

‘You must change your life!’ The voice Rilke heard speaking to him at the Louvre has meanwhile left its point of origin. Within a century, it has become part of the general zeitgeist – in fact, it has become the last content of all the communications whirring around the globe. At present, there is no information in the world ether that cannot be connected to this absolute imperative in its deep structure. It is the call that can never be neutralized into a mere statement of fact; it is the imperative whose effects are unhindered by any indicatives. It articulates the motto that arranges the innumerable chaotic particles of information into a concise moral form. It expresses concern for the whole. It cannot be denied: the only fact of universal ethical significance in the current world is the diffusely and ubiquitously growing realization that things cannot continue in this way.

Once again, we have reason to recall Nietzsche. It was he who first understood in which mode the ethical imperative must be conveyed in modern times: it speaks to us in the form of a command that sets up an unconditional overtaxing. In so doing, he opposed the pragmatic consensus that one can only demand of people what they are capable of achieving in the status quo. Nietzsche set the original axiom of the practising life against it in the form established since the irruption of ethical difference into conventional life forms: humans can only advance as long as they follow the impossible. The moderate decrees, the reasonable prescriptions, the daily requirements – in all cases, their fulfilment presupposes a hyperbolic tension that stems from an unrealizable and inescapable demand. What is the human being if not an animal of which too much is demanded? Only those who set up the first commandment can subsequently present Ten Commandments In the first, the impossible itself speaks to me: thou shalt have no other standards next to me. Whoever has not been seized by the oversized does not belong to the species of Homo sapiens. The first hunter in the savannah was already a member; he raised his head and understood that the horizon is not a protective boundary, but rather the gate for the gods and the dangers to enter.

In order to articulate the current overtaxing in keeping with the state of the world, Nietzsche took the risk of presenting the public with ‘a book for everyone and nobody’ – a prophetic eruption, six thousand feet beyond mankind and time, spoken with no consideration for any listeners, and yet allied in an invasive fashion with each individual’s knowledge of his intimate design for the not-yet. One cannot simply let the Übermensch programme rest if one knows that it stands for vertical tension in general. Its proclamation became necessary once there was no longer sufficient faith in the hypothesis of God to guarantee the anchoring of upwards-pulling tension in a transcendent pole. But even without God or the Übermensch, it is sufficient to note that every individual, even the most successful, the most creative and the most generous, must, if they examine themselves in earnest, admit that they have become less than their potentiality of being would have required – except for those moments in which they could say that they fulfilled their duty to be a good animal. As average Über-animals, tickled by ambitions and haunted by excessive symbols, humans fall short of what is demanded of them, even when they wear the winner’s jersey or the cardinal’s robe. 

The statement ‘You must change your life!’ provides the basic form for the call to everyone and nobody. Although it is unmistakably directed at a particular addressee, it speaks to all others too. Whoever hears the call without defences will experience the sublime in a personally addressed form. The sublime is that which, by calling to mind the overwhelming, shows the observer the possibility of their engulfment by the oversized – which, however, is suspended until further notice. The sublime whose tip points to me is as personal as death and as unfathomable as the world. For Rilke, it was the Dionysian dimension of art that spoke to him from the disfigured statue of Apollo and gave him the feeling of encountering something infinitely superior. Today, on the other hand, the authoritative voice can scarcely be heard in works of art. Nor do the established ‘religions’ or church councils possess any commanding authority, let alone the councils of wise men, assuming one can still use this phrase without irony.

The only authority that is still in a position to say ‘You must change your life!’ is the global crisis, which, as everyone has been noticing for some time, has begun to send out its apostles. Its authority is real because it is based on something unimaginable of which it is the harbinger: the global catastrophe. One need not be religiously musical to understand why the Great Catastrophe had to become the goddess of the century. As it possesses the aura of the monstrous, it bears the primary traits that were previously ascribed to the transcendent powers: it remains concealed, but makes itself known in signs; it is on the way, yet already authentically present in its portents; it reveals itself to individual intelligences in penetrating visions, yet also surpasses human understanding; it takes certain individuals into its service and makes prophets of them; its delegates turn to the people around them in its name, but are fended off as nuisances by most. On the whole, its fate is much like that of the God of monotheism when He entered the stage scarcely three thousand years ago: His mere message was already too great for the world, and only the few were prepared to begin a different life for His sake. In both cases, however, the refusal of the many increases the tension affecting the human collective. Since the global catastrophe began its partial unveiling, a new manifestation of the absolute imperative has come into the world, one that directs itself at everyone and nobody in the form of a sharp admonition: ‘Change your life! Otherwise its complete disclosure will demonstrate to you, sooner or later, what you failed to do during the time of portents!’ 

Against this background, we can explain the origin of the unease in today’s ethical debate, both in its academic and in its publicistic varieties. It stems from the discrepancy between the monstrosities that have been in the air since the Cold War era after 1945 and the paralysing harmlessness of all current discourses, whether their arguments draw on the ethics of attitude, responsibility, discourse or situations – to say nothing of the helpless reanimation of doctrines of value and virtue. Nor is the oft-cited return of ‘religion’ much more than the symptom of an unease that awaits its resolution in a lucid formulation. In reality, ethics can only be based on the experience of the sublime, today as much as since the beginning of the developments that led to the first ethical secessions. Driven by its call, the human race of two speeds began its campaign through the ages. Only the sublime is capable of setting up the overtaxing that enables humans to head for the impossible. What people called ‘religion’ was only ever significant as a vehicle of the absolute imperative in its different place-and time-based versions. The rest is the chatter of which Wittgenstein rightly said that it should be brought to an end.

For the theologically interested, this means that the one God and the catastrophe have more in common than was previously registered – not least their trouble with humans, who cannot rouse themselves to believe in either. There is not only what Coleridge called the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ in the fiction whose absence would render aesthetic behaviour impossible. An even more effective approach is the willing suspension of belief in the real whose absence would prevent any practical accommodation with the given situation. Individuals barely ever cope with reality without an additional element of de-realization. Incredulous de-realization, furthermore, makes little distinction between the past and the future: whether the catastrophe is a past one from which one should have learned or an imminent one that could be averted by the right measures, the reluctance to believe always knows how to arrange things in such a way as to achieve the desired degree of de-realization.

YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR LIFE

On Anthropotechnics

PETER SLOTERDIJK

What Happens in Vegas Stays in Israel: Letting a Jewish Sex Predator Go Free


Jewish sex abuser and Israeli cyberspy chief; Jewish attorney; Jewish prosecutor; Jewish US Attorney; you can guess the outcome.

THIS MONTH, a senior Israeli cyber official was allowed to leave the US after being caught in an underage sex sting — effectively getting a “get out of jail free” pass from the local District Attorney, who, you guessed it, “just happens” to be Jewish. It gets worse: The predator’s Jewish attorney is also a major donor to the election campaign of that DA, his nominal “opponent” in this case, and both have appeared together on the stage at Jewish pro-Israel events. And the US Attorney who could have prosecuted in the case — but chose not to, even while feigning outrage — is a Jewess who was born in Israel.

Tom Artiom Alexandrovich was arrested in Nevada in a child-exploitation sting — yet was freed on low bail, allowed to keep his Israeli passport, and promptly flew back to Israel — while other, lower-flight-risk defendants are still in jail.

Even though American conservatives and many liberals are fawning worshipers of all things Jewish and Israeli — Jews a America’s real hyper-privileged ruling class, after all — there is nevertheless a growing sense of outrage that a high-ranking foreign government official caught while attempting to lure what he thought was a child for sex was not only granted bail within 24 hours but also permitted to depart the United States unimpeded. Things like this tend to make some of the brainwashed start to wake up.

Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, 38, identified as a division head at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate (an agency directly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office), was arrested a few weeks ago during a multi-agency Nevada sting targeting child predators. Authorities say he believed he was meeting a 15-year-old girl and even brought a condom to the exploitative sex rendezvous. The sting involved not only local police, but federal officials too, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Normally federal officials would get involved in the prosecution, too, if a foreign national was involved — that is why they were there — but the feds, after some initial screeching from the relevant US Attorney, have filed zero charges and in fact have stated they are not going to do so, and have fallen totally silent on the matter. Can’t ever, ever, make our ruling parasites look bad, you know.

Within 24 hours Alexandrovich posted $10,000 bail — a “standard” amount preset by Nevada courts for local arrestees, and certainly not intended for high-flight-risk foreign officials, especially not ones from a country notorious for shielding Jewish pedophiles from prosecution, and especially not ones with million-dollar-deep pockets funded by the Israeli government — and walked out of custody without surrendering his passport or even being asked to do so, or facing even the slightest travel restrictions. In contrast, some of the other arrested individuals — who were certainly less of a flight risk — were denied bail altogether.

This glaring disparity underscores the deep vein of privilege enjoyed by Jews under our current System. Legal experts have slammed the case as “the perfect example” of how bail can be exploited by those with resources. The flight risk should have been obvious.

Netanyahu’s government lied about the incident as expected. Media and official statements claimed Alexandrovich was merely “questioned” during “a professional conference” and “returned as scheduled,” omitting any mention of his arrest, his attempt to abuse an American girl, or the charges he faces. “A state employee who traveled to the US for professional matters was questioned by American authorities during his stay,” Netanyahu’s office said. “The employee, who does not hold a diplomatic visa, was not arrested and returned to Israel as scheduled.” What audacity. What total lies. And they get away with it.

Meanwhile, Alexandrovich’s attorney, prominent and pricey Las Vegas Jew lawyer David Z. Chesnoff, vowed Alexandrovich will “vigorously defend himself” and claimed any suggestion of preferential treatment is “completely inaccurate.” The lawyer claimed the bail process was “routine” and that his client would “attend all court dates he is required to be at.” Just a few days later, when Alexandrovich failed to appear in court, Chesnoff said, “He was instructed by me that he didn’t have to be here.” Now that’s chutzpah. Chesnoff even claimed to the judge that he had “an arrangement” with District Attorney Wolfson that his client could skip his court date. The judge said she’d heard nothing about any such arrangement.

No news outlet that I can find has pointed this out, but there is strong evidence to suggest that Wolfson, who is the local Las Vegas DA who is (theoretically at least) prosecuting Alexandrovich, is a Jew himself. There is his name and his leering ghoulish appearance. There is the fact that he married someone named Glass. And there is the fact that Wolfson attended, as a dignitary, an “American Friends of the Hebrew University” (AFHU) event called the “Scopus Awards” where David Chesnoff — yes, the same David Chesnoff who is Alexandrovich’s attorney! — received the 2024 “Scopus Award,” which is given for awardees who show “dedication to Israel and the Jewish people.” AFHU’s event page and local coverage explicitly list Wolfson among the “dignitaries” at that event.

Furthermore, that same David Z. Chesnoff, the Israeli sex predator’s lawyer, is also one of Wolfson’s major campaign donors! (Chesnoff is deeply involved in pro-Israel “philanthropy” — not only did he receive AFHU’s Scopus Award last year, but he is publicly recognized in the press as a prominent pro-Israel donor.) The Las Vegas Review-Journal donor profile of DA Wolfson lists Chesnoff as a $10,000 donor to Wolfson’s campaign. And Chesnoff also donated another $10,000 to Wolfson through a company of his, according to the same report.)

Another named Wolfson donor, Stephen J. Cloobeck, is publicly associated with AFHU — Cloobeck appears as an honorary chair for AFHU’s Bel Air / Los Angeles fundraising events. Cloobeck is also named among Wolfson’s $10,000 donors in the local reporting on Wolfson’s fundraising.

That I had to dig up this information myself, and that it is not all over the press right now, is absolutely outrageous.

Wolfson’s overall donor list skews heavily to the Las Vegas casino/hospitality industry and its many Jewish multimillionaires — Review-Journal reporting on his campaign fundraising lists a slate of Strip hotels, casino owners, and other local heavyweights among top donors, almost all of them giving the maximum allowed. Many, many of these figures are fanatical Zionist Jews.

