The Primacy of Anti-Semitism

by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

AS I WRITE these words, the death toll in the Gaza massacre (not “war”) has surpassed 28,000, of whom some 70% are women and children. As I write these words, nothing has evidently changed in Jewish attitudes: Roughly 80% of American Jews and 95% of Israeli Jews are satisfied with the brutal assault.¹ As I write these words, nothing has deterred the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish attitude of the Biden administration or of the so-called leaders in Europe — Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Jens Stoltenberg, Olaf Scholz — as they offer all possible aid and assistance to the criminal Jewish state. These facts are extremely telling, but are unsurprising for those who have long studied the Jewish Question.

Confronted with the stark reality of Gaza, we must be clear and explicit. We must state the obvious: Israel’s actions are crimes against humanity, out of any proportion to the Hamas attack that nominally instigated it. As a resistance movement to a 75-year-long occupying power, Hamas is legitimate in its use of force against Israelis. All those around the world who aid and comfort the Israeli government are themselves criminals and must be held accountable; this includes Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and virtually every national leader in Europe. Those who refuse to speak up and condemn Israeli atrocities are moral cowards, concerned more about their personal status and personal well-being than mass human suffering. Such people, especially those in positions of influence, should be identified, labeled, shunned, and punished by the appropriate court of law.

And it’s not just Palestine. Jewish malfeasance around the world seems worse than ever, and with far greater consequences. Whether it is a pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, a crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, a war-mongering Chuck Schumer, a Jewish lunatic named Volodymyr Zelensky destroying the nation of Ukraine, or any number of Jewish billionaires who have used their money to corrupt politicians of all parties and all nations — enough is enough. The time has come to take an unambiguous anti-Jewish stance. The stakes are simply too high.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and assert here that the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption. Things are disintegrating on several fronts around the world: war, migration, economic gyrations, physical and mental illness, environmental degradation, overpopulation, runaway technology. When things go badly, those in charge must take the blame. And in the West, those in charge, those who have the most leverage and the greatest control, are predominantly Jews. This is my thesis; it is well-grounded by empirical evidence.²

If this is so, then the overriding concern of the day, and the primary moral imperative, is to be anti-Jewish — that is, to be “anti-Semitic.” Every person of conscience needs to stand up and state, unambiguously and proudly, “I am an anti-Semite.” We need to say, in so many words, “Jews are at the heart of the global poly-crisis, and therefore we must, of necessity, be anti-Jewish.” Anything less is to evade the root cause, and anything less will effectively yield to catastrophe.

This, of course, demands a fundamental change in our social outlook. As we all know, anyone today who dares challenge mainstream unconditional support for Israel, or who dares to even suggest that “Jews” have anything at all to do with the malign state of the world, is immediately branded an anti-Semite, or worse, a “Nazi” (or perhaps a “neo-Nazi,” as if that means anything). Such labels are obviously intended to strike fear by tarring the subject with a hated designation, thus marking them as a racist, as deserving of punishment (loss of livelihood, ‘cancellation,’ etc.), and as a generically “bad person.” They also serve as a deterrent to any potentially like-minded individuals who may be tempted to speak up on behalf of sanity and justice. By and large, and sadly, they work.

But the time has come for this little linguistic ploy to end. We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by — embracing them. The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly. The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

But two further points at the outset. I refer here to Jews as an ethnicity, as a genetic group, and not as a religion. My concern is with ethnic Jews.³ Virtually all religious Jews are also ethnic Jews, but only a minority of ethnic Jews are religious. The distinction is often exploited by those who would prefer to disguise their identity; it allows your dissembling, ethnically-Jewish English professor to say “I’m not Jewish!” — by which he means he is a secular Jew.

Secondly, I’ll state the following now, only once, simply to get it out of the way: When I say “Jews” or “the Jews,” I do not mean literally every Jew. In using such terms, I refer to most Jews, or the most powerful Jews, or the Jewish elite, as the context requires. If you have a hard time grasping this fact, you need not read any further.

