Archive | July 5th, 2020

Donald Trump vs. the Deep State Revolution


We made it! As a man after prolonged illness gets up on his feet, slowly and uncertainly, and makes his first steps, so mankind is rising from its sickbed. There are nurses, doctors, heirs and lawyers who want to keep the patient in bed forever so they will enjoy a free run, but he is rising, his own master, despite their frighteners. Now is exactly the middle of the year AD 2020. From Christmas to Midsummer, the day grows; from Midsummer to Christmas, the night increases. St John the Baptist Day adds a religious meaning to the cosmic significance of the events, amplified this year by the solar eclipse.

In the US, the pivotal event is a Trump rebound. At Tulsa, Okla he began to regain lost ground. The situation was not looking good for him. Twitter again trolled Trump by flagging his joking presentation of the Fake News Media. The Supreme Court rejected two of his initiatives, offering additional protection to LGBT identifying people and to young illegal immigrants in regard to DACA. The Army demonstrated its hostility to Trump, apologising for a photo-op with their Commander-in-Chief. The Secret Services leaked the President’s whereabouts. More and more officials declared their allegiance to the New World Order by kneeling to it rather than to God.

Trump had been made irrelevant, the man in the bunker, whose authority hardly reaches the fence of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. American cities did not recognise his rule; police were resigning en masse. The mass media made a superhuman effort to torpedo his Tulsa rally. They reported non-events, such as “six staff members had tested positive for the virus” as the main headlines. The rally attendees were scared off by the promise of violence and disease. There was not a single Trump-friendly mass media source; even Fox News followed the agenda set by the New York Times. In addition, the venue had been overbooked by a factor of a hundred by DNC agents who played dirty (yes, they said the kids did it).

Trump managed it all right. He called for the reopening of schools; he joked about slowing down the charade of virus testing; he proclaimed that monuments should be cherished, not destroyed. Yes, he could have done better. He could have declared the faux pandemic officially over, instead of giving out irrelevant masks to the audience. (Those who wanted masks weren’t likely to come to the rally). He could have called for the arrest of seditious mayors, for the break up of the media monopoly, for a windfall tax on Twitter, for looting Wall Street for the benefit of Joe Public. He could have learnt from his own mistakes. But still, he made the grade. Now he has some time to grow, to enlarge his base, to sow fear and dread in the hearts of his adversaries, for they are too cocksure of their victory.

Trump should learn the lessons of the Bolton Affair. It was a mistake to bring Bolton into the White House. Bolton was a warmonger and a top agent of the Israel Lobby, the man who made it his sacred task to do what Israel wants. Such people always conceal the dagger in their sleeve to stab you in the back. Iran and Korea are two big mistakes of the Trump presidency bearing the Bolton footprint; but his whole foreign policy was a long series of errors. Trump should have listened to his own speeches from his own election campaign 2016, and follow them to the letter. Bring home GIs; make peace with the countries of the world. Let Russia and China, Venezuela and Cuba, North Korea and Syria live as they see fit.

Donald, you were right when you promised to end the “invade the world, invite the world” policy; why didn’t you stick to this promise? On December 7, 2016 you promised, “We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes”. Why didn’t you? Do it now; you still have four months to run. Fulfil your promises now. The Talmud teaches: a man won’t be judged for failing to be a Moses, but he will be judged for failing to be himself. Be yourself, and you will win.

Do not bother with racism or anti-racism. It is a faux-agenda, like gay or homophobe, like fem or trans, like toilet gendering. Real people aren’t interested in this sort of nonsense. Blacks are not interested in anti-racism, either. It is mainly White Wokes that are, and they will follow whatever the newspaper tells them to follow. Seattle has very few blacks but many Wokes, that’s why it is the centre of the ‘anti-racist’ campaign. Even if Trump went around kissing the sneakers of black youngsters, he wouldn’t change anything. Blacks are not hostile to him, not at all, but people who speak for them, the Dem Wokes, definitely are.

Trump should do something, and I do not mean responding by Twitter. He is not a Hitler, but is that good enough? President Trump does not send troops to meet the rioters, he does not arrest the mayors of the cities who told him to buzz off, he does not depose the generals who apologize for taking photos with him, and he does not take action against the corporations that support the rioters. The popular satirist C. J. Hopkins argued in his column in the Unz Review that this is smart. Trump refused to play the role of Hitler, and didn’t give his opponents any reason to remove him and seize power.

Yea, he won’t make a convincing Hitler. But he will do an excellent Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president who was afraid to act against the colour revolution instigated by the State Department lady, Mrs Nuland, and in the end was forced to flee to the Russian city of Rostov.

Opponents of Trump do not pull any punches. Read their headlines.

  • The Seattle mayor told President Donald Trump to “go back to your bunker”.
  • Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser: Trump is living in my backyard.
  • Armed Group Protects Confederate Statue in Kentucky: Arrest Them for Insurrection and Sedition.
  • Trump Exposes 1100 Graduating West Point Cadets to Possible Coronavirus Infection So He Can “Dominate” the Weekend Media.
  • This Is Deadly’: Trump Scraps Protections for Transgender Patients and Those Seeking Abortions.

But Trump is folding and retreating. They told him – how dare you to stage a rally on June 19? After all, this is a holiday for Black Americans, the day when Lincoln freed the last slaves. On such a holy day, it is impudent of Trump to show his face in public. And Trump retreated, shifted the rally to the June 20, although there were ostensibly thousands of requests for the rally.

I’m not a conservative, no way; I am not a supporter of the current regime. I think that a revolution – even the fake one, organized by Soros out of the GayLib crowd, lightly sprinkled with Africans for colour – will do some good for America and the world. The American troops are already leaving Germanyafter only 75 years of occupation. There are more than 100 major bases overseas that can be evacuated if the revolution persists. Fine and dandy.

But, Mr Hopkins, do not tell Trump that he has chosen the right survival strategy. As if everyone will respect his authority if he doesn’t get provoked. Let’s be frank, comrade. Tell Trump: if his main consideration is first of all not to be called a ‘bloody tyrant’ by a liberal site, there is a place for him in hospitable Rostov, next to Yanukovych. Let him decide. He can buy a villa over there for a good price.