The (federal) US Attorney for Nevada, Sigal Chattah, who normally would head any federal effort to prosecute the would-be child rapist, is also a Jew. She is Israeli-born, in fact, even prominently including that information in some of her political campaigns. Her public persona is that of a Zionist right-wing nutcake, supporting Trump’s wildest gyrations of position on numerous issues with pinpoint Stalinist-style accuracy. Chattah is known for calling Palestinians “animals” who need to be “wiped off the map,” including children, who, she says, are all “born terrorists” and therefore presumably deserve to be killed. Chattah publicly screeched angrily when Alexandrovich was let go, lambasting the local judge and district attorney for failing to seize an accused child predator’s passport, thereby enabling his escape. She said the Attorney General and FBI leadership were “outraged” about this. But she quickly changed her tune and she has now gone totally mum on the matter, except to say that Tom Alexandrovich will not be prosecuted by her office. Words, words, words for public perception, followed by the silence and inaction that is “best for Jews and Israel.” This is how we are ruled.

Wolfson, the one directly responsible for letting the predator go, defended the outcome, calling it “standard” procedure. Arrestees without Alexandrovich’s access to high-powered attorneys and tons of Israeli money (paid for by American taxpayers, of course) are still in jail, and I suppose that is a kind of “standard procedure” in Jew-ridden and money-ruled America. Some locals arrested in the same sting had double Alexandrovich’s bail despite being local and despite not having access to 1/100th of his money and resources, and one was required to be under house arrest with an ankle monitor. Talk about Jewish privilege.

Why was Alexandrovich in Las Vegas to begin with? He was attending the “Black Hat 2025” conference there. The “Black Hat” conferences are strange gatherings of both cybersecurity experts trying to mitigate threats of hacking and illegal spying and data theft, and the so-called “offensive” hackers who do those very illegal things, though for the purposes of a veil of legality, they often pose as “good guys” merely alerting the community to security flaws they have found through offensive “probing” and “hacking.” One thing that most people don’t know is that this kind of activity is perfectly legal in Israel as long as it serves the purposes of the Jewish state, and a massive cyber-hacking and -spying and data theft industry flourishes there.

Alexandrovich himself posted this note a few hours before he was arrested: “Two things you can’t escape at Black Hat 2025: the relentless buzz of generative AI and the sound of Hebrew … in every corridor.” Alexandrovich also wrote: “The key takeaway? The future of cybersecurity is being written in code, and it seems a significant part of it is being authored in Tel Aviv… An exciting time to be in the field!”

Exciting times indeed.

This is the rotten System under which we live. It’s time to free ourselves. It’s time to make a new American nation again, to liberate ourselves from this filth. It’s time to build an organization and a community that can resist tyranny with even more vigor and determination — and understanding — than in 1776. It’s time to support the National Alliance.

Kevin Alfred Strom
https://nationalvanguard.org/2025/08/what-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-israel-letting-a-jewish-sex-predator-go-free/


Friday, October 3, 2025

Culture of Critique Expanded and Updated - review


The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 3rd edition
Kevin MacDonald
Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025 (recently banned on Amazon)
666+c pages, $39.89 paperback

In the later half of the twentieth century, the United States of America—hitherto the world’s most powerful and prosperous country—opened its borders to hostile foreign multitudes, lost its will to enforce civilized standards of behavior upon blacks and other “minority groups,” began enforcing novel “antidiscrimination” laws in a manner clearly discriminatory against its own founding European stock, repurposed its institutions of higher education for the inculcation of radical politics and maladaptive behavior upon the young, and submitted its foreign and military policy to the interests of a belligerent little country half way around the world. In the process, we destroyed our inherited republican institutions, wasted vast amounts of blood and treasure, and left a trail of blighted lives in a country which had formerly taken for granted that each rising generation would be better off than the last. One-quarter of the way into the twenty-first century, the continued existence of anything deserving the name “United States of America” would seem very much in doubt. What on earth happened?

While there is plenty of blame to go around, including some that rightfully belongs with America’s own founding stock, the full story cannot be honestly told without paying considerable attention to the rise of Eastern European Jews to elite status.

This population is characterized by a number of positive traits, including high verbal intelligence and an overall average IQ of 111. They typically have stable marriages, practice high-investment parenting, and enjoy high levels of social trust within their own community. In their European homelands they lived for many centuries in shtetls, closed townships composed exclusively of Jews, carefully maintaining social and (especially) genetic separation from the surrounding, usually Slavic population. This was in accord with an ancient Jewish custom going back at least to the Biblical Book of Numbers, in which the prophet Balaam tells the children of Israel “you shall be a people that shall dwell alone.”

If one wants to preserve social and genetic separation, few methods are more reliable than the cultivation of negative affect toward outsiders. This is what was done in such traditional, religiously organized Jewish communities: gentiles were considered treif, or ritually unclean, and Jewish children were encouraged to think of them as violent drunkards best avoided apart from occasional self-interested economic transactions.

Following the enlightenment and the French Revolution, Jews were “emancipated” from previous legal disabilities, but ancient habits of mind are not changed as easily as laws. One consequence was the attraction of many newly-emancipated Jews to radical politics. Radicals by definition believe there is something fundamentally wrong and unjust about the societies in which they live, which disposes them to form small, tightly-knit groups of like-minded comrades united in opposition to an outside world conceived as both hostile and morally inferior. In other words, radicalism fosters a social and mental environment similar to a shtetl. It is not really such a big step as first appears from rejecting a society because its members are ritually unclean and putative idolaters to rejecting it for being exploitative, capitalist, racist, and anti-Semitic. Jews themselves have often been conscious of this congruence between radicalism and traditional Jewish life: the late American neoconservative David Horowitz, e.g., wrote in his memoir Radical Son: “What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside was to return to the ghetto.”

