How psychological dysfunction has been embedded in our institutions.

You’re not imagining that the world has gone mad.

Healthy debate has been replaced by activist hysterics. Speech is declared violence, while violence is excused as speech. Masculinity is condemned as regressive, while men in skirts and heels are celebrated in the public square.

It’s easy to laugh at these outbursts as the ravings of a small but vocal minority, but the compromised health of our body politic is not a trivial concern. A strange, new pattern of psychological dysfunction has infiltrated our most prestigious institutions, our corporate bureaucracies, and the highest offices in the land.

In short, we’re sick. Our society is out of balance. We’ve been consumed by a cluster of disorder that appeals to our worst instincts and deranges our most important social functions.

We need to recover our sanity. But to do so, we must first know exactly what we’re dealing with: the emergence of a Cluster B Society.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton goes SCORCHED EARTH in his first public interview since being acquitted by the Texas Senate!

In this earthshattering exchange with Tucker Carlson, Paxton reveals the specific deep state players behind his bogus impeachment, the constitutional violations that occurred throughout the process, and blows the lid off of mail in voting, and Georgia’s stolen 2020 election!

Here are the biggest takeaways:

1. Joe Biden’s DOJ was behind the Paxton impeachment!

“They hired, I think 4 lawyers, and 2 of them came from the Biden DOJ. That’s not an accident. They were sent there!”

“We are a huge problem for the Biden administration, and that was a way to get me out of the way.”

2. Paxton Was Removed from Office - Guilty Until Proven Innocent!

“I was immediately suspended.”

“They should have to prove something, before the will of the voters is overridden.”

“I was in 4 months, now I’ve been out of office suspended for almost 4 months, so half of my time of my term now, I’ve spent not being able to do what the people of Texas elected me to do.”

3. They Took Away His First Amendment Right with A One-sided Gag Order!

“We had a gag order put in place on both parties, somewhere in June, so I could no longer even defend what was being leaked by the house team to reporters.”

“The problem is, I can’t really challenge it because… It was done by the senate. The senate put it in place and so there’s nothing I can do about it, because they’re my votes for acquittal.”

“The house didn’t follow the gag order. They leaked everything.”

“I just had to take it!”

4. Prior to Impeachment, They Removed His Ability to Prosecute Voter Fraud!

“We now can’t prosecute voter fraud in Texas because the Court of Criminal appeals struck down the statute from 1951 that directed the Attorney General.”

“We were fully busy prosecuting voter fraud and then suddenly the criminal court of appeals, all Republican said NOPE!" It’s unconstitutional for the Attorney General to be in court because he’s in the Executive branch.”

“We now have no defense because the local DA’s won’t do it, and now I’m supposedly not allowed to do it.”

“I tried to get the legislature to pass a law to reauthorize it. The senate overwhelmingly passed it, and guess what I was told in the Texas house by Dade Phelan’s team. We don’t have time for that! We’re not going to do it.”

“Every other issue falls on whether we can elect the right people.”

5. Paxton Warned President Trump About Mail in Voting Before 2020!

“I sat there on election night. I told the president. I think it was May. I said Mr. president, I have 12 lawsuits in the most liberal counties. I’m losing in every county because they sued in liberal counties where all of the judges are liberal.

“The Court of appeals is liberal. I’m going to have to find a way to get to the supreme court or the 5th circuit before it’s too late, before they mail those ballots out, or you won’t win Texas.”

“If Harris County can send out 2.7 million ballots, you won Texas by 600,000, you will not win! And if we have multiple counties doing that, they’ll just figure out how many votes they need.”

“We won every single lawsuit, all 12, and I told him, we lose one, you’re done.”

“He didn’t believe me!”

“Sure, enough Georgia, which had the same margin of victory for Trump 4 years prior. They don’t stop it. The governor, the AG, they just let, they sign a consent decree, and they have mail in ballots, no signature verification. They have drop-off boxes, and they allow all of these mail in ballots. And guess what? Now Georgia that had the same margin of victory for Trump, now suddenly we have a 8 or 9 percent win for Trump by protecting the ballot box. In Georgia he loses by what? 14,000?”

“And I knew when they stopped counting the votes on election night. I’m sitting there watching going, this is what they would have done in Texas.”

“What they needed to figure out is how many real votes there were, so they could figure out how many mail-in ballots to apply to the election. That’s what they would have done in Texas.”

Taylor Probst, alluding to how her father’s death has sparked a social media furor — some of which has boiled over into attacks on the Las Vegas Review-Journal over its coverage of the crime and some of which has been racist — called for cooler heads to prevail.

“We as a family in no way feel that Andy’s murder was based on race or profession,” Taylor Probst said. “It was a random act of violence. We ask you to not politicize or use Andy’s murder to fuel political agendas or to create cultural wars.” (source)

I backed into a spot where I could watch both entrances of the Papa Johns Pizza parking lot, punctual for my rendezvous. To be safe, I had first taken a slow cruise through the lot, on the lookout for the telltale signs of an unmarked police car. I was here to meet someone I knew only as Smog Lady. Adam, the night manager at Autozone had given me her telephone number. Word on the street was that Smog Lady could get me a smog certificate, and thereby cut the Gordian knot of the California Department of Motor Vehicles bureaucracy.

I grew up in California, moved away in the early Nineties, and moved back in 2019. One of the new things I noticed upon my return was small signs stuck to the side of a car, or printed on posterboard and erected on a street corner, advertising “DMV services”. After some intercourse with a few of these, always conducted in halting, heavily accented English, I came to understand that these entrepreneurs are “fixers”, a species that most Americans are unacquainted with. If you want to get something done in the developing world, you often need to engage the services of a fixer. This is someone who has connections in the bureaucracy, often by virtue of kinship. Being a naïve visitor without connections, you couldn’t possibly know whom to bribe, how to approach them, or what forms must be observed. These things must be accomplished with delicacy. You, brainwashed to believe in the Weberian version of bureaucracy as impersonal rationality, are too naive to navigate a real one in most parts of the world. Too European.