A Bit of Perspective

The Gaza situation is not an anomaly; Zelensky leading his people to slaughter is not an anomaly; American Zionists driving us all into World War Three is not an anomaly. For centuries, Jews have conducted, assisted, funded, or condoned mass murder when it served their purposes. For centuries, they have been social corruptors and destroyers of order. Such realizations have produced countless “anti-Semites” throughout history. In 220 AD, Cassius Dio wrote that “Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans [during the revolt of 132 AD] … and the whole Earth, one might say, was being stirred up over the matter”.⁴ By 1542, Martin Luther believed that Jews had caused so much death and destruction among the Christian population that “we are at fault in not slaying them”.⁵ Voltaire was aghast: “I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race”.⁶

In the early 1770s, the philosopher and polymath Baron d’Holbach published some striking indictments:

[When] we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews… we are forced to acknowledge that this people were at all times the blindest, the stupidest, the most credulous, the most superstitious, and the most puerile that ever appeared on the Earth.… [By Mosaic Law, the Jews] were kept… in an unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate hatred of other forms of worship…. [T]he Jewish people distinguished themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies… [They] lived continually in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of frightful revolutions.

If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians… we shall see that [the Jews] are considered as a horde of thieves and bandits.… And even now the remainder of this unfortunate nation is looked upon as the vilest and most contemptible of all the Earth…

[The Jewish god Jehovah] is a truly savage god, made for a stupid, cruel, and immoral people; he is always furious, breathes nothing but vengeance, commands carnage, theft, and unsociability.⁷

And, of course, German National Socialists were extremely critical, though, again, with good justification. Of particular interest are Hitler’s comments on his own evolving view, as recorded in Mein Kampf. His journey to anti-Semitism is highly instructive, in the present context.⁸

In the beginning, like most people today, he had no pre-conceived notions about Jews:

It was not until I was 14 or 15 years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew,’ partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a mild distaste in me, and an uncomfortable feeling always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time, I had no other feelings about the Jewish Question.

There were very few Jews in Linz.… I hadn’t the slightest idea that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism. Then I came to Vienna.… It was then that I came upon the Jewish Question.

In physically encountering Jews, and in absorbing the intense Jewish media of Vienna, many previously inscrutable issues became comprehensible to him. “My ideas about anti-Semitism changed in the course of time, and this was my most difficult transformation.” He continues:

What soon gave me cause for serious thought, with a slowly rising insight, were the activities of the Jews in certain fields of life. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of nastiness — especially in cultural life — in which at least one Jew did not participate?⁹ On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess, one immediately discovers, like a maggot in a rotting corpse, often blinded by the dazzling light: a little Jew.

In my eyes, the charge against Jewry became a grave one the moment I discovered their activities in the press, art, literature, and the theater. All protests to the contrary were now essentially futile. …Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected — one worse than the Black Death. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed! Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such artists, the more inexhaustible their fecundity. Sometimes it happened that these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would spew their filth directly in the face of humanity.

Anyone today confronted with Hollywood films, rap music, or network television can likely sympathize with such views.

Hitler was adamant; he was not predisposed to anti-Semitism, but it was thrust upon him by the reality of the world around him. “Even if my feelings might resist a thousand times, reason now had to draw its own conclusions. The fact was that 90 per cent. of all the filthy literature, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy had to be charged to the account of a people who formed scarcely one per cent. of the nation. This fact could not be denied.”

Prostitution, human-trafficking, media corruption, political corruption… eventually, “the scales fell from my eyes.” He had an epiphany:

I now understood the language of the Jewish people. I realized that they use language for the purpose of disguising or veiling their thought, so that their real aim cannot be discovered by what they say, but rather only by reading between the lines. This insight was, for me, the greatest inner revolution that I had yet experienced. From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan, I became an out-and-out anti-Semite.

In doing so, Hitler effectively joined a long-standing European movement, dating back at least to the late 1800s. The Ligue Nationale Antisemitique de France (‘French Anti-Semitic League’) was formed in 1889 by Eduard Drumont, and the following year, Otto Böckel founded the Antisemitische Volkspartei (‘Anti-Semitic People’s Party’) in Germany, working with Theodor Fritsch.¹⁰ People and organizations of that day were openly and explicitly anti-Semitic; Hitler joined them around 1910, well before he could have known what was to come. Looking back, we now see that Jews played major, perhaps decisive, roles in both World Wars.¹¹ If there is a third world war, they will certainly have played a dominant role there as well. The time for explicit anti-Semitism has come once again.