Alternatively, let him try to regain some ground, and if he is called Hitler by some freaks, let him answer with ‘no more Mr Nice Guy’, like the protagonist in Mel Brooks’ film The Producers. Let him defeat the colour Revolution of Masks, before it devours him.

Our colleague Andre VItchek suggested we should not describe the process going on in the US, as a ‘colour revolution’. Firstly, the protesters shouldn’t be discouraged, let alone ridiculed. Secondly, all these revolutions are different, he says. These are weak arguments. First, I endeavour to understand and explain events, and I leave encouragement to others. Second, colour revolutions are revolutions made for the benefit of oligarchy. They remove the ruler who is too strong-willed or social-minded for the billionaires’ liking. And they utilise legitimate grievances of the people. They ride on the people like a rider rides a horse. It means that a colour revolution can shift and turn into the real thing, like a horse can throw down the rider and gallop away, but this is not the usual turn of events.

The Mask Revolution in the US has too strong a support from corporations to be anything else but a colour revolution. “Black Lives Matter Receives $100 Million from Foundations, in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from George Soros through his Open Society Foundations”, says Policemag (the article was removed but can be accessed via

It can’t be decoupled from the Covid pandemic, or rather, from the lockdowns. These unusual means of disease control are deadly for small businesses and for free-lancers. Big corporations survive and even grow fat; small ones die. Control over the population increases. Free-lancers are forced to join the regular labour force and work for a large corporation; or die. The actors of the revolution will be destroyed by the success of their enterprise. We shall know the revolution became a real one, when the revolutionaries fight the corporations. Likewise, the enemies of the colour revolution should not fight Blacks and minorities; they should fight the corporations that use the Blacks as their cannon fodder.

Because of this connection between lockdowns and the Mask Revolution, Trump should end the lockdowns. If there is one thing we have learned from first half of the year it is that lockdowns do not help. We have to live with the virus, even if it that means dying. If you have no lockdown, you’ll have no second wave. The Swedes did it; everybody can do it. Those who want to lock us down would lock us down forever.

And now, another reason why I disagree with Vltchek. It is not that BLM or DNC are better or worse than Trump’s warriors. DNC and BLM are close to a hegemonic power. They are loved by the media, by the Masters of Discourse. If the Democratic candidate wins the 2020 elections, the West will be united behind him. He will humiliate China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran; the Deplorable will be deplored; European nationalists will be eliminated; the New World Order will proceed at double speed. No, thank you, Andre. It is better to have America and the West divided under Trump rather than united under the DNC.

P.S. A Jewish angle of the story. Israel has reserved this time for the annexation of the Jordan Valley and of the Jewish settlements located in the West Bank. This was the electoral promise of Netanyahu. He is loath to fulfill it, and he can’t find a good excuse to escape (unless the second wave of Covid will conveniently occur). His generals aren’t keen, either. His new partner, General Ganz, does not want to be blamed for derailing the annexation. Israelis feel they have now a window of opportunity to take this land, as no American President save President Trump is likely to allow it. Trump does not care what the Israelis do, as long as it keeps American Jews divided about Trump. This is a sensible attitude; naturally it annoys Biden and Democrats (they want Jews united for them), but this is to be expected. However, there is a snag. Jews are ambivalent about the annexation, and perhaps on the whole they would prefer the temptation (offered by Trump) to pass.

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on Donald Trump vs. the Deep State Revolution

The World Through the Eyes of a Globalist


You are a globalist.

Not you personally, gentle reader.

Let me explain. We’re going on a voyage through sight and sound and mind, unlocking that door with that key of imagination (it’s still around), crossing over into Twilight Zone 2020. When we’re done, you’ll have seen the world through the eyes of a globalist. Which one? It doesn’t matter. Not all are the same, ‘tis true. But we’re interested in what they share, not where they differ. What they share is a plan — for total control. Whether it’s called world government or the “softer” global governance, you’ll see it as an inevitable result of technology and modernity. For the past three centuries, things have gotten more centralized and consolidated. The process is now accelerating. For you and your fellow globalists, many your superiors in a vast treelike hierarchy, the world is like a game of Risk. You know the rules, you have the skills, and you’re playing to win. It is a game, after all. Populations are like pieces on a board, to be moved around or removed at will or whim, as you challenge other global players and bring everyone into your fold.

Our voyage has begun. I should warn you, gentle reader, before we go all the way through that door. When we return you may feel queasy, with an urge to take a bath. Do not be alarmed. This comes with the territory.

So you are a globalist. You were born to wealth and real privilege, educated at Harvard (or Yale or Columbia). You came of age assuming that as one of the blue bloods, your destiny is to help shape the new world order to come. Your name may be unknown. This doesn’t bother you. If visibility should come your way, you’ll accept it. But you’re not preoccupied with it. You see no reason to seek it out. More gets from behind the curtain, anyway.

You’re in awe, admittedly, of the wealth accumulated by such dynasties as the Rothschilds, how they managed to drop from sight over a century ago and remain hidden — not on lists of the rich such as Forbes publishes — despite their absolute lock on trillions through the central banks they control and hundreds of “shell” corporations whose managers have no idea, because many in the dynasty don’t use that name.

You are properly disdainful of the masses. Like your fellow globalists you don’t see them as more than cattle, fit to be caged in work cubicles and ruled. But you’ve noticed, even from their inferior genes come, every so often, intelligent men and a few women with the right attitude. Such individuals can be plucked from the mass environment, tested for their reaction when they learn how the world really works, and if they pass the test, trained. The rest — with their gleeful mass consumption, their addictions to screens, their adulation of celebrities and sports icons, their blind adherence to religion or ideology whether “left” or “right” — leave you singularly unimpressed. Most you can barely tell apart since they dress, wear their hair, and talk the same, as members of various tribes. Tribalism, you were told as a child, is our natural state, and you’ve no cause to doubt it. A few idealistic intellectuals once thought they could transcend tribes with their god Reason. They called this the Enlightenment, which had its uses. But here we are back again. You look at society and you see tribes.