They say California is the future. However that may be, the state has become more like the rest of the world, less like the erstwhile United States. The old European ways of procedure-following are anomalous, and perhaps never made a lot of sense. Or maybe they made sense only within a framework provided by something like Calvinism, Prussian organisation, ecclesiastical administration, or some similarly ascetic institutional morality that is “no respecter of persons”. By contrast, ties of kinship are easy to grasp, more robust, and make sense to more of the world’s peoples as the ground of cooperation, particularly in societies where the clan may be as far as trust extends.

I was very happy to have found my way to Smog Lady. I spotted her 20 minutes after I arrived at the parking lot. She was making her rounds, leaning into cars through the driver’s side window. Finally she approached me: a toothless matron who spoke only Chinese beyond a few key words in English such as “odometer” and “VIN number”. I noticed she had a large wad of cash in her hand. I gave her my $200. She then got in her car and drove out of the parking lot. I had a moment of panic, thinking I had just been ripped off. But sure enough, 30 minutes later she came back with my fraudulent smog certificate.

The Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine coined the term “service nomads” for distinct peoples, typically itinerant or diaspora, who perform functions within a society that can only be done by outsiders. That is because these functions, though indispensable, are shady in one way or another and can’t be openly avowed as necessary. Things such as usury (that is, providing credit), burying the dead, magic, puppeteering, prostitution, peddling, cobbling, knife sharpening, dispute mediation and all manner of border-crossing and go-between work that allows the principals to negotiate without losing face or being compromised.

Every society has such liminal populations (gypsies, Jains, Travellers, the “overseas Chinese,” the Sheikh Mohammadi of eastern Afghanistan) who develop some kind of “transgressor expertise”. They must keep themselves apart, as integration into the bonds of reciprocity and communal honour would make their trade impossible. As Slezkine lays out: they are regarded as unclean, and in turn they guard their own purity against contamination by the host population, from intermarriage, say, or simply by accepting hospitality from them. Dietary restrictions and other taboos of self-segregation serve to keep the boundary intact. They speak their own language, and may pretend not to understand the host language.

At first blush, the providers of DMV services appear to fit Slezkine’s description of “service nomads”. But that concept only makes sense when framed against a surrounding society that is settled and cohesive, with taken-for-granted norms that secure a basic solidarity among the host population. Without such a background of belonging, and therefore communal honour to uphold, there would seem to be no need for a separate population and social type invested in transgressor expertise. California has become a polyglot of unrelated diasporas, opportunity-seekers, guest workers, tech Brahmins and multiple-passport-holding functionaries posted to the Pacific Rim economic zone. It is more like the bar scene in Star Wars than like Tolkien’s Shire. We are all wanderers.

I think Smog Lady is not to be understood as a service nomad, then. Rather, the necessity of her services may be taken as an indication of the direction that state bureaucracy takes under conditions of multiculturalism (think Brazil), particularly in the absence of partisan political competition (think Soviet Union). These two features, multiculturalism and political monopoly, interact in interesting ways.

With the collapse of the Republican Party in California, there soon emerged a political landscape resembling what the Yugoslav Communist official (turned dissident) Milovan Djilas termed the “party-state”. That is to say, there is little meaningful distinction to be made between the government and the Democratic Party. Competition for control of California takes place, not between two rival parties with different political visions and corresponding electorates in a general election, but between aspirants within the Democratic Party, under a shared political vision. In practice, this means competition for money from organised interests that fund the activist networks, which in turn translate those interests into various moralisms and thereby shape the vision of the party. The electorate largely drops out of consideration as a constituency.

Only what happens within the Party matters. In Yugoslavia in the Fifties that meant the deliberations of the “political forums”. In California, what happens within the Party is mostly determined by NGOs and foundations, public sector union leadership, expert bodies willing to generate Science in support of the Party’s program, and tech firms that are permitted unlimited capital accumulation on condition of alignment with the Party. Together these entities make up a sort of government-by-cabinet that is effectively insulated from the pressures of electoral politics. The citizenry isn’t feared.

In 2018, there was a rash of news stories about five and six hour waits at the DMV. Newspapers published DMV survival guides recommending that supplicants bring chairs, snacks and backup batteries for their devices. A state auditor’s report found a third of DMV employees not showing up for work on time. At least one data specialist slept for hours every day, year after year, without being fired, and this resulted in serious backups in the work flow.

When I returned to the state in 2019, I put off the transfer of my vehicles (I have a lot of them) and driver’s licence to California for as long as I could, knowing the rigours and uncertainties that awaited me in the attempt. Just as I was beginning the process, in March 2020, the state of California shut down.

Covid turned out to be a godsend for the DMV. On March 26, 2020 the Los Angeles Times acknowledged what those of us in bureaucratic limbo already knew: “To slow the spread of COVID-19, the California Department of Motor Vehicles has dramatically restricted customer visits to its field offices, barring people who do not have appointments and warning that no new slots to appear in person are currently available.” Now there were no lines and, more important, no embarrassing news stories about queues. Problem solved.

To the party-state, citizens with their unending needs are a nuisance. The DMV remained “open” because it is an essential service, but presumably this was less for public safety on the roads than for reasons of the sort that came to light in Knox v SEIU, a Supreme Court case which found that the public employee union (which DMV workers were required to join as a condition of employment) in California had “improperly charged increased dues that went towards political spending”. Those dues from DMV workers were the essential thing, to the party-state.

Several months later, as the pandemic meandered around the globe according to its own logic (in which the only perceptible correlation that emerged between lockdowns and Covid deaths was an embarrassing one), I succeeded in getting in the door of the DMV. To secure a California driver’s licence, I did not have to take a written exam, nor was there a driving test. The DMV had quietly waived these tests. The LA Times quoted an anonymous employee who wondered, “They’re saying we’re being kept open because we’re an essential part of the community… How can we be essential when we’re not protecting the public? We’re putting the public in danger by doing this.” When the same employee raised concerns with her manager about granting licences to customers who’d failed their tests multiple times, she was told, “Nope, just give them their license.” One DMV employee in the San Joaquin Valley reported her office waiving about half a dozen tests in one week, including for people who had been cited for driving under the influence.