By the end of the nineteenth century, the Eastern European Jewish population had grown beyond the capacity of traditional forms of Jewish economic activity to support it, resulting in widespread and sometimes dire poverty. Many turned to fanatical messianic movements of a religious or political character. Then, beginning in the 1890s, an increasing number of these impoverished and disaffected Jews started migrating to the United States. Contrary to a widespread legend, the great majority were not “fleeing pogroms”—they were looking for economic opportunity.

Even so, many Jews brought their radicalism and hostility to gentile society with them to their new homeland, and these persisted even in the absence of legal restrictions upon them and long after they had overcome their initial poverty. Jewish sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset has written colorfully of the countless wealthy and successful American Jewish “families which around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.”

Over the course of the twentieth century, these smart, ambitious, and ethnically well-networked Eastern European Jews rose to elite status in the academy, the communications media, law, business, and politics. By the 1960s, they had succeeded in replacing the old Protestant ruling class with an alliance between themselves, other “minorities” with grudges against the American majority, and a sizeable dose of loyalty-free White sociopaths on the make. Unlike the old elite it replaced, the new rulers were at best suspicious of—and often actually hostile toward—the people they came to govern, and we have already enumerated some of the most disastrous consequences of their rule in our opening paragraph.

Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique describes several influential movements created and promoted by Jews during the twentieth century in the course of their rise. It is the best book you will find on the Jewish role in America’s decline. First published by Praeger in 1998, a second paperback edition augmented with a new Preface appeared in 2002. Now, twenty-three years later, he has brought out a third edition of the work through Antelope Hill Publishing. In addition to expanding the earlier editions’ accounts of Boasian Anthropology, Freudian Psychoanalysis, various Marxist or quasi-Marxist forms of radicalism, and Jewish immigration activism, he has added an entirely new chapter on neoconservatism. As he explains:

I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity and upward mobility. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues.

This edition is fully 40 percent longer than its predecessor, yet a detailed table of contents makes it easier for readers to navigate.

*   *   *

We shall have a detailed look at the chapter on “The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences,” since it is both representative of the work as a whole and significantly augmented over the version in previous editions.

Anthropology was still a relatively new discipline in America at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, but it enjoyed a promising theoretical foundation in Darwinian natural selection and the rapidly developing science of genetics. Darwinists and Mendelians, however, were opposed by Lamarckians who believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited: e.g., that if a man spent every day practicing the piano and then fathered a son, his son might have an inborn advantage in learning the piano. This idea was scientifically discredited by the 1930s, but long remained popular among Jewish intellectuals for nonscientific reasons, as a writer cited by MacDonald testifies:

Lenz cites an “extremely characteristic” statement of a Jewish intellectual: “The denial of the racial importance of acquired characters favours race hatred.” The obvious interpretation of such sentiments is that Jewish intellectuals opposed the theory of natural selection because of its negative political implications.

In one famous case a Jewish researcher committed suicide when the fraudulent nature of his study in support of Lamarckism was exposed.

Franz Boas was among the Jewish intellectuals to cling to Lamarckism long after its discrediting. He had what Derek Freeman describes as an “obscurantist antipathy to genetics” that extended even to opposing genetic research. This attitude was bound up with what Carl Degler called his “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups.” He did not arrive at this position as a result of disinterested scientific inquiry. Rather, as Degler explains, he thought racial explanations “undesirable for society” and had “a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public.”

Boas appeared to wear his Jewishness lightly; MacDonald remarks that he “sought to be identified foremost as a German and as little as possible as a Jew.”  Anthropologist and historian Leonard B. Glick wrote:

He did not acknowledge a specifically Jewish cultural or ethnic identity. . . . To the extent that Jews were possessed of a culture, it was . . . strictly a matter of religious adherence. . . . He was determined . . . not to be classified as a member of any group.

Yet such surface appearances can be misleading. From a very early age, Boas was deeply concerned with anti-Semitism and felt alienated from the Germany of his time. These appear to have been the motives for his emigration to America. He also maintained close associations with the Jewish activist community in his new homeland. Especially in his early years at Columbia, most of his students were Jewish, and of the nine whom Leslie White singles out as his most important protegés, six were Jews. According to David S. Koffman: “these Jews tended to marry other Jews, be buried in Jewish cemeteries, and socialize with fellow Jews, all core features of Jewish ethnicity, though they conceived of themselves as agents of science and enlightenment, not Jewish activists.”

Boas was also dependent on Jewish patronage. In the 1930s, for instance, he worked to set up a research program to “attack the racial craze” (as he put it). The resulting Council of Research of the Social Sciences was, as Elazar Barkan acknowledges in The Retreat of Scientific Racism (1993) “largely a façade for the work of Boas and his students.” Financial support was principally Jewish, since others declined solicitations. Yet Boas was aware of the desirability of disguising Jewish motivations and involvement publicly, writing to Felix Warburg: “it seemed important to show the general applicability of the results to all races both from the scientific point of view and in order to avoid the impression that this is a purely Jewish undertaking.”

One of Boas’s Jewish students remarked that young Jews of her generation felt they had only three choices in life—go live in Paris, hawk communist newspapers on street corners, or study anthropology at Columbia. The latter option was clearly perceived as a distinctively “Jewish” thing to do. Why is this?

Many Jews have supplemented Jewish advocacy with activism on behalf of “pluralism” and other ethnic “minority groups.” Boas himself, for example, maintained close connections with the NAACP and the Urban League. David S. Lewis has described such activities as an effort to “fight anti-Semitism by remote control.” And anthropology itself as conceived by Boas was not merely a scholarly discipline but an extension of these same concerns.

Much of the actual fieldwork conducted by Boas and his students focused on the American Indian. In a passage new to this edition, MacDonald quotes from David S. Koffman’s The Jews’ Indian (2019) on the Jewish motivations that frequently lay behind their work:

Jewishness shaped the profession’s engagement with its practical object of study, the American Indian. Jews’ efforts—presented as the efforts of science itself—to salvage, collect, and preserve disappearing American Indian culture was a form of ventriloquism. [Yet they] assumed their own Jewishness would remain an invisible and insignificant force in shaping the ideas they would use to shape ideas about others.