If you’re anything, you’re a realist. Since the masses act like cattle, why not treat them like cattle? At some point, you might be one of the people who gets to decide who lives and who dies, as the crisis your superiors did so much to engineer and then to hide inside continues to unfold: the genetically-engineered coronavirus, the planned-emic, the fomented racial unrest, the cancellation of history through programmed destruction of monuments to it. Fairytales like “white privilege.” Whatever divides, helps, because when groups are at each other’s throats over “microaggressions” and “racism” or trans-confusion or whatever, they’re not watching you.

Are you a sociopath? You don’t know. You understand the question, but you don’t think it has much meaning. You were raised as you were, you know what you know, and you do what you have to. You can empathize with your own, you think, but who knows? You tell your wife you love her, and she was picked for you because she’s good stock, too, but should she make the slightest wrong move, or show too much curiosity about what you do during the day, she’s gone in less time than it takes to say divorce. And without the niceties of a division of assets.

You have superiors who’ll cut you out in the same way if you display weakness or remorse or guilt, especially for the fate of the cattle. This you also know. Superior breeding, intelligence, and strength of will got them where they are, and yours hasn’t hurt you any. If anything, you think those some call sociopaths might be a superior breed of human. To your superiors, emotional cravings after ethics are signs of weakness and stupidity. The cattle are as they are because they believe that stuff.

You believe in Hegelian dialectic because you’ve seen it used. Crisis  Reaction  Response. Foment a crisis, or through inaction at the right time, allow one to develop. The crisis prompts a predictable reaction. As things come to a head, your political groupies move in with the response that was wanted all along, and it usually comes hassle-free. Your media mouthpieces praise it. The cattle lap it up like warm milk. The crisis could be a planned terror attack or a threat of war or an economic downturn or the planned-emic. What you hear from the cattle is that collective cry, “Do something!

So you and your fellows do something, and what you do brings you greater control. It could be funneling money to support a policy decision that will lead to more centralization and dominance. Or supporting a candidate who will do your bidding because he’s afraid of what will happen if he doesn’t.

Or it could be going to war against a designated target, someone in the way of globalist goals. If the masses are told they’re in danger, and that destroying your enemy will restore their safety, they’ll go along, because as you and your fellow globalists have understood from the start, they want safety more than freedom. That was the core failing of those who founded the country you grew up in but no longer recognize, so completely have its founding principles been dismantled. They believed more than a tiny minority of the human race are suited for freedom. Several of those ideals once presented the greatest potential roadblock to you and your superiors’ goals for the world. But that was long ago. Now things are falling apart, and you’re satisfied as you watch the mayhem in the streets.

What strikes you as funny is how the few who notice what you do are so easily labeled “conspiracy theorists” and how this totally shuts discussion down. If it’s on CNN or in the Washington Post, it has to be true, after all. Would these outlets lie to their readers? Even more amusing is how some kool-aid drinkers among the cattle police the herd without your help. You’ve seen this over and over on Internet forums, especially those attached to city newspapers. There’s usually some cyberbully, usually more liberal than thou, with fake superiority who calls out the “conspiracy nuts,” and he keeps the rabble in line without having the slightest idea whose interests he’s serving.

Sometimes you can’t stop laughing.

Because conspiracies by definition are hidden. You and your superiors aren’t hiding. You haven’t been hiding for decades. Some of your predecessors wrote books about globalist proposals for the world. They had major publishers with regular distribution networks. Visibility in financial media. Part of you wants to ask, is the World Economic Forum hidden from anyone? Or this, about the Great Reset, as they call the purpose of this crisis, right there on YouTube with all those links to more information?

You understand that the way to control the minds of the masses is to control the information that reaches them. This, too, was discovered long ago. Hence sending their children to public schools to learn “subjects” crafted to specification while they acquired habits of regimentation and attitudes of subservience to authority.

The way to control their bodies is through economics, which is based on incentives. Everything in this world follows its food supply, and secondarily, the need for warmth and safety and sex. The masses need to buy food and pay for shelter, and they can be led by their noses with sex appeal. Corporate machinations determine what jobs are available and in what quantities. It wasn’t hard to drive the bulk of the public into employment of one sort of another, because employment meant dependence. Advertising drives them to consume, so the economic engine keeps humming.

Schools tell them they are free, of course, because they can vote every two and four years for candidates you and your fellows have approved, at least in most cases. Trump was an odd case, but your superiors have partially bent him to their will.

All this said, you and your fellow globalists are not gods, and you don’t view yourselves as gods. There are no gods any more than there are ghosts, goblins, ghouls, poltergeists, or space aliens. You’re just a superior breed of human, that’s all. You blue bloods tamed emotions the masses can’t tame, while focusing on long-term goals, developing the right technological tools, and getting everyone and everything into alignment.

Speaking of Trump, he and a few others monkeywrenched things a little. Fortunately, most of what Trump has actually done benefited the very corporations serving your superiors — as if he actually knew who had been buttering his bread all along (his commerce secretary, Wilber Ross, who helped him out of a financial jam years ago, is a Rothschild agent, after all). And it’s not like he was going to Drain the Swamp. If he truly thought he was going to oppose globalism, he was opposing something 90 percent finished.

But getting back to the godhood question….

You’re not gods because God if He really existed wouldn’t make mistakes, and you globalists have made some epic blunders over the years. You made basically the same mistake twice, in fact! Letting a technology get away from you.

Back in the 1960s, your predecessors let television get away. Television, that new and potentially fantastic panacea for bored housewives and sports fans, that instrument for communicating propaganda passed off as news, and a source of revenue for companies great and small who threw millions into commercial ads that supported programming that would condition viewers to what your predecessors wanted them to think. But they let parts of it get away from them. It’s a cultural cesspool now, but back then, the ship had sailed.

The mistake was permitting boots-on-the-ground coverage of what was really going on in Vietnam. Kids saw the bodybags and were horrified. A critical mass of a generation came of age telling each other, “We’re not doing this anymore!” They would have sent a man to the White House to stop that war, which your predecessors wanted badly. A couple of their jackals took him out, just like a different group took out his brother five years earlier, but it was too late. The movement survived and ended that war prematurely. It wasn’t economically feasible to continue fighting it. It took a long time to build the war machine back to where it had been. Globalism lost valuable time!

