But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles
in impeachment. Most prominent are the two congressmen who conducted the House
hearings: Adam Schiff, Chair of the House
Intelligence Committee, and Jerry Nadler,
Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both Schiff and Nadler were named as
prosecutors in the Senate trial, with Schiff designated as lead prosecutor.
In effect, impeachment is a project of the
numerically-dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the
Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House
committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless
enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York
I believe this new blatant approach is a marker of Jewish power in
2020 America: Jews now feel confident enough that they can safely participate
in such displays, knowing that their role will never be noted in public debate.
Indeed, it’s quite possible that the average white American
watching the hearings genuinely sees the Jewish principals as nothing more than
garden-variety white folks—they often seem to have no “Jewdar” at all.
This is no accident, since the percentage of Americans who think “the
movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” in 2008 was 22%,
compared to ~50% in 1964—despite Jewish dominance remaining obvious to anyone
who bothers to seriously inquire. Being afraid to notice ethnic realities, or
having been brainwashed into not noticing them, are major factors in the power
of what has to be described as America’s new, Jewish-dominated, elite.
Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of
this elite. His immigration-related proposals and comments (e.g., “Paris is no longer Paris,” “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not
sending their best”) and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy
were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive immigration and endless wars
in the Middle East to protect Israel. His victory was a hostile takeover of the
Presidency, opposed by the entire spectrum of elite political opinion, from the
far Left to the neoconservative “Right,” and
including Conservatism, Inc. cheap-labor
lobbyists like Paul Ryan.
Trump’s platform was populist to the core—it was essentially an
end-run around elite opinion. And American Jewish intellectuals have long shown
their hostility toward populism, as I noted in Chapter 5 of my The Culture of Critique.
However, Trump’s implicit white appeal worked both ways—it
inspired both support and also opposition, above all among Jews.
In interesting contrast to their fellow Americans of similar
socioeconomic status, some 70–80 percent of U.S. Jews vote Democrat. But even
so their visceral animosity toward Trump during the 2016 campaign was
extraordinary (see my VDARE.com five-part series titled “Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump”).
So it’s no surprise that Trump’s actual election was greeted with
quite unprecedented anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined The Campaign to
Impeach President Trump Has Begun the day of Trump’s inauguration. [By Matea Gold, January 17,
2017] (But in fact—incredibly—it dates back to even beforehis nomination).
I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a
struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920
First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority
of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but
augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration. This new elite, while
influential prior to World War II, had increasing influence throughout the
1950s—typically seen as a rather placid decade of peace and prosperity, but in
reality, a decade of intense Kulturkampf roiling just below the surface but bursting out
periodically, most spectacularly with the controversies surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
The nascent elite defeated Sen. McCarthy, despite
subsequent evidence that he was substantially right. Of course, it is
simply a fact that the individuals caught up in the McCarthy accusations
were disproportionately Jewish. McCarthy’s
crusade may be regarded as the last gasp of traditional America. So the
possible resurrection of traditional America under a populist President Trump
was seen by our new elite as a catastrophe.
I have documented that this new elite is
fundamentally Jewish, in the sense Jews have constituted its indispensable
core. It has promoted attitudes on immigration, multiculturalism, foreign
policy affecting Israel, and non-white and gender-based identity politics that
have now reached unchallengeable consensus among elites in the U.S. and
throughout the West. But they were prevalent in the mainstream Jewish community
since well prior to the 1960s, contrasting strongly with the rest pre-1960s
For example, the organized Jewish community has promoted the
interests of Israel since 1948, overcoming opposition of the former WASP
foreign-policy Establishment that had dominated the U.S. State Department.
Even more importantly, the Jewish community has been actively involved in opposing
immigration restriction since the late nineteenth century and in promoting the
ideology that America is a “Proposition nation’ open to all the world’s
As Professor Otis Graham commented on the Anti-Defamation League’s
getting John F. Kennedy to put his name on a pro-immigration book in 1958
ghosted by one of its operatives:
Thus, despite the high-flown rhetoric, increasing immigration was
really all about ethnic defense—by reducing the demographic, political, and
cultural power of European-Americans (see also Chapter 7 of my Culture of Critique), as reflected in the
attitudes of Jewish leaders going back to the 1920s.
Jewish organizations are now deeply involved in punishing people
who dissent on immigration and other favored issues, as indicated by the
example of TruNews [Inside the War
to Take Away Our Free Speech, by
Eric Striker, Unz.com, January 21, 2020] This looks like a switch, but free
speech is not at all a Jewish value, quite absent from traditional Jewish
communities. And in the contemporary world, Jewish organizations, such as the
ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and staff, such as
the SPLC, have uniformly supported “Hate Crime” legislation
throughout the West. Jewish groups in Europe have long advocatedcriminal penalties for “hate
speech” and criticism of Israel, and they have succeeded in getting them
enacted in the UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere.