Boasian anthropologists did not draw any sharp distinction between their professional and their political concerns:

Political action formed a part of many anthropologists’ sense of the intellectual mission of the field. Their findings, and the framing of distinct cultures, each worthy of careful attention in its own right, mattered to social existence in the United States. Their scholarship on Native American cultures developed alongside their personal and political work on behalf of Jewish causes.

Koffman highlights the case of Boas’s protegé Edward Sapir:

Sapir’s Jewish background continuously influenced and intersected with his scholarship on American Indians. Sapir’s biography shows a fascinating parallel preoccupation with both Native and Jewish social issues. These tracks run side by side, concerned as both were with parallel questions about ethnic survival, adaptability, dignity, cultural autonomy, and ethnicity.

Some Jews from Boas’s circle of influence even went to work for the US government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, where they “consistently linked Indian uplift with an articulation of minority rights and cultural pluralism.” In this way, writes Koffman, “Jewish enlightened self-interest impacted the course of American Indian life in the middle of the twentieth century.”

Boas had a number of gentile students as well, of course, especially in the later part of his career. Yet some observers have commented upon differences in the thinking and motivations of his Jewish and gentile followers. While the rejection of racial explanations was a moral crusade for many of the Jews, as it was for Boas himself, his gentile students were more inclined to view the matter simply as a theoretical issue. Alfred Kroeber, for example, once impatiently remarked that “our business is to promote anthropology rather than to wage battles on behalf of tolerance.”

Two of Boas’s best known gentile disciples were Margeret Meade and Ruth Benedict, and it may not be an accident that both of these women were lesbians. As Sarich and Miele write in Race: The Reality of Human Difference (2004): “Their sexual preferences are relevant because developing a critique of traditional American values was as much a part of the Boasian program in anthropology as was their attacks on eugenics and nativism.” More generally, they note, “the Boasians felt deeply estranged from American society and the male WASP elites they were displacing in anthropology.” Jewish or not, they saw themselves as a morally superior ingroup engaged in a struggle against a numerically superior outgroup. In this respect, they formed a historical link between the radical cells and shtetls of the old world and the hostile elite ruling America today.

Boas posed as a skeptic and champion of methodological rigor when confronted with theories of cultural evolution or genetic influence on human differences, but as the evolutionary anthropologist Leslie White pointed out, the burden of proof rested lightly on Boas’s own shoulders: his “historical reconstructions are inferences, guesses, and unsupported assertions [ranging] from the possible to the preposterous. Almost none is verifiable.”

MacDonald writes:

An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution . . . by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behevior, as well as the relativism of standards of evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity, but in fact no general theories emerged from this body of research in the ensuing half-century of its dominance of the profession. Leslie White, an evolutionary anthropologist whose professional opportunities were limited because of his theoretical orientation, noted that because of its rejection of fundamental scientific activities such as generalization and classification, Boasian anthropology should be classed more as an anti-theory than a theory of human culture.

Boas brooked no dissent from his followers:

Individuals who disagreed with the leader, such as Clark Wissler, were simply excluded from the movement. Wissler was a member of the Galton society, which promoted eugenics, and accepted the theory that there is a gradation of cultures from lowest to highest, with Western civilization at the top.

Among Boas’s most egregious sins against the scientific spirit was a study he produced at the request of the US Immigration Commission called into being by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. This was eventually published as Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants. It maintained the extremely implausible thesis that the skulls of the children of immigrants to the US differed significantly from those of their parents—in spite of the influence of heredity, and due entirely to growing up in America. The paper came to be cited countless times by writers of textbooks and anyone who wished to deprecate the importance of heredity or stress that of environment.

Ninety years later, anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Janz reanalyzed Boas’s original data. While they stop short of accusing him of deliberate fraud, they did find that his data fail to support his conclusions. In MacDonald’s words:

Boas made inflated claims about the results: very minor changes in cranial index were described as changes of “type” so that Boas was claiming that within one generation immigrants developed the long-headed type characteristic of northwest Europeans. Several modern studies show that cranial shape is under strong genetic influence. [Sparks and Janz’s] reanalysis of Boas’s data indicated that no more than one percent of the variation between groups could be ascribed to the environmental effects of immigration.

In short, Boas’s study was not disinterested science but propaganda in a political battle over immigration. At a minimum, he was guilty of sloppy work inspired by wishful thinking.

Boas’s actual anthropological studies, such as those on the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island, contributed little to human knowledge. But this was not where his talent lay: his true achievement was in the realm of academic politics. He built a movement that served as an extension of himself long after his death, capturing and jealously controlling anthropological institutions and publications, and making it difficult for those who dissented from his scientifically groundless views to achieve professional success. As MacDonald writes:

By 1915 his followers controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its executive board. In 1919 Boas could state that “most of the anthropological work done at the present time in the United States” was done by his students at Columbia. By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish.

Boas strenuously promoted the work of his disciples, but rarely cited works of people outside his group except to disparage them. A section new to this third edition explains how his influential student Melville Herskovits also blocked from publication and research funding those not indebted to him or not supporting his positions. Margaret Meade’s fairy tale of a sexually liberated Samoa, on the other hand, became the bestselling anthropological work of all time due almost entirely to zealous promotion by her fellow Boasians at prominent American universities.

Among the more obvious biases of anthropological work carried out by Boas’s disciples was a nearly complete ignoring of warfare and violence among the peoples they studied. Their ethnographic studies, such as Ruth Benedict’s account of the Zuni Indians in Patterns of Culture (1934), promoted romantic primitivism as a means of critiquing modern Western civilization. Works like Primitive War (1949) by Harry Holbert Turney-High, which documented the universality and savagery of war, were simply ignored. As MacDonald explains:

The behavior of primitive peoples was bowdlerized while the behavior of European peoples was not only excoriated as uniquely evil but also as responsible for all extant examples of warfare among primitive peoples. From this perspective, it is only the fundamental inadequacy of European culture that prevents an idyllic world free from between-group conflict.