Then, more recently, your fellows let the Internet slip through their fingers! Originally a DARPA creation, this work of genius programmed computers to “talk to one another” within the burgeoning communications grid. It migrated from government to computer science labs in universities and from there, slow but sure, to dissident voices who hadn’t had such platforms before. It also made its way to the masses. Some turned it into the same cesspool television had become, but for others — refuseniks, you call them — it was an oasis of “free speech” and they made full use of it. Some were clever and gathered a lot of essentially truthful information about what you and your fellows have been up to all these years and decades. The “conspiracy” meme worked somewhat but didn’t carry the same weight it once had.

So your minions seeded it with all manner of bogus information and confusion and false rabbit trails. Sometimes — proving they have a sense of humor, you suppose — they pushed stuff that was outright idiotic, such as the Earth being flat and this being science’s darkest secret and the devil’s greatest triumph after convincing the world he doesn’t exist. Here your generation came in. Part of your work involves creating content that distracts and confuses. You love your work. Because you can endlessly play mind games with truthseekers. Even if there isn’t any way to prevent some truth from getting out (such as the role of a certain powerful Middle Eastern nation with Washington’s most powerful lobby in 9/11), you and your fellows can see to it that even intelligent and discerning researchers have a hard time telling what is true from what isn’t. Helping your cause is the sheer quantity of information, whether about historical events or more recent ones such as the 9/11 attacks, or even the 2008 financial crisis where you could confuse and misdirect to so people would look at unqualified loan recipients instead of manipulative Wall Streeters and their instruments. It was easy to ensure that discussions of the latter were so complex and technical, as well as written in extremely dry language, so the average reader would quickly get bored and give up.

But when all is said and done, even though you helped create the post-truth world we live in now, it wasn’t enough.

Some of the refuseniks got organized! A Global Populist Revolt was at hand!

It started slow and fractured and ultimately compromised, like Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring. But with Brexit and the rise of Trump, the Revolt grew sharper teeth, since even if Trump was basically an asshole and had all kinds of vulnerabilities, his command of all the major media was so superior and his opponents so weak that no one really stood a chance against him back in 2016. It would have been too risky to just take him out, like your predecessors did those two brothers all those years ago. Hotheads among his supporters would have blown the lid off. So you made the best of it, you and your fellow globalists. Then Hillary Clinton self-sabotaged with her idiotic “baskets of deplorables” remark and blew the election! Clinton, who had destroyed two countries almost singlehandedly (Libya and Honduras), would have been perfect at blending the drums of war with fanning the flames of black vs white, male vs female, straight vs gay, all helping distract from the looming financial catastrophe your fellows’ central bankers were busy engineering behind the scenes to prepare for the Great Reset.

Now you had a problem on your hands!

And by 2017 too many people were awake (not “woke”). They didn’t buy “Russia-gate” (God, how you hate such terms!). Nor did they buy “Ukraine-gate” which would be your Democrat Party servants’ last straightforward gambit for getting Trump out of office.

Nor were they buying into the man-made climate change narrative.

But you globalists are nothing if not smart, and with tremendous foresight. Some of you had been anticipating just such possibilities, having funneled millions into coronavirus research in places like Wuhan, China, where nobody in the West would notice.

It would be necessary to crush the Populists and refuseniks!

Enter the “novel” coronavirus. And how the Chinese Communist Party also played it smart doing your bidding keeping the lid on until global travel ensured that the virus would spread and start infecting vulnerable populations, laying the groundwork for a broader panic: your planned-emic. Your servants in governments closes borders, locked down economies forcibly closing thousands of small businesses, while slamming corporate media viewers with 24/7 coverage of COVID-19, letting them watch death numbers rack up.

The start of the greatest redistribution of wealth upwards in world history!

Then came the George Floyd riots, which some of you helped orchestrate — brilliant moves to increase the general level of mayhem and distraction.

Through the wrecked businesses and ruined lives you hear the cries of “do something!” You are your superiors are counting on this.

What a perfect opportunity for a Great Reset!

A few of you are saying almost visibly that only a world government can address this pandemic — which has certainly caused more fear than climate change and soft-minded phrases like “global problems call for global solutions.”

They weren’t personally threatened by climate change like they are getting sick and dying, and that’s the key. The object lesson is that the masses have to feel fear personallyThey have to believe they or those they care about or things they care about are in danger, otherwise they won’t get with the program.

Now it’s appropriate to use TV to show bodybags and rows of graves!

This will also be the best opportunity you and your fellow globalists have to get rid of physical cash and digitize everything. Tell the masses that cash could spread the virus, not just that drug dealers, child traffickers, and other forms of lowlife scum use physical cash. Since most people have never seen a child trafficker or drug lord, again that’s not personal enough.

Eventually you’ll criminalize cash transactions that aren’t recorded digitally and can’t be monitored. Once your financial grid is set, you’ll know every detail of who has what, where they are getting it and how, what they are doing with it, and whether there’s anything suspicious going on. Your ideal is for the masses to have credit chips implanted in them, perhaps between the thumb and index finger of their left hand. A global ID. Everybody’s birth and parentage records, educational records, employment records, health records, and financial transactions, all in one place! Nothing will any more get lost, nothing will be stolen. You’ll tell the people that identity theft is a thing of the past.

Some still won’t go along, of course. Refuseniks, ideological descendants of those who rejected modernity, don’t trust authority, and would live like savages rather than enjoy the benefits of the new world order you globalists offer.

This is not a choice, though. Your superiors’ offer isn’t coming with an opt-out button.

You’re not sure what’s in the offing, because such things are on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.

You realize there are things you don’t know. You know your immediate superiors who brought you to where you are, and you know the higher-ups past them reach up through Wall Street corporations and City of London enclaves past central banks and Bank of International Settlements and Davos culture, past even Those You Can’t Criticize to still higher “alchemists” of power. And they might be answering to someone above them. There may be curtains you can’t see, much less peer behind. Maybe someday you’ll be invited to gatherings in the “grove” if you perform well. But where does this go? You’ve had a few uneasy thoughts you’ve always been able to push away.