In the U.S., these organizations have taken a lead role in getting
dissidents de-platformed from social media and financial institutions, forming
partnerships withFacebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft t o
combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts
associated with the Alt Right. They have also been prominently involved in
doxing dissidents, often resulting in loss of livelihood. Just
recently, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt testified in Congress that the social
media companies were not doing enough to combat “hate speech,” and asked that
Congress step in to rectify the problem—a clear violation of the First
Jewish lobbyists even persuaded President Trump (who contrary to
their fears seems to have a policy of appeasement, for example by recognizing
Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) to sign an executive order that effectively
penalizes speech critical of Israel at universities. The Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education commented that
While the order is couched in language intended to paper over the
readily evident threat to expressive rights, its ambiguous directive and
fundamental reliance on the [International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism and its
examples will cause institutions to investigate and censor protected speech on
their campuses. … [C]olleges and universities will rush to punish student and
faculty speakers in an attempt to avoid federal investigation and enforcement.
Of course, university administrators are highly experienced in
suppressing free speech even from mainstream conservatives, having acquiesced
repeatedly to hecklers’ vetoes and physical harassment by campus leftists.
In fact, Trump’s EO includes language that might be construed as
targeting an article such as this one, because it might be said to contain
“stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a
collective — such as, especially but not exclusively … Jews controlling the
media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as set forth in the IHRA definition.
As always, truth would not be a defense.
This new elite saw itself on the verge of complete victory in
2016. If Hillary had won, it would have been business as usual on all fronts,
from foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, to an immigration
surge (as attempted during the Obama presidency), Amnesty for illegals,
removing penalties for illegal entry and promoting multiculturalism, to knock
out the white majority.
There would have been increased pressure for European-style
legislation penalizing speech related to immigration and diversity, which would
have been upheld by a Supreme Court refashioned with more justices like Elena
Kagan, who has already signaled willingness to rein in the
First Amendment on speech related to diversity issues.
As Angelo Codevilla has written (without acknowledging the Jewish
Were any Democrat to win [in 2020], we can be certain that the
demands on us [Deplorables] would escalate, and the government’s choke hold on
education, speech, religion, medicine, law, and all manner of administration
would tighten further.
To be sure, Trump’s election has not resulted in his promised
policies being enacted. Middle Eastern wars continue, reflecting the priorities
of major Jewish donors Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer who have
collectively contributed north of $250M to Trump
re-election. On immigration, there have been some improvements at the southern border and on enforcement, but promises to end Birthright
Citizenship via executive order (of course it will be litigated, but so what?)
and lower legal immigration (which should have been attempted when the GOP had
control of both houses of Congress) have not been fulfilled. The U.S. is still
on schedule to have a white minority in the near future.
So, given Trump’s lack of success in effecting fundamental change,
why Schiff et al. expending so much energy in an impeachment scenario that has,
by all accounts, no chance of actually removing Trump?
Because they can’t help themselves. I suggest that that the “visceral animosity” that I noted above
is motivated by the parallels between Trump’s white working-class base and
working-class support for National Socialism in 1930s Germany. This phenomenon
was traumatic for Jewish intellectuals, who at the time were deeply immersed in
classical class-struggle Marxism. It was of critical importance in motivating
the shift pioneered by Frankfurt School toward conceptualizing Jewish interests
in terms of race—that the real problem Jews faced was white ethnocentrism, the
latter solvable only by propaganda efforts aimed at vilifying white racial
identity (which soon became mainstream in the educational efforts of the Jewish activist community)
and by importing non-whites in order to diminish white political power.
And, as always, this Jewish effort to nip Trump-style populism in
the bud has been carried out with the great psychological intensity that is a
general trait of Jewish activism. My observation is that among Jews there is a
critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7,
“pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on
Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This
intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: even
the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as
inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue. (I discuss
this at greater length in Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background
Traits For Jewish Activism,The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2003, pp 24-26.)
There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic
incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who
scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society
hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’
In the case of impeachment, this psychological intensity is
motivated by the fear that Trump could be reelected and be in a much better
position to effect fundamental change. Indeed, Adam Schiff made exactly that
point during his remarks during the Senate trial. [ Schiff
Tells Senators They Must Not Allow Trump to Run for Re-Election ,
CNSNEWS, January 24, 2020]
So is this a Jewish coup? Of course, such a claim needs
qualification. The Democratic Party may have “tipped” demographically, but it still
contains plenty of white gentiles. And there are Jews who are vigorously
defending Trump, such as Jay Sekulow, who is on Trump’s
personal legal team, and Stephen Miller, who remains a shining
star in the administration’s efforts on immigration. Plus there are Jewish
Trump donors noted above, although their driving interest in creating
bipartisan support for Israel is typically combined with moving the GOP to the
left on social issues, including immigration.
But yes, it is a Jewish coup. Indeed, the entire post-1965 regime
should be regarded as a Jewish coup motivated by fear and
loathing of the people and culture of pre-1965 white America.