Leslie White wrote that “Boas has all the attributes of the head of a cult, a revered charismatic teacher and master, literally worshiped by disciples whose permanent loyalty has been effectively established.” MacDonald describes his position as closer to that of a Hasidic Rebbe among his followers than to the leader of a genuinely scientific research program—the results of which can never be known in advance.

Due to the success of Boas’s mostly Jewish disciples in gaining control of institutional anthropology, by the middle of the twentieth century it became commonplace for well-read American laymen to refer to human differences in cultural terms. Western Civilization was merely different from, not better than, the ways of headhunters and cannibals. A vague impression was successfully propagated to the public that “science had proven” the equality of the races; few indeed understood that the “proof” consisted in the scientists who thought otherwise having been driven into unemployment. Objective research into race and racial differences largely ceased, and an intellectual atmosphere was created in which many imagined that the opening of America’s borders to the world would make little practical difference.

*   *   *

Space precludes us from looking in similar detail at all the book’s chapters, but we must give the reader an idea of the material new to this third edition. Some of the most important is found in an 85-page Preface, and concerns the rise of Jews in the American academic world. Boasian anthropology may be seen in hindsight as an early episode in this rise, but Boas died in 1942 and our main story here concerns the postwar period. As MacDonald writes:

The transformation of the faculty was well under way in the 1950s and by the late 1960s was largely complete. It was during this period that the image of the radical leftist professor replaced the image of the ivory tower professor—the unworldly person at home with his books, pipe, and tweed jacket, totally immersed in discussions of Renaissance poetry.

The old academic elite had been better educated than the public at large, of course, but saw themselves as trustees of the same Christian European civilization, and did not desire radical changes to the society in which they lived. Today’s representative professor “almost instinctively loathes the traditional institutions of European-American culture: its religion, customs, manners, and sexual attitudes.”

This matters, because the academy is a crucial locus of moral and intellectual authority:

Contemporary views on issues like race, gender, immigration are manufactured in the academy (especially elite universities), disseminated throughout the media and the lower levels of the educational system, and ultimately consumed by the educated and not-so-educated public. Newspaper articles and television programs on these issues routinely include quotes from academic experts.

By 1968 Jews, who made up less than three percent of the US population, constituted 20 percent of the faculty of elite American colleges and universities, with overrepresentation most pronounced among younger faculty. Studies found Jewish faculty well to the left of other academics, more supportive of student radicals, and more likely to approve relaxing standards in order to recruit non-White faculty and students. By 1974, a study of articles published in the top twenty academic journals found that Jews made up 56 percent of the social scientists and 61 percent of the humanities scholars.

A possibly extreme but telling example of left-wing bias is Jonathan Haidt’s informal 2011 survey at a convention of social psychologists, reputedly the most left-leaning area of academic psychology. Haidt found only three participants out of 1000 willing publicly to label themselves “conservative.” He acknowledges that this discipline has evolved into a “tribal moral community” that shuns and ostracizes political conservatives, with the result that research conflicting with its core political attitudes is either not performed or is likely to be excluded from peer-reviewed journals.

MacDonald devotes considerable attention to a widely discussed 2012 paper “Why Are Professors Liberal?” by Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse. The authors argue that academics are more liberal than the population at large for three reasons. First and most importantly, due to the higher proportion of academics with advanced educational credentials, an effect they consider independent of the role IQ plays in helping obtain such credentials. MacDonald remarks that this liberal shift may be due either to socialization and conditioning in the graduate school environment or to perceived self-interest in adopting liberal views and/or identifying with an officially sanctioned victim group.

Second, Gross and Fosse believe liberalism results from academic’s greater tolerance for controversial ideas. MacDonald is dismissive of this proposal, writing that in his observation such tolerance does not exist outside the professoriate’s self-conception.

Third, they find that liberalism corelates with the larger fraction of the religiously unaffiliated in the academy. MacDonald points out that many of the religiously unaffiliated are probably Jews, and remarks that the study would have been more informative if race and Jewish ethnic background had been included as variables alongside religious affiliation.

Gross and Fosse acknowledge that their data can be interpreted in a number of ways, but their own argument is that

the liberalism of professors . . . is a function . . . of the systematic sorting of young adults who are already liberally—or conservatively—inclined into and out of the academic profession, respectively. We argue that the professoriate, along with a number of other knowledge work fields, has been “politically typed” as appropriate for and welcoming of people with broadly liberal political sensibilities, and as inappropriate for conservatives.

In other words, academic liberalism is the product of a natural sorting process similar to that which has resulted in a career such as nursing being typecast as appropriate for women. It should be emphasized, however, that much of this sorting is done by the academy itself, not by prospective academics: many professors unhesitatingly acknowledge their willingness to discriminate against conservative job candidates.

The Gross and Fosse study also fails to explore the way the meaning of being liberal or left wing has changed over the years. The academy was already considered left-leaning when the White Protestant ascendency was still intact. But in those days being liberal meant supporting labor unions and other institutions aimed at improving the lot of the (predominantly White) working class.

The New Left abandoned the White working class because it was insufficiently radical, desiring incremental improvements of its own situation rather than communist revolution. The large Jewish component of the New Left, typified by the Frankfurt School, was also shaken by Hitler’s success in gaining the support of German labor. So they abandoned orthodox Marxism in a search for aggrieved groups more likely to demand radical change. These they found in ethnic and sexual minority groups such as Blacks, feminists, and homosexuals. They also advocated for massive non-White immigration to dilute the power of the White majority, leave Jews less conspicuous, and recruit new ethnic groups easily persuadable to cultivate grievances against the dwindling White majority.

Today’s academy is a product of the New Left of the 1960s. While it is more “liberal” (in the American sense) than the general public on economic issues, what makes it truly distinctive is its attitudes on social issues: sexual liberation (including homosexuality and abortion), moral relativism, religion, church-state separation, the replacement of patriotism by cosmopolitan ideals, and the whole range of what has been called “expressive individualism.”