One thing you know: no one leaves this life except in a box. A few tried. They regretted it. A handful tried to tell their tale. They discovered the truth: no one believed them. They became laughingstocks, like those glassy-eyed, disheveled loons on sidewalks bearing signs and wailing through bad teeth that the end of the world is at hand.

As to what’s planned for the refusenik brigades, it’s sure to be something nastier than this planned-emic was.

This coronavirus wasn’t lethal except for certain groups like the elderly that can’t contribute to the global economy anyway and might as well be eliminated. Some 80 percent of everyone else infected got over it. Rough estimate.

You’ve heard rumors, though — Bill Gates mentioned one in passing, like he was talking about a mere possibility — of something waiting in the wings that will be lethal. Something able to wipe out not a few million but a few billion. Maybe reduce the world’s population by well over half, given that many who survive the plague will die in food riots, croak from heart attacks, OD on drugs, or commit suicide. Many may simply starve to death. You remember reading back in 2005 that Terry Schiavo, the disabled brain damaged woman, lived without food and water for 13 days after she was unplugged from life support. You wince a little as you imagine someone mostly healthy and with normal cognition going maybe longer without food, wandering to find it anywhere he can, failing because there isn’t any food, then collapsing and doubling up in agony because his stomach and small intestines are starting to digest themselves—

Sometimes you think you can empathize after all, and you’re deathly afraid it will show at some point….

You’re a globalist, a blue blood, and above such things.

Less population is a good thing. As the Georgia Guidestones say, no more than 500 million is the ideal. With more and more robotics coming, there’s going to be less work for people to do. Are your servants in governments really supposed to pay Universal Basic Income to masses who will lay around and play video games all day for the rest of their lives?

You’re thinking: supply them with Huxleyan soma. Eventually, as your co-opted scientists learn more about how to integrate technology into the developing fetal brain (or the brain into the technosphere!), you’ll be able to go well beyond what Huxley envisioned. You’ll be able to program whole populations so they’re born to the status you want for them, and be both physically and mentally unable to question it.

Transhumanism at its finest! Eternally!

Resistance is futile, and all that….

So there you are. This is your world — and the world to come. A world with a single governing structure about to pull everyone in, willingly or not; a single world marketplace dominated by corporations some of your superiors own and control, with employment for those who got with the program; maybe a single religion of humanity (something one of your heroes, sociology-founder Auguste Comte, promoted) and whatever spiritualism and woo the masses want to mix into it (you and your superiors don’t care just so it isn’t Christianity).

Things are going well enough that your superiors think they’ll have the basics in place by 2030, and given how many people actually did fall in line behind the COVID-19 scare, you’re thinking this as well. There’s a document out there in plain viewciting that year, with silly stuff about things like eradicating poverty. You know your superiors don’t care about eradicating poverty, but such sentiments play to the emotions of those you want to influence. Even the more intelligent of the masses are still, after all, creatures of emotion. Their primary emotions being fear, greed, and lust, you, your superiors, and their predecessors have known for decades how to incentivize most of them.

As for the refuseniks? In time, they’ll be dealt with—

Well, gentle reader, we’ve looked at the world — your world — through the eyes of a globalist. It is time to return you back from this journey of sight and sound and mind. Back from Twilight Zone 2020. Back through that door to the familiarity of home and hearth. The bathroom is still the first room on your left.

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on The World Through the Eyes of a Globalist

Trump Is Losing the White Vote with Jared Kushner’s Agenda


See, earlier: Forget THE APPRENTICE, Trump—Blacks Will Never Vote For You Enough To Make A Difference

White voters are turning away from President Trump. That assessment includes his invaluable working-class white base. But Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for the bad news contained in the latest polls. While America burns, his campaign’s only plan seems to be wooing black voters by tweeting that Joe Biden is the “real” racist. Trump seems unable to do anything about the riots or the devastation wrought by coronavirus. The latest poll numbers should knock some sense into the president. He seems to be responding a little lately, but he’s going to lose the election if he sticks to Jared Kushner’s agenda and doesn’t fight like the candidate we elected in 2016.

The latest polls from The New York Times poll lay bare the ugly truth.

Biden leads Trump among college-educated whites by 28 points [Biden Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race, by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens, June 24, 2020]. The former vice president leads Trump by double digits among all white voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, three states crucial to Trump’s 2016 victory, yet he is down by double digits[In Poll, Trump Falls Far Behind Biden in Six Key Battleground States, by Nate Cohn, June 25, 2020].The same poll puts Biden 14 points ahead of Trump nationwide: 50 percent to 36 percent. That figure is no outlier either. The latest polls from Fox News and Harvard-Harris put Biden 12 points ahead nationally. The Real Clear Politics average has Biden ahead by 9.4 points.

Trump’s problems among college-educated whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What’s new is declining support among non-college educated whites, where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this key constituency is pronounced in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was 24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points.

Funny thing is, those voters aren’t defecting to Biden’s camp, either; their support for him has increased by just 1 since October. The Times describes them as “white voterswith more conservative attitudes on racial issues,” which likely means they think Trump has not delivered the promised nationalist agenda. One voter told the Times’sCohn he’s disappointed with Trump’s not cracking down on the rioters and shutting down the economy because of the Chinese Virus pandemic. He’ll still vote for Trump, but without much enthusiasm.

Older whites are also jumping ship. In six battleground states, Trump and Biden are about even among whites 65 or older. Trump won them by nearly 20 points in 2016. The Times attributes that decline to the president’s coronavirus response and his “tone” [Trump Faces Mounting Defections From a Once-Loyal Group: Older White Voters, by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck, June 28, 2020].

The likely cause? The literal chaos they see on television. People are frightened by coronavirus, the riots, the Left’s cultural revolution, and the crippled economy. They don’t see Trump leading. Rioters tear down statues and attack our history with neither police action nor pushback. Crime is rising significantly. The media are hyping a second wave of coronavirus as Trump pushes for reopening the country. More than 47 million Americans have applied for unemployment since March 1 [Another 1.48 million Americans file for unemployment benefits, by Heidi Chung, Yahoo Finance, June 25, 2020].