In dropping the pretence of its ostensible mission of public safety, the official DMV was perhaps just acknowledging the reality of the unofficial DMV, the one that is likely to be called “corrupt” by people clinging to first-world norms. Having now spent some time in DMV offices in the new California, my impression is that the shop floor operates along the lines of ethnic fiefdoms that overlap somewhat, and work fairly smoothly together when necessary. The Hispanic customers speak their own language with a Hispanic teller, the warm tones and easy gestures of which seem very unlike the bureaucratic mode of address that institutional English is adapted to. There are other languages spoken as well, each with its own characteristic emotional repertoire, and some of these seem better adapted to the haggle — at least to the naïve and suspicious ear of one feeling beset by a cacophonous Babel.

The occasional appearance of an unaffiliated Anglo-American such as myself is accommodated easily enough, and in such cases tellers are able to code-switch into officialese. But one does wonder if one is being offered quite the same menu of services as those who can make appeal to one of these fiefdoms. In 2021, five employees at a DMV office in the Los Angeles area pled guilty to taking weekly cash bribes to process drivers licences for unqualified drivers. According to ringleader Atanacio Villegas, a licence registration examiner in Torrance from 2010 to 2016, “a network of ‘brokers’ would contact him on behalf of drivers who could not pass their driver exams”, and then forward the drivers’ bribes to DMV employees. The scheme involved sending the drivers to the window of a participating DMV employee who had an “identifier”, such as a red hat, as reported in the Press Democrat and LA Times.

In 2022, the Department of Justice indicted 20 California DMV employees who “helped put unqualified commercial drivers who operated large commercial vehicles on highways despite the drivers not passing their written and driving tests”. Employees would accept bribes to enter fraudulent scores for those who did not pass their tests and in some cases had not even taken the test. Various trucking schools looked for DMV employees that they could bribe so students that failed or were unqualified could get their licences. According to the DOJ, “hundreds of fraudulent commercial driver license permits and licenses were issued as a part of these schemes”. Meanwhile, according to NBC, in 2018 down in Corona (near San Diego), Jose Cruz admitted to a years-long arrangement in which “he and other conspirators obtained genuine Social Security numbers of Puerto Rican residents to be sold to people wishing to obtain state identification cards and driver’s licenses, according to his plea deal”.

In a case stretching from 2013-18, various trucking schools in the Salinas area were finding their own work-arounds. “Truck school owner Pavittar Singh was sentenced to prison for paying DMV employees for fraudulent passing scores,” reported The Californian. Meanwhile, “Kulwinder Dosanjh Singh, a broker, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery and identify fraud.” Here “broker” refers to a provider of DMV services.

From the perspective of the party-state, presumably the problem with allowing corruption within the bureaucracy is that the thriving business done by these operations represents a lost revenue stream for the union, that is, for the war chest of the Party. In 2014, the California DMV went on a massive hiring blitz, adding a thousand new workers for the express purpose of providing drivers licences to illegal immigrants, per state bill AB 60. “For us, it’s more of a social justice thing,” said Ted Burnett, state-wide coordinator for Service Employees International Union Local 1000.

You, tender reader, might be scandalised by the ways of California’s DMV, but such a response is a hangover from another era. Under conditions of bureaucratic dysfunction typical of a party-state, corruption isn’t a problem, it is the solution. These new populations have found ways to get things done. Bribery is more efficient (and far less crazy-making) than clinging to first-world expectations in a world that has changed. For my part, I am sincerely grateful for the services of Smog Lady. Diversity is our strength. (read more)

Clemens & Blair has issued a brand new book on a long-debated topic titled Protocols of the Elders of Zion: The Definitive English Edition, Edited and Translated by Thomas Dalton PhD. I was intrigued to see it, having found piecemeal material on the mysterious Protocols over years of indirect study, and also studying only one other full book devoted to the subject, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Foreword by Texe Marrs, commentary by Henry Ford, translated Victor E. Marsden (1934, reprinted Rivercrest Publishing, Austin TX, 2011). I wondered whether another book on this persistent topic would offer much that was new.

This Dalton book encompasses 275 pages, almost the same as the 2011 Marrs book. Both contain at their core accurate translations of the 24 Protocols themselves, which are necessary for reference. Dalton adds his own useful explanatory footnotes and titles for each protocol. The great value in the new Dalton treatment is in the three other sections: PART ONE: Overview and Early Commentaries, PART THREE: National Socialist Commentaries, PART FOUR: Contemporary Reflections (PART TWO is the Protocols themselves). Both books devote about 75% of their pages to such focus.

Introduction

These commentaries and reflections are particularly welcome in the Dalton volume. His introduction of 14 pages gives us the necessary description and explanation for what the Protocols essentially is (I refer to the document in the singular, and in italics when referring to the document): “I am tempted to call it the nicest work of anti-Semitism known to man.” Author and editor Thomas Dalton is known for many volumes that address the Jewish Question, and his Protocols book is still another—surprising that not all Protocols analyses do. I found it admirable that the Introduction also admits that “the document is truly shrouded in mystery,” “Its origins are unknown,” and “The author likewise is unknown,” thus avoiding the ignorant arrogance of other works.

The Introduction goes on to establish what is known, including an analysis of the strange writing style and structure (or lack of it), the clear fact that the Protocols are by Jews for Jews, and Jewish stridency in insisting it is a “forgery.”