I can’t leave Hitler without addressing one further issue. Reader, ask yourself this question: If someone close to you — a sibling, cousin, child, friend — were declared to be a “Nazi,” would your reaction be generally positive or generally negative? Almost certainly the latter. Now, ask yourself, Why is this? If you are a Jew, the negativity is understandable, given that “Nazi” is today virtually synonymous with “hated by Jews.” But since you are most likely among the 98% of readers who are not Jewish, why the negative reaction? Has a “Nazi” ever threatened you? Do you even know what a “Nazi” is? So why the negative reaction? Could it be that you have been indoctrinated, or cowed, by the Jewish Lobby into making a negative association? This is worthy of some self-reflection.

In light of the above, one might even graciously accept the mantle of “Nazism.” (“Excuse me, sir, but the proper term is ‘National Socialist.’”) If they call you an anti-Semite or a Nazi, at least it means you are having an effect; it is a measure of success. Wear it proudly.

The Media: Cowardly, Incompetent, or Sold-Out?

How, then, do our brave media handle these issues? Our media — those intrepid truth-seekers, noble and uncorrupted, “speaking truth to power” — yes, how about them? Which members of our vast media system are willing to get to root causes, to call a spade a spade, and to “name the Jew”?

I suspect we know the story. The mainstream media, both left and right, are hopelessly corrupted by Jewish ownership and Jewish management. I won’t recount the details here, but all five of the major American media conglomerates — Disney, Warner, NBCUniversal, Fox Corp, and Paramount — are dominated by Jewish leaders, or in the case of Fox, by rabid Zionists (and likely crypto-Jews).

Consider a few specifics. CNN and MSNBC are the most obvious, most craven examples of Jewish compliancy. Here we see, not investigative journalism or balanced and nuanced opinions, but blatant pro-Israel, pro-Jewish propaganda. Everything Israeli or Jewish is implicitly good and innocent, and everything Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or even neutral are implicitly evil. There are few Jewish program hosts — both networks seem to prefer Gentile gays, Blacks, and women — but the guest commentators and analysts are heavily, obscenely Jewish. If a segment has two guests, at least one is a Jew; if three guests, one or two Jews; if a panel, two or three. It is a calculated effort to maintain, at all times, a substantial Jewish presence. Suffice to say that never, ever, would CNN or MSNBC ‘out’ a Jew, blame a Jew as a Jew, or touch on issues of Jewish sensitivity.

Fox News is virtually as bad. Even as they vehemently disagree with the “liberal” media on virtually every issue, they are lock-step compliant on Jewish-Israeli issues. The worst are the prime-time hosts: Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters, and Laura Ingraham. All three are pathetically, revoltingly pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli. They could hardly be more fawning if they were paid Mossad agents. This cannot be a coincidence; again, it must be coordinated from the top of Fox. Only Tucker Carlson was willing to slightly, barely, touch on criticism of Jews (but never as Jews) — and he got fired.

The three main network news channels — ABC, NBC, and CBS — are all but useless. All three parrot the same talking points, almost as if they had the same scriptwriters. Their evening “national news” shows are parodies of real news, deliberately designed to grab the viewer’s attention and deflect it from deeper issues. As above, never, ever, would they criticize Jews or Israel in any serious fashion.

But wait, you say; today, thank God, we have independent news sources on the Internet, ranging from groups like Politico or Buzzfeed or Vox to ProPublica or The Intercept, or brave individual journalists and writers. They, surely, are not frightened by the Jewish Lobby; they, surely, will give us the honest truth.

Sadly, no. Once again, nearly all such sources rigorously avoid touching the “third rail” — the Jewish Question. Jews are never named, they are never outed, they are never involved — as Jews — with anything. Indeed, the word ‘Jew’ almost never appears in such sources, as if it were an evil talisman of some sort. And this, even in our supposedly brave, hard-hitting, independent journalism.