That picture of Trump’s America hardly inspires confidence.

The only positive for Trump is that Biden has roughly the same non-white support that Hillary Clinton had in 2016. But that’s not exactly great news, either, given the campaign’s focus on painting Biden as the “real” racist. The message is having zero effect on non-whites. The Times: Biden leads by 74 points among blacks and by 39 points among Hispanics [Biden Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race, by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens, June 24, 2020].

The black figure is particularly humiliating. Trump and his campaign flunkies can’t stop talking about the great things Trump does for blacks. Record-low black unemployment! Criminal justice reform! Permanent funding for historically black colleges! And that non-stop message has only worsened since the Floyd hoax. “I think I’ve done more for the Black community than any other president,” he told Fox News [Trump suggests Lincoln’s legacy is ‘questionable,’ brags about his own work for Black Americans, by Dan Mangan, CNBC, June 12, 2020].

A tweet from Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale last week illustrates the idiocy. Parscale attacked Biden for working with Strom Thurmond to impose harsh sentences on crack dealers. He claimed this legislation targeted blacks and Trump is fixing the “problem”

Seriously, Brad?!

The problem is the crack dealers, not sending them to jail. It makes no sense for Trump to continue tweeting out LAW AND ORDER while his campaign manager calls law and order proposals racist.

Unhappily, Parscale is not alone. Official Republican and Trump campaign accounts regularly tweet cringeworthy statements about Confederate monuments and criminal justice reform.

GOP@GOPDemocrats seem to have forgotten that Pres. Trump has led the way on innovative criminal justice reform. He signed the FIRST STEP Act & established the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement & the Admin. of Justice—which aims to improve relations between the public & police.9:30 PM · Jun 20, 20202.9K1.8K people are Tweeting about this

Who, exactly, are these messages for? If they’re intended to win the black vote, they’re failing. If they’re meant to soothe white suburbanite concerns about Trump’s alleged “racism,” they’re failing. If they’re meant to excite Trump’s working class white base, again, they’re failing.

Parscale set out the agenda for the Trump campaign in a January interview with Lou Dobbs: the economy and healthcare. When Dobbs asked about immigration, the campaign manager replied that they didn’t need to worry about it because “we already have [immigration patriots as] voters.” Other issues, he claimed, will bring in new voters.

Jared Kushner, Tucker Carlson has observed, has made the similar point that “our voters aren’t going anywhere. The trailer parks are rock solid. What choice do they have? They’ve got to vote for us.” [Tucker Carlson: “No One Has More Contempt For Donald Trump’s Voters Than Jared Kushner,” by Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics, June 1, 2020]

The Son-in-Law in Chief might wish to consult the polling data to verify that claim.

Parscale is taking a lot of heat lately for the poor messaging and the Tulsa rally’s underwhelming attendance. Reports suggest Parscale is on his way out as part of a major campaign shake-up. Maybe, but he’s not the ultimate problem.

Jared Kushner and the Republican establishment are setting Trump’s agenda and message, Parscale merely carries it out. And frighteningly, as Politico reported, Kushner “who effectively oversees the campaign from the White House, is expected to play an even more active role” [Trump admits it: He’s losing, by Alex Isenstadt, June 27, 2020].

We can only hope that isn’t true, apropos of other reports say that Trump might sideline Kushner in response to the poor polling and [After Tulsa Catastrophe, Parscale—And Kushner—Is At The Top Of Trump’s Hit List, by Gabriel Sherman, Vanity Fair, June 22, 2020].

Given last week’s extended and expanded his immigration moratorium to include most guest-worker visas, which Kushner strongly opposed, that seems quite possible. Trump also wants to crack down on the rioters and statue destroyers, while Kushner wants the president to focus more on police reforms and appeasing the rioters [A serious divide exists among Trump advisers over how to address nights of protests and riots in US after Floyd’s death, by Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak, CNN, May 31, 2020].

Trump recently tweeted an ad that suggests he might ditch the awful messaging. It pins the current chaos on Democrats and the Left and states they want to burn America to the ground.

It’s a powerful, take-no-prisoners video with the same message that helped Trump win in 2016 and might just re-energize his base in time for Election Day.

Yet tough talk alone won’t win back Trump’s base. He must act. Signs are improving there, too..

Over the weekend, he tweeted several wanted pictures of statue vandals. Four leftists were hit with federal charges for attacking the Andrew Jackson statue in DC [Justice Department Charges 4 Over Attempt to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue In D.C., by Jason Slotkin, NPR, June 28, 2020]. Putting left-wing criminals behind bars sends the right message and might stifle the unrest. And again, he’s helping unemployed Americans with the immigration ban for the rest of the year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support it, according to the latest polling.

Trump must show Americans that the Chinese Virus threat is decreasing, the economy is recovering, and law and order is being restored. Tweets about money for black colleges, Biden’s tough-on-crime bills, and or his long-ago cooperation with “segregationists” won’t do.

Trump must make this election about order versus chaos and put Democrats on the side of the rioters and the radicals in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

That, and only that, will win the white vote.

Washington Watcher II [Email him] is an anonymous DC insider.(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)← Donors Swoop In As Dems Give Trump Free…

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on Trump Is Losing the White Vote with Jared Kushner’s Agenda

Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?

Fatal Fentanyl: A Forensic Analysis


“The centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” — W. B. Yeats, 1919

Truth is the first victim in politics. Factions and passions rule. Random facts are picked as weapons, no one thinks things through.

We need to understand the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd.
Many key facts are being ignored:

  • Floyd’s blood tests showed a concentration of Fentanyl of about three times the fatal dose.
  • Fentanyl is a dangerous opioid 50 times more potent than heroin. It has rapidly become the most common cause of death among drug addicts.
  • The knee hold used by the police is not a choke hold, it does not impede breathing. It is a body restraint and is not known to have ever caused fatal injury.
  • Floyd already began to complain “I can’t breathe” a few minutes before the neck restraint was applied, while resisting the officers when they tried to get him into the squad car. Fentanyl affects the breathing, causing death by respiratory arrest.
  • It was normal procedure to restrain Floyd because he was resisting arrest, probably in conjunction with excited delirium (EXD), an episode of violent agitation brought on by a drug overdose, typically brief and ending in death from cardiopulmonary arrest.
  • The official autopsy did indeed give cardiopulmonary arrest as the cause of death, and stated that injuries he sustained during the arrest were not life-threatening.
  • Videos of the arrest do not show police beating or striking Floyd, only calmly restraining him
  • In one video Floyd is heard shouting and groaning loudly and incoherently while restrained on the ground, which appears to be a sign of the violent, shouting phase of EXD. His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into the squad car is typical of EXD cases. A short spurt of superhuman strength is a classic EXD symptom.