Under sub-section “Murky Origins,” Dalton gives the first signs of the Protocols’ emergence to the public in 1902 in Russia, subsequent publishing by Sergei Nilus in his 1905 book, and on from there. The Protocols has earlier origins however, in France, and while later sections of the book present some of this knowledge, overall the book misses a couple too. I searched the convenient index for “Justine Glinka,” and found it missing, but the index covers only the Protocols themselves. Overall the book met the standards for a “definitive” edition, while the omission of this small detail of origins left it just short of exhaustive. The Marrs version includes the Glinka account, and I have found that no single source of analysis on the Protocols collects all knowledge in one place. Dalton’s version comes closer than any.

PART ONE: Overview and Early Commentaries

This section includes a “Summary” by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which is almost humorous in this context, but wise to establish the overwhelming Jewish dismissal of the Protocols. This sentence will serve to summarize almost all Jewish perspectives: “The Protocols is entirely a work of fiction, intentionally written to blame Jews for a variety of ills.” Case closed.

One early commentary comes from Wickham Steed writing in the London Times in 1920. He remarks upon the Protocols published in English in a booklet “The Jewish Peril.” Steed frames his essay as concern for unjust anti-Semitism the book could cause if left unexamined, but in the end conveys a genuine alarm that the Protocols are being successfully applied, especially in three year old USSR. He summarized the 24 Protocols down to 7 categories: the validity of a secret international cabal of Jews, with an “undying hatred of the traditional Christian world” and lust for domination, to destroy nation-states and impose Jewish control, using toxic political ideologies, by experts in governing of many centuries: Jews, over ignorant Goyim masses using corrupt puppets, weaponizing every sector and institution of the nations to demoralize, confuse, pervert and subvert the populations. Steed speculates: “Have we (British), by straining every fibre of our national body (WWI), escaped a ‘Pax Germanica’ only to fall into a ‘Pax Judaica’?”

Next we have an extensive section from Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent writings. The Marrs version has 10 full essays from Ford covering 90 pages. This entry by Dalton keeps the focus, presenting the essentials in key extracts from multiple essays all from around 1920. It basically reviews the Protocols to show that it was being implemented at that time, citing verbatim text and associating it with known developments of the day. Concluding, this chapter speaks of “… a program by which a people may be deliberately devastated materially and spiritually, and yet kept pleasant all the time… altogether under control of the members of one race.”

PART ONE completes with the full essay by Richard Graves, also in the London Times of 1921, that first announced the Protocols was a “forgery,” but in fact Graves announced it was a plagiarism. Here we learn the story that the document draws extensively on the contents of a book published in 1864 known as the Geneva Dialogues, authored by Maurice Joli (sometimes Joly). I found Dalton’s relevant footnotes helpful, but was surprised he did not note here that Joli was Jewish, and even a Freemason (this is revealed later in the book). The Geneva Dialogues present as a conversation in the underworld between the ghosts of Montesquieu and Machiavelli, and Graves catalogs its many verbatim or near-verbatim quotes which appear in the Protocols. Plagiarism is established, forgery is not.

The Epilogue of this chapter is written not by Graves, but by the Editors of The Times, who dismiss any relevance of the Protocols thereafter: “The fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend may be allowed to pass into oblivion. … thought it does not, in our opinion, affect the Jewish problem, which happily, in this country, cannot be said to exist in its Continental form.” Of course this assessment was entirely false, as we will see in PART THREE.

PART THREE: National Socialist Commentaries

Here is a unique contribution to Protocols analysis; I have not seen it elsewhere. Understandable that Dalton would include it, given his expertise in this area of history reflected in other books he has translated and published. Since the National Socialist Germans were renown for their problems with Jews, I was interested to see what they had to say about the Protocols.

First is an introduction to a full book about the Protocols by Estonian National Socialist Alfred Rosenberg. He explains that the elaborate attempts by Jews to suppress knowledge of and discredit the validity of the Protocols only confers more validity upon them, and discredits Jews. Rosenberg adds his own knowledge to the large corpus showing the Jewish plan for world control through destruction of White Western Christian civilization in other sources, notably the writings of three Jews: Theodore Herzl, Max Nordau and Ahad Ha’am (Asher Ginsberg). Jews dominated the Entente against Germany in World War I, and four Jews held positions of power in Great Britain. The rest of Rosenberg’s essay details Jewish power in America, England, France, Italy, USA (again), League of Nations and Germany. “The politics of the present (1924) corresponds exactly to the details of the intentions and plans as they were discussed and laid down more than 25 years ago.” Thus Rosenberg brings the Protocols into the context of his time.

He closes with a classic National Socialist perspective on the entire Jewish-German question:

… at the highest point of the greedy peak of power, the fall into the abyss awaits the Jew. The final fall. After him the Jew has no more room in Europe or America. … a new epoch is beginning… As one of the portents of this coming struggle for a new world formation stands the knowledge of the nature of the demon of our present decline. Then the way will be free for a new era.

Dalton is known for two books, Hitler on the Jews and Goebbels on the Jews, and next he offers us “Hitler and Goebbels on the Protocols.” Of all his speaking and writing, Hitler has only one statement on the Protocols, from Mein Kampf, Volume 1, 11.4. He states in part:

It doesn’t matter from what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; the important thing is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the nature and activity of the Jewish people, exposing both their inner contexts and final aims. …The moment that the general public gets hold of this book, the Jewish danger will be stamped out.

Of the many thousands of entries in Goebbels’ diaries over 20 years, only four mention the Protocols. First (1924) he says he must study them after reading of them in Henry Ford’s work, next that they are a forgery but still reflect “inner truth,” then wonders whether the Protocols would be good propaganda in France (1939) and last decides that the Protocols can be effective war propaganda especially in Britain if done with subtlety (1943). Goebbels clarifies something I have pondered for years:

The intellectual man doesn’t have a natural defense against the Jewish danger because he is essentially broken in his instinct. As a result, people of a high level of civilization are the most vulnerable. In nature, life always acts in the same way against parasitism; this is not always the case in the existence of nations. This actually results in the Jewish danger.