A sampling of recent reportage is revealing. Now, of course, I cannot have reviewed every word written by the following individuals; but still, the following essays were obvious candidates for a serious discussion of the role of Jews qua Jews, and yet the subject appears — nowhere. Consider the following recent examples of an apparently studied refusal to “name the Jew”:

• Mike Whitney: Are the Houthis Being Punished for Doing the Right Thing?
• Chris Hedges: The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse
• Richard Falk (Jewish): In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most Transparent Genocide in Human History
• Pepe Escobar: How the West Was Defeated
• Jonathan Cook: Western Racism Laid the Foundations for Israel’s Genocide in Gaza
• Larry Johnson: The United States and Europe Are Hell Bent on Sparking World War III
• Alastair Crooke: Gut Feelings Make for Strategic Errors
• Patrick Lawrence: The Crisis at the New York Times

All these men are thoughtful and well-informed on their subjects; so why, then, do they refuse to directly address the Jewish Question? It is the central aspect of the matters at hand. Without the Jewish angle, nothing really makes sense. At best, we have half the story. Where is the full story? Are they ignorant of it? Do they know, and yet willfully avoid it? Either way, the results are not good.

These men are not alone among our so-called independent media; even those on the “far right,” the “alt right,” the “dissident right,” or whatever they prefer to call themselves, adopt the same tactic. American Renaissance (Jared Taylor, Gregory Hood) never, that I can see, criticize the Jews. With only rare exceptions, VDARE (Peter Brimelow) is about the same. Richard Spencer no longer wants to discuss Jews; Paul Craig Roberts never did, as far as I can tell. Counter-Currents is very touchy about raising the JQ. Odd that the very people we would most expect to tell the whole truth, instead carefully avoid it; funny how that works.

The last of the above-mentioned articles is particularly instructive. Patrick Lawrence — former International Herald Tribune reporter, “media critic, author, and lecturer,” and now writer for the “independent” ScheerPost — offers us a trenchant analysis of the decline of that liberal media icon, the New York Times. But in a 5,000-word essay, the word ‘Jew’ appears precisely once, and then in an apologetic sense. In the second paragraph, Lawrence writes of the sadistic mockery displayed by the IDF soldiers, “a carnival of racist depravity one would have thought beyond what is worst in humanity — and certainly beyond what any Jew would do to another human being.” This displays an ignorance of Jewish history; such behavior is certainly not “beyond what any Jew would do,” and in fact, is entirely consistent with Jewish behavior over the centuries.

Lawrence ignores the essential fact that the NYT is a thoroughly Jewish institution, and has been since Adolph Ochs bought the paper back in 1896. The current publisher is a Jew, Arthur Sulzberger, as is the editor-in-chief, Joseph Kahn. I don’t have exact statistics, but anecdotally, some 90% of their stories carry at least one Jew in the byline. If the NYT is biased toward Israel, it is clearly and obviously because the organization is owned and run by Jews — this is Fact #1, but Lawrence, like every other media critic, fails to point this out.

Of course, he can’t help but name Jews along the way, but never as Jews; their Jewishness “has nothing to do with it!” as our screaming liberals might say. Lawrence cites Max Blumenthal, David Leonhardt, Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, Adam Sella, Joe Kahn, Roger Cohen, Emily Bazelon — almost certainly, all Jews. (Lawrence’s own ethnicity is unknown.)

Near the end of the piece, Lawrence laments that “we are now face to face with the destructive power of corporate media,” which serves “the policy cliques who run the imperium.” He quotes Blumenthal to the effect that “these [NYT] lies, fabrications, distortions, half-truths, and exaggerations… need to be called out.” “Is there a truer way to make the point?” asks Lawrence. Yes there is — like pointing to the entirely Jewish character of the Times for over a century, and its long history of “lies, fabrications, and distortions” on behalf of Jewish interests.