Minneapolis police officers have been charged with Floyd’s murder. Yet all the evidence points to the fact that Floyd had taken a drug overdose so strong that his imminent death could hardly have been prevented. In all likelihood, the police were neither an intentional nor accidental cause of his death. These crucial facts have been completely ignored in the uproar.

It is widely believed that George Floyd died from a police officer’s knee on his neck, whether due to asphyxiation or neck injury. That may be how it looks, to a naïve viewer. In reality, the county autopsy report says he died of a heart attack,[1] and states that there were “no life-threatening injuries.” Then how could they conclude it was homicide?

When scientists review scientific papers, they look primarily at the evidence, and give less weight to the conclusions, which are only the other fellow’s opinions. To blindly follow “expert opinions” is the Authoritarian View of Knowledge. This is no real knowledge at all, because to assess whether an expert is always right, we would need infinite knowledge, and doubly so when experts disagree. Not thinking for oneself is not really thinking.

So let us stick to the evidence. The county’s ambivalent autopsy also included the following hard facts: “Toxicology Findings: Blood samples collected at 9:00 p.m. on May 25th, before Floyd died, tested positive for the following: Fentanyl 11 ng/mL, Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL, … Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL … 86 ng/mL of morphine,” but draws no conclusions therefrom, noting only that “Quantities are given for those who are medically inclined.”

Shouldn’t we be so inclined? This fentanyl concentration, including its norfentanyl metabolite at its molecular weight, was 20.6 ng/mL That is over three times the lethal overdose, following earlier reports where the highest dose survived was 4.6 ng/mL.[2]

If ever there was a leap before a look, we are in it now. Masses of people have become extremists, based on conclusions that are as false as they are hasty.

Regarding suffocation, the county medical examiner’s report found “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”[3] Pressure applied to the side of the neck, as in this case, and not to the throat, has little or no effect on breathing. One can easily verify this oneself.[4]

One difficulty is that there are public statements to the effect that the coroner ruled it a homicide, and the title of the autopsy report includes the term “neck compression.” But the words “homicide,” “restraint,” “stress” or “compression” do not appear in the 20-page body of the report. References to the neck are few — a couple minor abrasions, a contusion on the shoulder, and “The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage.” It is as if the title was chosen in regard to what was expected or proposed, but which was never found, and the title was never updated. There seems to be no support at all in the report body for the report title, which reads, “Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”

The term “cause of death” does not appear. The words “death” and “fatal” only appear in this comment in the lab report: “Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death. In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL.” Floyd’s fentanyl level was seven times higher.

If first impressions via the media fooled the coroner’s office, until they examined the body, we too can be fooled at first, but change our opinion according to the evidence.

Excited Delirium Syndrome

An additional hypothesis involves Excited Delirium Syndrome (EXD), a symptom of drug overdose which sometimes appears in the final minutes preceding death. EXD typically results from fatal drug abuse, in past years from cocaine or crack, more recently from fentanyl, which is 50 times more potent than heroin. Especially dangerous are street drugs like meth, heroin or cocaine laced with fentanyl.

According to an article in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (WJEM), 2011:[5] “Excited delirium (EXD) is characterized by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care setting. It is typically associated with the use of drugs. Subjects typically die from cardiopulmonary arrest… all accounts describe almost the exact same sequence of events: delirium with agitation (fear, panic, shouting, violence and hyperactivity), sudden cessation of struggle, respiratory arrest and death.”

It appears that an EXD episode began when the officers tried to get Floyd into the squad car. He resisted, citing “claustrophobia” — the onset of the fear and panic phase, and “I can’t breathe” — difficulty breathing due to fentanyl locking into the breathing receptors in the brain. (Classic symptoms of EXD are highlighted in bold.) He then exhibited unexpected strength from the adrenaline spike in successfully resisting the efforts of four officers to get him into the car. We may never know whether Floyd’s agitation was caused purely from the EXD adrenaline spike, or if it was aggravated by police attempts to subdue him — but a subject defying the efforts of multiple officers to subdue him is a very common theme.

When Chauvin pulled him out of the car he fell to the ground, perhaps due to disorientation and reduced coordination. Presumably this was when he injured his mouth and his nose started to bleed, and the police made the first call for paramedics.

While restrained on the ground, Floyd exhibited agitation (shouting and hyperactivity, trying to move back and forth) for several minutes. There is one brief video at this point. One hears Floyd shouting very loudly, as in the agitated delirium phase — it sounds like, “My face is stoned… ah hah, ah haaa, ah please people, please, please let me stand, please, ah hah, ah haaa!”[6]. In a few minutes this was followed by “sudden cessation of struggle, respiratory arrest and death,” shown in a later video, where he becomes exhausted, and had stopped breathing when the ambulance arrived.[7]

It appears that disorientation had already set in when the store employees went to Floyd’s car and asked him to return the cigarettes he had bought for a fake $20 bill. He refused, and they reported the incident to the police, saying that he appeared to be very intoxicated. He certainly must have been, or he would have either returned the cigarettes or left quickly to avoid arrest. Loss of judgment is a symptom of the syndrome; this includes futile efforts to resist arrest.

Police Intervention and Intentions

The EXD diagnosis is controversial and in some quarters is viewed as an alibi for police brutality. The WJEM authors note, “Since the victims frequently die while being restrained or in the custody of law enforcement, there has been speculation over the years of police brutality being the underlying cause. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of deaths occur suddenly prior to capture, in the emergency department (ED), or unwitnessed at home.”