The penultimate chapter in this section is titled “NSDAP Introduction to Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which Dalton suspects was also written by Rosenberg. The party had been producing copies for public consumption in Germany since it won leadership in 1933, and this introduction is from the 1938 edition. “In this way, millions of people have become informed about the corrupting character of Jewish thought and action.”

This introduction gives its own account of the origins of the Protocols, and then focuses on evidence of the Jewish plan inflicted on Germany. The Jew Lucien Wolf is identified as exposing the Jewish influence over the Treaty of Versailles that so devastated Germany. Other Jews are named as founding and leading so many of the political parties violently opposed to the NSDAP, including the German Communist Party (KPD). Clearly the Protocols had been applied to use of the media and entertainment in pre-NSDAP Germany, along with promotion of pacifism, sexual perversion, abortion and miscegenation.

The chapter closes with powerful warnings for the people of other nations, and indeed for people of the world today:

This bloodthirsty desire for murder and revenge… is frightening and revolting, but nonetheless a genuine and accurate picture of the eternal enmity Jews have against non-Jews. … this well nourished racial instinct… steadily works to oppose and destroy all existing values of community, culture, justice, and morality. …we must conclude that the theses and facts proclaimed in the Protocols, and evidenced by the activities of the Jews in Germany, have been fully proved. …At the moment, Germany is enemy #1 of the Jews. It has freed itself from the poison in its racial body through the Nuremberg laws. Each people and each country, however, must sooner or later defend itself against subversive Jewish activity. …We have freed ourselves from the nightmare of Jewish dominance. …For the future, therefore, and for every country, there is but one warning call… Peoples of the world, defend your holiest possessions! (folk and nation – KH)

Though not technically National Socialist, the final chapter in this section is by Italian “’neo-fascist’ thinker” Julius Evola. Dalton’s initial summary tells us Evola’s name in the Italian translation in 1938 “contributed greatly” to its spread. His is the only chapter that goes beyond acknowledging the Jewish Question of the Protocols—including by the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Museum–by adding “the true forces at work in history.” Evola first answers the question of authenticity versus establishing the Protocols’ veracity. He cites the Bern Trial in Switzerland where Jews tried to establish the non-authenticity of the Protocols—the only mention I have seen in any work on the topic. Here Evola presents more of the details on Protocols’ origins, and we learn Joly was “a half-Jew, a revolutionary and a Freemason.” As with others we have seen, Evola shows that plagiarism in no way precludes vercity, given “1) proof by the facts; 2) proof by the nature of the Jewish spirit.”

Evola summarizes some of the Protocols by number: “This is the first phase of the occult war; its goal is to create an enormous proletariat, to reduce the peoples to a mush of beings without tradition or inner strength.” He adds broad historical perspectives including a Masonic Congress declaring World War I “the crowning work of the French Revolution,” leading to the League of Nations, the Popular Front swallowing France and inciting the Spanish Civil War, and “This is why Adolf Hitler considered it (the Protocols) to be undoubtedly the most powerful means of awakening the German people.” This seems somewhat divergent from what we read earlier from Hitler and Goebbels themselves, but the point is clear.

Evola presents his perhaps unique theory that the plan for world domination may not be exclusively Jewish. He asks us to “become aware of forces for which Judaism itself may have been, to some extent, only the instrument.” He claims the first edition of the Protocols is “signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33^rd degree,” and explains that Freemasonry was not founded by Jews, but only became Judaized in the 1700s. This is classic Evola: “it follows that it is necessary to refer to a much larger network of corrupting occult forces, which we are even inclined to believe is not purely human.” Some have said Jews are not fully human, and some Jews say that about Goyim, but Evola is referring to spiritual or energetic entities.

Returning to the Jews, Evola accepts their undeniable presence and power to conduct the Protocols, but attributes that not to their racial nature, but to “the Law,” the “Talmudic spirit… whether in an atavistic and unconscious manner, or an occult manner…” He shows examples of how the Protocols derive directly from this Law. Evola ends with hope, solidarity and inspiration for “a robust, unshakable, irresistible block” of European reconquest against the Jewish Sovereign in a conflict “of such a merciless nature as the world has never seen before.” (This last quote is from the Protocols) Recall Evola is writing in 1938.

For added perspective, this chapter includes an extended excerpt from his book of 1953, Men Among the Ruins. It focuses on the likelihood that a hidden force beyond organized Jews and Freemasons will emerge in the last phase of world control. It may even supersede Jews and Freemasons: “…the role of a central guiding force of global subversion in this last period (Fourth Estate – media) will no longer be played by Judaism or Masonry and that the main current may turn against both of these groups, as if they were residues to be liquidated once and for all…” Evola does not try to define this force.

PART FOUR Contemporary Reflections

This is the shortest section, yet of great interest to me. It presents two chapters making up 39 pages, the first from 2010 and the final from the year of publication, 2023. The Marrs book has nothing so current but for a brief Conclusion, nor any other source I have seen.

Carlo Mattogno, known for his holocaust revision work, is author of “The Fake ‘Fake Protocols’: The Purpose and Significance of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Mattogno starts with the view that the Protocols as “fake antisemitism” by the Russians to deflect blame onto Jews was false. Second, he presents the view that “philosemitism has used the Protocols” in “a strategy aimed at reinforcing the idea that anti-Semitism has no legitimate causes.” Both theses are supported by extensive references and analysis. Finally, Mattogno reveals his grand insight of the double-fake in his title: the Protocols “explicitly call on the peoples of Europe to reject liberalism and restore autocratic sovereignty… absolute monarchy by divine right.” This suggest the Czarist Russians and perhaps other monarchs of Europe as the ultimate authors, with the goal of preserving their monarchies against the rising threat of liberal parliamentary democracies—an avenue for Jews, I would ask?