Now, let’s turn the whole matter around and ask an easier question: Who out there is willing to name the Jew? The list is small. Among living people today, David Duke is perhaps the original renegade in this regard, willing to name the Jew as far back as the early 1970s; at 73, he is still active today, mostly via his personal Web site. Then we have Eric Striker (aka Joseph Jordan), an educated and articulate critic unafraid to call out Jews. He spent some years writing for Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer (Anglin himself uses juvenile humor to make explicit and funny attacks on Jews), but now apparently works mainly through his Substack page under the “Jordan” name.¹²

Who else? To my knowledge, only two organizations provide regular, explicit, and intelligent criticism of the Jews. One is National Vanguard, run by the indefatigable Will Williams. They have a host of knowledgeable and courageous writers who are utterly unwilling to yield to political correctness on the Jews. And their Cosmotheist church site, and related book shop, offer much of value. The second group is the Occidental Observer, under the rigorous oversight of Kevin MacDonald. Dedicated to “white identity and white interests,” the site offers a range of intelligent and scholarly criticisms, many directly targeting Jews. They produce a companion quarterly journal, The Occidental Quarterly, which features the best of the TOO offerings. A nod also must go to [millionaire Jew — Ed.] Ron Unz and his unz.com — an aggregator site that does an excellent job of pulling together the most interesting, and most reviled, writers on a number of topics, including the Jews.

Apart from these few groups and individuals, the picture is sparse. Nearly all of our brave “independent journalists,” not to mention our many tenured professors around the country, simply refuse to name the Jew, even when it is the central and decisive fact at hand. Until that changes, we have little hope of taking appropriate action and implementing fundamental solutions.

One Solution, and Some Concrete Steps

Speaking of solutions, here is mine (disclaimer — it is not original): Based on history and extensive empirical evidence, even a small proportion of Jews in a given nation begin to cause serious problems. There is a threshold, a share of the population, beyond which Jews must not be allowed; and that threshold is very low. Based on my experience, the figure is about 0.1%. Once Jews exceed this percentage in any nation, corruption and social disruption ensue.

The USA is a case in point. Today, we have about 6.5 million Jews in a population of around 330 million, or about 2%. This is 20x my proposed threshold, and indeed, we have massive Jewish corruption. To avoid significant damage, the US would have to restrict its Jewish population to no more than around 300,000, in total.

Hence my solution: Encourage the Jews to leave. In principle, there are many incentives that could be applied; see below for a few thoughts. And granted, it is not likely to happen quickly. Still, there is value in openly and explicitly stating the goal, and to begin working toward it, no matter how long it may take.

“Great idea,” I hear people say, “but what exactly should we do, who will do it, and how?” There are several things we can do, all of us, to initiate the process. For now, it must be a grass-roots movement — which has many benefits because it means that every person, in their own way, can take concrete action. Don’t wait for “leaders” or “parties”; those will come with time. Act now, as an individual or part of a small, local, face-to-face group. Here are a few options.

First, get informed. Become a knowledgeable spokesman on the Jewish Question. Know your history, and learn what you are up against. There are a handful of essential texts that go a long way toward self-education. I myself have edited and published some of these: Mein Kampf, Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, and Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages. Two more classic works would include Theodore Fritsch’s Riddle of the Jews’ Success and Henry Ford’s The International Jew. A few months of effort invested in reading these books would be hugely profitable.

Second, adopt a clear and rational anti-Semitic stance. Avoid emotion and hyperbole. Be rational and factual. Identify Jews and Jewish crimes as such. Speak openly to friends and neighbors about the situation; show them that the situation is far worse than they imagine, and that Jews are at the root of many of our social and political problems.

Third, openly promote the goal of a Jew-free America. As stated above, the avowed goal should be a Jew-free nation, defined as less than 0.1% Jews. In today’s America, that would mean a 95% reduction from current levels. It doesn’t have to happen quickly, and could take decades; so be it. And don’t be dissuaded by claims of “that’s unrealistic”; all visionary goals initially seem unrealistic. Press ahead.

Fourth, emphasize the non-violent nature of this goal, and the non-violent means to get there. The idea is not to cause harm to Jews but rather to make them see that it is in their own best interests to voluntarily leave. There are many ways to achieve this — starting with a popular movement that simply and openly declares an intent to de-Judaize the nation, no matter how long it takes.

Individuals can also take action, to the extent possible, to boycott and sanction Jewish enterprises so as to deprive them of profits. Granted, this can be difficult in the present day, given the difficulty of finding businesses and products that are Jew-free. But small and local businesses often meet this requirement, if only by default. Encourage local businesses to both stay Jew-free and to impose their own boycott.