Sorting can explain how an existing ideological hegemony within the academy maintains itself, but not how it could have arisen in the first place. To account for the rise of today’s academic left, Gross and Fosse propose a conflict theory of successful intellectual movements. In particular, they cite sociological research indicating that such movements have three key ingredients: 1) they originate with people with high-status positions having complaints against the current environment, resulting in conflict with the status quo; 2) these intellectuals form cohesive and cooperative networks; and 3) this network has access to prestigious institutions and publication outlets.

This fits Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Jewish intellectual movements to a T. Indeed, since the academic left is so heavily Jewish, we are in part dealing with the same subject matter. Even Gross and Fosse show some awareness of this, as MacDonald writes:

Gross and Fosse are at least somewhat cognizant of the importance of Jewish influence. They deem it relevant to point out that Jews entered the academic world in large numbers after World War II and became overrepresented among professors, especially in elite academic departments in the social sciences.

So let us apply the Gross and Fosse three-part scheme to radical Jewish academics. First, Jews do indeed have a complaint against the environment in which they live, or rather two related complaints: the long history of anti-Semitism and the predominance of White Christian culture.

As MacDonald notes, “it is common for Jews to hate all manifestations of Christianity.” In his book Why Are Jews Liberals? (2009), Norman Podhoretz formulates this Jewish complaint as follows:

[The Jews] emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that—individual exceptions duly noted—the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied—whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant—and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them.

Anti-Jewish attitudes, however, by no means depend on Christian belief. In the nineteenth century Jews began to be criticized as an economically successful alien race intent on subverting national cultures. Accordingly, the complaint of many Jews today is no longer merely Christianity but the entire civilization created by Europeans in both its religious and its secular aspects.

From this point it is a very short step to locating the source of anti-Semitism in the nature of European-descended people themselves. The Frankfurt School took this step, and the insurgent Jewish academic left followed them. MacDonald writes:

This explicit or implicit sense that Europeans themselves are the problem is the crux of the Jewish complaint. [It] has resonated powerfully among Jewish intellectuals. Hostility to the people and culture of the West was characteristic of all the Jewish intellectual movements of the left that came to be ensconced in the academic world of the United States and other Western societies.

The second item in Gross and Fosse’s list of the traits of successful intellectual movements is that their partisans form cohesive, cooperative networks. All the Jewish movements studied by Kevin MacDonald have done this, as he has been at pains to emphasize. Group strategies outcompete individualist strategies in the intellectual and academic world just as they do in politics and the broader society. It does not matter that Western science is an individualistic enterprise in which people can defect from any group consensus easily in response to new discoveries or more plausible theories. The Jewish intellectual movements studied by MacDonald are not scientific research programs at all, but “hermeneutic exercise[s] in which any and all events can be interpreted within the context of the theory.” These authoritarian movements thus represent a corruption of the Western scientific ideal, yet that does nothing to prevent them from being effective in the context of academic politics.

Finally, Gross and Fosse note that the most successful intellectual movements are those with access to prestigious institutions and publication outlets. This has clearly been true of the Jewish movements Kevin MacDonald has studied, as he himself notes:

The New York Intellectuals developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and Boasian anthropology became entrenched throughout academia. The Frankfurt School intellectuals were associated with Columbia and the University of California-Berkeley, and their intellectual descendants are dispersed through the academic world. The neoconservatives are mainly associated with the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University, and they were able to get their material published by the academic presses at these universities as well as Cornell University.

The academic world is a top-down system in which the highest levels are rigorously policed to ensure that dissenting ideas cannot benefit from institutional prestige. The panic produced by occasional leaks in the system, as when the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer teamed up with Harvard’s Stephen Walt to offer some cautious criticisms of the Israel lobby, demonstrate the importance of obtaining and monopolizing academic prestige.

Moreover, once an institution has been captured by the partisans of a particular intellectual perspective, informal scholarly networks become de facto gatekeeping mechanisms, creating enormous inertia. As MacDonald writes: “there is tremendous psychological pressure to adopt the fundamental assumptions at the center of the power hierarchy of the discipline. It is not surprising that people [are] attracted to these movements because of the prestige associated with them.”

What MacDonald calls the final step in the transformation of the university into a bastion of the anti-White left is the creation since the 1970s of whole programs of study revolving around aggrieved groups:

My former university is typical of academia generally in having departments or programs in American Indian Studies, Africana Studies (formerly Black Studies), American Studies (whose subject matter emphasizes “How do diverse groups within the Americas imagine their identities and their relation to the United States?”), Asian and Asian-American Studies, Chicano and Latino Studies, Jewish Studies, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. All of these departments and programs are politically committed to advancing their special grievances against Whites and their culture.

Although it is difficult to specify the exact linkage, the academic triumph of Jewish radicals was followed in short order by the establishment of these other pillars of the cultural left within the university.

As MacDonald notes, women make up an important component of the grievance coalition in academia, and not only in the area of “Women’s Studies.” They make up around 60 percent of PhDs and 80 percent of bachelor’s degrees in ethnic, gender and cultural studies.

Overall, compared to men, women are more in favor of leftist programs to end free speech and censor speech they disagree with. They are more inclined toward activism, and less inclined toward dispassionate inquiry; they are more likely to agree that hate speech is violence, that it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker, that controversial scientific findings should be censored, and that it should be illegal to say offensive things about minorities.

Such differences are likely due to women’s evolutionary selection for empathy and fear. No amount of bravado about “smashing the patriarchy” can conceal women’s tendency to timid conformism, and that is precisely what leads to success in academic grievance studies.

Although MacDonald does not consider feminism a fundamentally Jewish movement, many Jewish women have unquestionably played a prominent role within it, and it is marked by the same disregard of biological realities we observed in Boasian anthropology. The new Preface accordingly offers some brief remarks on Jewish lesbian and academic gender theorist Judith Butler. One of her leading ideas is that gender identity is “performative,” and unconstrained by genetic or hormonal influences. This leaves us free to rebel against the patriarchy by engaging in “subversive performances of various kinds.” Obviously, the contemporary transgender movement would count as an example of such a performance.