As appropriate, editor Thomas Dalton has the final word in “The Protocols in the 21^st Century.” He re-establishes the unknowns and mysteries of the Protocols as the humble and proper basis for understanding. As in other chapters, Dalton reviews the record of evidence for Jewish world domination prior to the emergence of the Protocols, finding a different explanation than Evola. He brings it up to date, though vaguely: “One can only wonder how extreme the situation is today, more than 150 years later.”

Dalton gives his own view of four aspects: the “forgery,” politics in Russia, writing style analysis, and veracity. I was intrigued to read about his knowledge of the four Czars in temporal proximity to the emergence of the Protocols, especially Alexander II who was assassinated by Jews in 1881. Dalton’s view is essentially aligned with the National Socialists and the others throughout the book, with the exception of US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Graves and Evola: forgery, plagiarism, Russian origin or not, the Protocols is being applied and Jews are achieving their world domination plan.

Dalton provides a fascinating list of quotes denouncing Jews ranging from Hecateus in 300 BC to Heidegger (no date is given but he lived until 1976); see especially the Voltaire, Nietzsche, Twain, and H G Wells quotes. Dalton concludes: “Both main themes are thus proven: Jews indeed have designs on world domination, and they indeed view all of non-Jewish humanity with contempt and hatred. The Protocols are, in this sense, true.”

In my own studies of many sources of opinion on the Protocols, I cannot remember ever seeing any substantive solutions to the dreadful horrors they portray. Dalton delivers his solutions in this final chapter of a fascinating and engaging book. 1) Limit the number of Jews in every nation, restrict their membership in positions of power, and tax them in compensation for their financial predation. 2) independent nations join together to impose boycotts and sanctions on nations Jews control. 3) massive education campaign to reveal the truth of the Jews in history and today. In closing, Dalton states with utility that if knowledge of the Protocols can help avert a “global calamity,” their value is assured.

The book provides a Bibliography, and I thought it might be more complete if it included the Marrs volume, as well perhaps as the essay by Revilo P. Oliver “Those Awful Protocols” (1991), which complete those very few details this otherwise definitive edition omits. An Index is also a very welcome resource for those of us drawn to research, and this index covers the Protocols alone and not the commentaries and reflections.

Thomas Dalton, PhD has achieved the high claim of his title, Protocols of the Elders of Zion: The Definitive English Edition. While such reading cannot be considered “entertainment,” given the urgent and alarming subject matter, I found the variety of writing styles, viewpoints and analyses among the many chapters compelling in counter-point and also in consensus. I struggle to think of any adult and youth today who would not gain crucial perspective on history and current events that they can apply to their own protection and the defense of the world. Along with bringing this knowledge to our attention once again in this new form, Dalton’s greatest contribution is the simple, clear and effective solutions he offers at the end. I am left with a persistent peal of passion:

We must do this! (read more)

In this decade, America’s most effective conservative activist has likely been Chris Rufo, who in 2020 came up with a winning euphemism for all the racist antiwhite hate suffusing our schools, streets, and screens during the racial reckoning: “Critical Race Theory,” Rufo called it.

Personally, I just refer to racist antiwhite hate as “racist antiwhite hate.” But my term is far too self-explanatory to ever catch on. In the 21st century, Americans prefer opaque neologisms like “jump the shark” or “motte and bailey,” which require lectures on Happy Days trivia or feudal fortifications to understand.

“Critical Race Theory” has the advantage of being incomprehensible to those who haven’t been briefed.

Moreover, conservative whites remain extremely reluctant to notice how much of the animus directed at whites these days is driven by simple lowbrow hate and greed.

Instead, conservatives tend to assume that their opposition must have a highly intellectual ideological backstory, ideally involving something that Adorno said to Gramsci and Marcuse in the New School for Social Research cafeteria in 1946. After all, if not for the Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s, it would never have dawned on the black people on various reparations commissions in the 2020s to demand seven figures be deposited in their personal bank accounts. It could only be Marxism that makes African Americans want whites’ money.

What else could it be?

Rufo has now written an essay for City Journal entitled “No to the Politics of ‘Whiteness’: The case against right-wing racialism.” He has a demonstrated track record of political acuity, so it’s worth listening to his opinion:

As a practical matter, too, the politics of colorblind equality is vastly superior to the politics of “white identity.” Whatever one’s judgment on mass immigration, America is now a mixed, multiracial republic, and any successful political movement will need to build a coalition beyond any single racial group. The good news for conservatives—and a point against arguments for demographic determination—is that many racial minorities, most notably Latinos and Asians, oppose critical race theory-style discrimination, support the principle of colorblind equality, and have begun to shift politically to the right. By contrast, the advocates of “white racial consciousness” have a track record with the opposite results: from the late author Sam Francis to the website VDARE, such efforts have failed to garner an audience, much less a political coalition, beyond the fringes. Such a politics is perceived, rightly, as victim-oriented and antithetical to deeply held American principles.

Rufo’s take is similar to mine in 2005 in VDARE in a debate with Jared Taylor in which I argued in favor of what I call “citizenism” (the commonsense notion that America’s policies should be biased in favor of the well-being of our fellow citizens over those of the 7.7 billion noncitizens):

As Talleyrand might have said, “White Nationalism is worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.”… Any political philosophy aimed at whites today has to be phrased in high-minded terms because mud-wrestling with Al Sharpton over the racial spoils system simply strikes many whites as too demeaning to bother with…. White Americans don’t want to act like the rest of the world, as the white nationalists advise them to, they want to act like white Americans. They don’t want to submit their individual freedom to their extended families, they want to marry whom they want to marry and then focus on their nuclear families. They want the law to treat them not as members of a clan but as individual and equal citizens under the law.

On the other hand, it’s now 2023, eighteen years later, and my ideology of citizenism has not exactly swept the country, no matter how sensible people find it on the vanishingly rare occasions when it’s explained to them. Moreover, I’m constantly denounced as a white nationalist or a white supremacist, no matter what I’ve said in the past. And the gentlemanly Jared Taylor, even as we are approaching one year into Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter or X or whatever it’s called now, is still banned.