Further non-violent means will become available when the appropriate political environment comes into being — again likely beginning at local levels. A heavy Jew-tax (as was done in the Roman Empire, incidentally) would help, as would a legal ban on circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation. Both asset and income taxes on Jews would either drive them away or put a serious crimp in their financial power. And making circumcision a felony would drive it underground or force them to go abroad for the operation. But all such actions are non-violent, and would definitely serve as inducement to leave.

Ending dual citizenship with Israel is another obvious action, and would force many Jews to choose their true loyalty. Non-citizen Jews could be given limited residency permits and then compelled to leave. Non-citizen Jews implicated in any crimes could be deported to their home countries.

Fifth, in all discussions, press for transparency. Among our celebrities, governmental figures, and media stars, we need to know who is a Jew (or part-Jew), and we need to expose those non-Jews willing to serve Jewish interests for money or ideology (like Christian Zionism). On a larger scale, we will eventually need to identify everyone by ethnic origins; we will need both local and national databases to distinguish the White from the non-White population. (Jews, needless to say, are not White.) Only in this way can we measure progress on our road to a Jew-free nation.

Political figures should be of particular focus. Given the primacy of anti-Semitism, the only relevant political question is: How will you tackle the Jewish Question? For candidates at all levels, we need to be “one-issue” guys, and that issue is attacking Jewish power. At every candidate forum or local town hall, ask them, straight up, what they will do on this matter. And when they cave in or evade the answer, call them out for being moral cowards or Jewish lackeys.

Sixth, start at the small-scale and the local. Make efforts to create a reasonable assessment of your local Jewish populations (by city, county, or state). Many such jurisdictions are already Jew-free (i.e. under 0.1%); declare them as such, declare victory, and then build alliances with neighboring or larger jurisdictions.

Seventh, exploit all negative Jewish new stories to the maximum. Jews are constantly involved in unethical and criminal actions, at all levels of society. They are petty criminals, child molesters, sex traffickers, and global master criminals. The current Israeli crimes in Gaza are textbook cases of Jewish malevolence. The Jew Alejandro Mayorkas has made a disaster of the border situation, and the Jewess Victoria Nuland was directly involved in the Ukrainian coup that enflamed Russian belligerence and led to the current war there. The Jew Tony Blinken is doing nothing — or rather is counterproductive — at reining in the Israelis in Gaza. All this needs to become known. When talking with friends, be sure to emphasize that these are Jews: not “Israelis,” not “Zionists.” Call a spade a spade.

Eighth, donate money to bona fide anti-Jewish groups and activities. [You can donate to the National Alliance here. — Ed.] As an active writer and publisher, I know how hard it is to get by, and how valuable even small donations can be. There are good, dedicated people out there, working hard every day to solve the Jewish Problem. They can always use an extra dollar.

Ninth, avoid all Jewish-run or -funded groups. Jews are masters of ‘controlled opposition’: of funding or becoming members, or even leaders, of supposedly anti-Jewish groups simply in order to control them and ultimately destroy them. There are a number of such Jews: Paul Gottfried, Davis Hawke, Laura Loomer, Chaya Raichik, Andrew Auenheimer (aka Weev), Milo Yiannopoulos. Andrew Breitbart (died 2012) was a Jew, and his Breitbart news remains a thoroughly Jewish enterprise.

In a similar vein, be highly suspicious of individuals or groups who can’t quite bring themselves to criticize Jews by name. They may well have ulterior motives.

Tenth, get active. Become a writer, speaker, organizer, teacher, leader. Everyone has different talents; put them to good use, in service of perhaps the most urgent task facing humanity today. Each person knows their locality the best: what motivates people, what irritates them, what are their ‘hot buttons.’ Demonstrate to people in your region the primacy of anti-Semitism: its urgency, its necessity, and its effectiveness.

And perhaps a final suggestion: Refuse to sustain Jewish supremacy. The USA is a gigantic Jew-machine for the creation of Jewish wealth and power. Everything that serves to benefit America actually benefits the Jews. For every dollar you earn working for an “American” company, some Jew earns ten. Everything you do as a “patriot” to aid America aids the Jews. It takes a tremendous amount of work to sustain and grow the Jew-machine. Therefore, the obvious course of action is to stop working for it. Withhold your labor; withhold your wealth; withhold your allegiance. Stop working for the Jew-machine. Invest overseas. Work for yourself, for a family business, or for a foreign firm. Bring the Jew-machine to a grinding halt.