Jews have been greatly overrepresented in the student bodies of elite American universities for several decades, to a degree that their intelligence and academic qualifications cannot begin to account for:

Any sign that the enrollment of Jews at elite universities is less than about 20 percent is seen as indicative of anti-Semitism. A 2009 article in The Daily Princetonian cited data from Hillel [a Jewish campus organization] indicating that, with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24 percent of Ivy League undergraduates. Princeton had only 13 percent Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The result was extensive national coverage, including articles in The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over six times the Jewish percentage in the population to around ten times.

According to Ron Unz:

These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of America’s elite education system.

The Preface to this new edition of The Culture of Critique also contains additions on the psychology of media influence and Jewish efforts to censor the internet, along with an updating of information on Jewish ownership and control of major communications media.

Chapter Three on “Jews and the Left” includes a new sixteen-page section “Jews as Elite in the USSR,” as well as shorter additions on Jews and McCarthyism, and even the author’s own reminiscences of Jewish participation in the New Left at the University of Wisconsin in his youth. The additions incorporate material from important works published since the second edition, including Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together (2002), Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century (2004), and Philip Mendes’s Jews and the Left (2014).

Chapter Four on “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” is new to this edition, although its core has already appeared in the author’s previous book Cultural Insurrections (2007) and elsewhere. MacDonald’s account of how the neocons maintained a self-image as a beleaguered and embattled minority even as they determined the destiny of the world’s most powerful country is an impressive testament to the unchanging nature of the Jewish shtetl mindset.

Chapter Five on “Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement” has been expanded with material on Freud’s Hungarian-Jewish disciple Sándor Ferenczi and the Budapest school of psychoanalysis.

Chapter Six on “The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances” includes new biographical sketches of the major figures and cites extensively from the recently published private correspondences of Horkheimer and Adorno. A new section on Samuel H. Flowerman (based on the research of Andrew Joyce) throws light on the nexus between the Frankfurt School and influential Jews in the communications media. There is also expanded coverage of Jaques Derrida and the Dada movement.

Chapter Eight on “Jewish Shaping of US Immigration Policy” has been updated and corroborated using more recent scholarship by Daniel Okrent Daniel Tichenor, and Otis Graham, as well as Harry Richardson and Frank Salter’s Anglophobia (2023) on Jewish pro-immigration activism in Australia. MacDonald makes clear that Jewish pro-immigration activism was motivated by fear of an anti-Jewish movement among a homogeneous White Christian society, as occurred in Germany from 1933–1945) Moreover:

Nevertheless, despite its clear importance to the activist Jewish community [and its eventual tranformative effects], the most prominent sponsors of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,

did their best to downplay the law’s importance in public discourse. National policymakers were well aware that the general public was opposed to increases in either the volume or diversity of immigration to the United States. . . . [However,] in truth the policy departures of the mid-1960s dramatically recast immigration patterns and concomitantly the nation. Annual admissions increased sharply in the years after the law’s passage. (Daniel Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America, Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 218)

The Conclusion, “Whither Judaism and the West?” is heavily updated from the previous version. MacDonald speculates on the possible rise of a new non-Jewish elite that might challenge Jewish hegemony in three key areas: the media, political funding, and the academy. He sees Elon Musk, with his support for Donald Trump’s populism and (relatively) free speech, as a possible harbinger of such an elite. Musk has commented explicitly on Jewish hostility to Whites and taken heat for it.

Regarding the media, MacDonald writes:

If the 2024 election shows anything, it’s that the legacy mainstream media is distrusted more than ever and has been effectively replaced among wide swaths of voters, especially young voters, by alternative media, particularly podcasts and social media. […] The influence of the legacy media, a main power base of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community, appears to be in terminal decline.

A recent sign of the times was the eviction of the New York Times, National Public Radio, NBC and Politico from their Pentagon offices to make room for outlets such as One America News Network and Breitbart.

Jewish financial clout is still in place, but may be of diminishing importance as well. As of August 2024, twenty-two of the twenty-six top donors to the Trump campaign were gentiles, and only one Jew—Miriam Adelson at $100 million—made the top ten. (Musk eventually contributed around $300 million. The author quotes a description of all the wealthy people in attendance at Trump’s second inaugural, and only one of the six men named was Jewish. MacDonald notes that “most of these tycoons were likely just trying to ingratiate themselves with the new administration, but this is a huge change from the 2017 and suggests that they are quite comfortable with at least some of the sea changes Trump is pursuing.”

The university is the most difficult pillar of Jewish power to challenge, as MacDonald notes, “because hiring is rigorously policed to make sure new faculty and administrators are on the left.” There has recently been a challenge to Jewish interests in the academy by students protesting—or attempting to protest—Israeli actions in the Gaza strip. But Ron Unz vividly describes what can happen to such students:

At UCLA an encampment of peaceful protestors was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. Police stood aside while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, then arrested some 200 of the former. Most of these students were absolutely stunned. For decades, they had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering a sliver of such vicious retaliation. Some student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protestors were harshly threatened.

Protesting Israel is not treated like protesting “heteronormativity.” Two Ivy League presidents were quickly forced to resign for allowing students to express themselves.

Despite this awesome display of continuing Jewish power, anti-White “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” policies are now under serious attack at American universities. MacDonald also notes that the academy is a less important a power base than either the media or political funding.

The Conclusion has also been updated with a consideration of whether multiculturalism may be backfiring on its Jewish creators as some members of the anti-White coalition turn to anti-Semitism.

It should be acknowledged that the insertion of new material into this updated edition required the deletion of a certain amount of the old. I was sorry to note, e.g., the removal of the table contrasting European and Jewish cultural forms, found on page xxxi of the second edition. So while everyone concerned with the question of Jewish influence should promptly procure this new third edition, I am not ready to part with my copy of the second.

Roger Devlin
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/09/30/culture-of-critique-expanded-and-updated/