Meanwhile, racist antiwhite hate has become mainstream media fodder. Anybody who tries to defend whites from the ethnic slurs of Ibram X. Kendi [Editor: born Henry Rodgers] and the like is denounced as racist. Granted, there’s at present a vague impression that it’s not in Joe Biden’s reelection interest to bring up Black Lives Matters at the moment, but the fact that black deaths by homicide went up 44 percent and black deaths by motor vehicle accident rose 39 percent from 2019 to 2021 is silenced as inconvenient.

But as of January 21, 2025, will the Mostly Peaceful Protestors be unleashed once again, as in Obama’s second term?

Nobody knows.

My best guess is that the octogenarian Joe Biden would prefer not to have his second term discombobulated by urban disorder, much as the octogenarian general Paul von Hindenburg assumed that his second term as president of the Weimar Republic would be made more convenient by briefly appointing the bumptious corporal Adolf Hitler as chancellor.

Similarly, the notion that there is anything admirable about white people is verboten in the press. For example, young whites died much more in combat in the service of their country in Iraq and Afghanistan than did young people of other races, perhaps 75 to 100 percent more for the relevant age ranges. Every few years, glancing about for something to write, I’d look up the fatal casualty numbers in the Pentagon’s reports and write this up, admitting that, yes, young whites do appear on average to be more patriotic and self-sacrificing than the more fashionable races.

During these forever wars, the mainstream media didn’t utterly ignore this fact: As far as I can tell from Google, in 2005, both The Baltimore Sun and the Los Angeles Times wrote a single article each about it. Still, that’s not a lot of coverage of an important life-or-death pattern that went on for a decade or more.

But try to imagine this from a war reporter’s point of view: You’ve noticed from being embedded in combat units and from official documents that whites are disproportionately dying in the country’s two major wars. You consider pitching a story about this fact.

Your editor is going to ask you:

But what’s your bottom line? That whites are more heroic than other races? Really? Can’t you figure out some other way to angle this, such as that blacks are being discriminated against in being awarded Purple Heart medals? Or that whites are glory-hogging all the good jobs at the pointy end of the spear while blacks are forced, forced into safe supply jobs. Now, that’s a story! You might win a Pulitzer for that, but you definitely aren’t winning a Pulitzer for saying that whites are more admirable than nonwhites.

In contrast, your editor concludes,

Your pitch sums up to being that white youths are volunteering to serve their country in combat in inordinate numbers and thus dying at the same ratio. And that is not a story we want to publish. Sure, it’s true, but just because it’s true doesn’t mean it’s not racist to notice that it’s true. It’s the 21st century, dude! You can’t go around just telling the truth. You’ve got to spin it. C’mon, help me out here, nobody cares about dead white guys. If you insist on telling the truth, you’ll wind up untouchable in this business.

In the news media business, it’s essential to have phone numbers who will return reporters’ calls no matter how ridiculous the question they ask.

For example, I bet you can call Jonathan Greenblatt, age 52, of the Anti-Defamation League at any hour of the day or night and he will give you an antiwhite gentile quote. The man is a dynamo!

Al Sharpton, age 68, might not get back to you as fast, but he’s a funny guy when he does respond.

Granted, there aren’t many Asian or Hispanic superstar race agitators, but there are countless numbers of them who’d like to be, and one or more will immediately respond with an antiwhite quote you can use even if it’s not as amusing.

You ask, can you call Jared Taylor for a response defending the white race from these antiwhite racist hate slurs?

No, of course not. Are you crazy? He’s an Untouchable. He’s…pro-white.

To these newspapers’ subscribers, white people are the bad guys. Do you want people to cancel their subscriptions just because you noticed some unpopular truth?

This is a hate crime.

It's a fact that anti-Christian sentiment is rising in Israel.

But I have yet to see any of the neocons who shill for the country call attention to this. https://t.co/a0nchDM6UQ

— Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) September 12, 2023

The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.

So, for example, now we read why impeachment is suddenly a dangerous gambit.

True, the Founders did not envision impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost his House majority. Nor did they imagine impeaching a president twice. And they certainly did not anticipate trying an ex-president in the Senate as a private citizen.

In modern times, the nation has not rushed to impeach a president without a special counsel investigation to determine whether the chief executive was guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

But thanks to the Democrats, recent impeachments now have destroyed all those guardrails. After all, Trump was impeached the first time on the fumes of an exhaustive but fruitless 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation—one designed to find him guilty of Russian “collusion” and thus to be removed from office but found no actionable offenses at all.

Instead, dejected Democrats moved immediately for a second try. In September 2019 a few weeks after Trump had announced his 2020 reelection bid, the Democratic House began to impeach the president on the new grounds that he had talked to the President Zelensky of Ukraine and said he might delay offensive arms shipments—unless the Ukrainians could demonstrate that they had ended corruption and, in particular, were no longer influenced by the Biden family quid pro quo shakedowns.

Trump was proven right: the Biden family is not just corrupt, but, in particular, Joe Biden as head of the family and Vice President had intervened in the internal politics of an aid recipient, by threatening not to delay but rather to cancel outright all U.S. aid to Ukraine—unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor.

Shokin was then looking into the misadventures of Biden’s son Hunter, and why the Vice President’s imbecilic son was receiving lucrative compensation on the boards of a Ukrainian energy company Burisma, yet without any demonstrable expertise or education in matters of energy policy.

Since Trump was impeached, we now know that Joe Biden did lie that he had no connection with or even knowledge of his son’s business. And we know that the fired prosecutor believed the Bidens were recipients of bribes. We know that contrary to Biden’s assertions, he was not following State Department policy.

In contrast, the U.S. had, in fact, lauded Shokin’s efforts to repress corruption. In sum, Biden was undermining the stated policy of the U.S. government to protect his son’s—and his own—efforts to leverage money from Kyiv by monetizing the influence of his own Vice Presidency. In some sense, Biden was guilty of the very “treason” charge—altering U.S. foreign policy for personal benefit—by which Rep. Adam Schiff had earlier falsely accused Trump.