A Better World

Imagine, if you will, a Jew-free America. Imagine a federal government that (a) has no Jews, and (b) is filled with largely competent, capable, well-meaning people, working in the best interests of this nation. Imagine a government not given over to Jewish dictates and not flooded with corrupting Jewish money. Imagine a United States not hell-bent on a Jewish-inspired program of world domination; a US military not raining death and destruction on people around the globe; no 800 military bases in other nations, many against their will; and a military budget of, say, $500 billion instead of $1.5 trillion.

Imagine an America with closed and secure borders, and all illegal immigrants forcibly deported (Jews lead the charge for open borders); imagine public schools and universities not steadily ramming leftist-liberal ideology down students’ throats (Jews lead the charge on “woke” ideology); imagine LGBTQ and “trans” issues fading back into relative obscurity (where they were before Jews got involved); imagine corporations prioritizing quality-of-life issues, or environmental sustainability, rather than maximization of profits (Jewish materialism and greed rule today); imagine a stable, rational, and inflation-free economy instead of one acting like a global casino (as Jews prefer); imagine paying no income taxes to the feds (Jews inaugurated mandatory income taxes for everyone in WW2).¹³ Perhaps best of all, imagine a democracy not being synonymous with “rule by the Jews.”

All this is possible, and more. In fact, more than possible; it is almost certain, should we decide we want to get rid of our Jews.

Skeptical, dear reader? Then put me to the test. Jews have dominated America for at least 100 years.¹⁴ Therefore, let us conduct a fair experiment. Let us strive for the next 100 years to be a Jew-free nation. At the end of that new century, let us make a fair assessment of the pros and cons versus the previous 100 years, and make an honest determination which life was better. Should it be determined that America’s Jewish century was better, so be it; let us welcome the Jews back with open arms. But should we find that, in fact, a Jew-free America was better, perhaps vastly better, let us celebrate our courage and our vision, and be a true inspiration for the world, showing what can be attained with resolve and determination. It happened before; it can happen again.

Notes

1 See the Peace Index for January 2024 (survey 8^th to 15^th), in which the use of force in Gaza was described as “appropriate” (51%) or, incredibly, “too little” (43%), yielding 94% of Israeli Jews who are comfortable with the overwhelming use of force against a civilian population.

2 For a fairly thorough documentation of the facts, see my book The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023; Clemens & Blair).

3 Mixed-race Jews — as with Blacks and Hispanics — are a special case and require separate discussion. In short, I am inclined to count anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent as a Jew.

4 Roman History 69.13.

5 On the Jews and their Lies (2020; Clemens & Blair), p. 180.

6 In A. Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (1968), p. 300.

7 Ecce Homo, Superstition in All Ages, and Good Sense, respectively. For details, see T. Dalton, Eternal Strangers (2020; Castle Hill).

8 The following passages are taken from my 2022 translation of Mein Kampf, volume one, pp. 85-97.

9 Jews have long been prominent in ethically dubious industries, including usury, slavery, war-profiteering, human trafficking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and pornography.

10 Fritsch, incidentally, authored the compelling book The Riddle of the Jews’ Success (1923/2023) — a highly revealing practical study in Jewish tactics.

11 As explained in my 2019 book, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill).

12 Although a case could be made for the serious Holocaust revisionists; men like Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, and Juergen Graf are almost completely unknown, even to Holocaust skeptics, so severe has been the censorship of their work. For the curious, take a look at www.armreg.co.uk, and the new revisionist Holocaust Encyclopedia.

13 See my Steep Climb, chapter entitled “Tax the rich!”

14 In fact, I have argued for a precise date upon which this nation sold its soul to the Jews: 20 December 1911. See my Steep Climb, pp. 255-257.

* * *

Thomas Dalton, Ph.D., has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National Socialism. You can support National Vanguard by buying Dr. Dalton’s works through Cosmotheist Books; his personal Web site is www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

* * *

Source: Author; here are more articles by Thomas Dalton