Given that reality, it is easy to argue that the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 for crimes that he did not commit, but which the current president Joe Biden most certainly had during his Vice Presidency.

But weaponizing impeachment is just one baleful legacy of the Left. There are plenty more of their own precedents that Leftists now would not wish to have applied to themselves:

• Will the next president have the FBI pay social media censors to suppress the dissemination of any news it feels is unhelpful to the reelection of a Republican president?
• Is it OK now for the next Vice President to invite his son onto Air Force Two to cement multimillion dollars deals that benefit both, with Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian oligarchs who enjoy government ties?
• Should a conservative billionaire stealthily insert $419 million late in the 2024 campaign to absorb the work of registrars in key voting precincts?
• If a Democratic president wins the 2024 election should conservative groups riot at the Capitol on Inauguration Day? Should a conservative celebrity yell out to the assembled crowd of protestors that she dreams of blowing up the White House? And if a Republican wins, should he prosecute any Democratic rioters who once again swarm Washington on Inauguration Day and charge them with “insurrection,” meting out long prisons sentences to the convicted?
• Is Joe Biden now vulnerable to being impeached for systematic family corruption, or using the Department of Justice to obstruct the prosecution of his son in his last days in office, and then being tried in the Senate as a private citizen?
• If the Republicans gain the Senate, will they move to end the filibuster in agreement with Democratic assertions that it is “racist” and a “Jim Crow relic”?
• If the midwestern Electoral College “Blue Wall” seems to reappear, or if Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada recreate new blue walls, will there be a conservative effort to end the constitutionally mandated Electoral College?
• If in 2024 there is a narrow Democratic win in the Electoral College, should conservative celebrities conspire to run ads urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties and not vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote that went Democratic? Should a Republican third-party candidate sue to stop a state’s selection of its electors on grounds the voting machines were rigged?
• If Supreme Court decisions begin to appear to favor the left, will Republicans talk of packing the court, or have the DOJ turn a blind eye when mobs began to swarm the homes of liberal justices? Should the conservative media go after liberal judges with serial accusations of corruption? Should the Republican Senate leader assemble a mob of pro-life protestors at the doors of the court and call out Justices Sotomayor or Jackson by name, with threats that they will soon reap the whirlwind they have sowed, given they have no idea of what is about to “hit” them? Should conservative legal scholars urge the country to ignore Supreme Court decisions deemed liberal?
• Will local prosecutors in red jurisdictions begin filing criminal charges against leading Democratic candidates on various charges, among them accusations of old inflated real estate assessments, campaign finance laws, questioning ballot results, or taking classified documents home? If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were to run in 2024, will their past illicit behavior gain the attention of a city or state attorney in Utah, West Virginia, or Wyoming?
• If Joe Biden continues to decline at his present rate, will Republicans demand he be given the Montreal Cognitive Assessment? Will they subpoena Ivy League psychiatrists to testify that an intervention is needed to remove him from office? And will an FBI director and a deputy Attorney General plan to wear wires, and record Biden in his private moments of senility, as a way of convincing the cabinet or Congress that he is demonstrably mentally unfit for office?
• In the 2024 election, should the Republican nominee hire a foreign ex-spy to compile falsehoods about the Democratic opponent and then seed them among the media, and Department of Justice? Should the FBI hire such a Republican contractor and likewise use him to gather dirt on the Democratic nominee?
• If there appears incriminating evidence concerning a Republican nominee, should the FBI retrieve such evidence, keep it under wraps, lie about its veracity, and instead go along with media and ex-intelligence officers assertions that it is a fraudulent production of Russian intelligence?
• Will conservative CIA and FBI directors, and the Director of National Intelligence be given exemptions from prosecutions for systematically lying while under oath in Congress or to federal investigators?
• Will conservative celebrities ritually on social media, without fear of censorship, brag about ways of decapitating, shooting, stabbing, burning, or blowing up the Democratic nominee?
• Since in many states the statues of limitations have not yet expired for arson, murder, assault, looting, and attacks on 1,500 police officers during the summer 2020 riots, will state prosecutors now begin identifying those 14,000 once arrested and mostly released, and begin refiling charges of conspiracy, racketeering—and “insurrection”?
• Will they also file insurrection charges against those who torched a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic Washington DC church, or conspired to riot and swarm the White House grounds in an effort to attack the President of the United States?
• Will they file charges against Vice President Kamala Harris for “inciting” ongoing violent demonstrations with monotonous, emphatic, and repetitive threats in the weeks before her nomination? Contrary to liberal “fact checkers” at time of nationwide violence, Harris certainly did not distinguish violent from non-violent protests, but in fact implied that they were intimately tied to the upcoming election and beyond. So given the hundreds of police officers injured, the hundreds of millions in property damage, and the dozens killed, what exactly did Harris mean by tying that ongoing summer of often violent protests to Election Day?:

“But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”

Was the above more or less inflammatory than Trump’s January 6 remarks for which in part he is under indictment: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”?

In sum, the Democratic leadership along with the media long ago deemed that Donald Trump posed such an existential threat to democracy that they were entitled to destroy democratic norms to destroy him.

Their actions were predicated on three assumptions: one, they had that right because they were more sophisticated, morally superior, and smarter than the rest of America and thus deserved the exemption to blow up customs and norms to achieve the “correct” ends; two, whatever damage they did to long-standing protocols of equal justice under the law paled in comparison to the damage that Trump supposedly would or did do; and three, their conservative opposition either lacked the wherewithal, the brains, or the audacity to emulate such behavior and thus there was no worry anyone would dare do to them what they did to others.

And now? For the first time, given recent polls, the Left is scared that a Republican House and perhaps soon a Republican Senate and White House might follow its own precedents, and use new left wing guidelines to enact conservative agendas. (read more)