Regarding restraint, they note, “people experiencing EXD are highly agitated, violent, and show signs of unexpected strength, so it is not surprising that most require physical restraint. The prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as “hobble” or “hogtie”), where the person’s ankles and wrists are bound together behind their back, has been used extensively by field personnel. In far fewer cases, persons have been tied to a hospital gurney or manually held prone with knee pressure on the back or neck.”

This latter position is what the accused officer Chauvin was applying, although at one point the team did consider using a hobble. Physical restraint of the subject has always been the classical procedure, to prevent the subject harming themselves or others. It has been proposed that restraint helps to forestall injury and death by conserving the subject’s energy, but most experts believe that by leading to an intense struggle, it increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome.

Since knowingly using counterfeit currency is a fairly serious offense, the Minneapolis officers were required to arrest Floyd and try to bring him in. When he violently resisted, the optimal choice could have been to let him sit against a wall and guard him while calling an ambulance. To be able to quickly switch from law enforcement mode to emergency care mode requires training in recognizing the symptoms.

The charge sheet against Chauvin included this exchange between the two white officers on the squad:[8] “”I am worried about excited delirium or whatever,” Lane said. “That’s why we have him on his stomach,” Chauvin said.”

According to this dialogue, Chauvin was apparently was trying to follow the protocol recommended by WJEM. Since Floyd was on his stomach, Chauvin’s knee pinned him at the side of his neck, and did not impede breathing. Commentators are referring to Chauvin “kneeling” on Floyd’s neck, or resting his weight on it. From videos it is hard to gauge how much weight he applied, but the correct procedure is just enough to restrain movement, not to crush the person.

Chauvin and his team might not have done everything perfectly, but it is easy to underestimate the difficulty of police work, particularly in cases of resisting arrest, whether willfully or due to intoxication. If they had been clairvoyant clinicians, they would have called an ambulance the moment they saw him. Better training is needed. Was the police department then responsible? Might the department have given the needed training if the AMA had acknowledged the existence of the syndrome? This brings up a paradox: could police critics who deny the syndrome then bear part of the responsibility for the deaths they decry? The syndrome is being recognized by law enforcement after the fact. It needs to be recognized as it is happening.

The American College of Emergency Physicians’ White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome (ACEP, 2009)[9] notes that “a law enforcement officer (LEO) is often present with a person suffering from ExDS because the situation at hand has degenerated to such a degree that someone has deemed it necessary to contact a person of authority to deal with it. LEOs are in the difficult and sometimes impossible position of having to recognize this as a medical emergency, attempting to control an irrational and physically resistive person, … This already challenging situation has the potential for intense public scrutiny coupled with the expectation of a perfect outcome. Anything less creates a situation of potential public outrage. Unfortunately, this dangerous medical situation makes perfect outcomes difficult.” In other words, officers need to be policemen, paramedics and public relations experts all at once.

With a fatal overdose there is no good outcome possible, but there is no way for police to foresee that. Sometimes EXD can last longer, and it is not always fatal. Perhaps the ACEP Task Force on EXD will update their report and provide guidelines to help police identify and deal with EXD while avoiding accusations of police brutality.

In one video[10] Chauvin continued to apply the neck restraint although bystanders repeatedly objected, and even after Floyd stopped moving. As Floyd became exhausted, it could have been reasonable to relax the restraint to see if it was really necessary. Chauvin didn’t seem to respond to the bystanders to give a medical reason for the restraint. His actions were consistent with a belief that police should restrain the subject until medevacs arrive. Videos show the police focused on restraint, never beating or striking Floyd. The restraint and verbal exchanges with Floyd are also consistent with a belief that he was resisting arrest, by refusing to get in the squad car. When he said “I can’t breathe,” they responded “You’re talking fine.” When they said “Get in the car,” he didn’t agree to.

Subjects suffering from EXD usually resist arrest violently, which requires police to restrain them, but when police see signs of EXD, they also need to call an ambulance. It appears the police may have called for paramedics first when Floyd developed a nosebleed, then for an ambulance, which arrived after Floyd had stopped breathing.[11] .

Videos of EXD incidents generally show subjects violently resisting arrest, and requiring multiple officers to subdue them. There is one news clip about a police department that was trained to regard EXD as a medical and not a criminal issue, and avoid physical restraint as far as possible; the results are much better.[12]

EXD seems to be the most likely reason why Floyd suddenly refused to get into the squad car, and began to shout and writhe on the ground. With or without EXD or police intervention, he was going to die quickly from fentanyl, short of immediate intensive care. A common treatment for EXD is sedation with drugs like ketamine. The usual antidote for fentanyl is naloxone. Higher levels of fentanyl may require intravenous naloxone for 24 hours or more.

Fentanyl is so deadly because it acts so fast and binds so tightly to dopamine receptors in the brain — even those that control breathing, unlike other narcotics.[13] When Floyd complained “I can’t breathe,” although he was breathing,[14]

 and then completely stopped breathing, this was the onset of respiratory arrest, which is how a fentanyl overdose kills.

While police work is needed to trace the source of these dangerous drugs, the problems of drug addiction and crime have deep causes and can only be contained, not solved, by the police. Whatever our society has been doing about these problems is not working.

Right now, our civilization risks being torn apart by the passions of extremism, due to a misunderstanding. Please share this analysis, as an appeal to return to reason.

Reviewer comment: “My first thought is why it has been left to you to figure this out, when we pay professional journalists to investigate these things, and why aren’t the police and politicians telling us about this.”

A good question which gives a clue to something I’ve been wondering about. When other commentators publish within hours, why does it take me a week or two to finish an article like this? Journalists are usually under a deadline to produce stories quickly, whereas it takes a lot of research and reflection to develop an original thesis into a fair and coherent explanation of events.

Everyone tends to have an agenda, and to look for facts to support it. Police brutality or looters running amok may be more newsworthy than a chronic problem like drug abuse. The best agenda now is to take a break to focus on facts, or else an “Excited Delirium” could become a contagion that engulfs our nation.

Part II. The Death of Tony Timpa

A highly pertinent question: Has there ever been a confirmed death from a knee hold before? Not finding any data by searching the Net, I posted the question on Quora.[15] One answer soon came.

A young white man died in Dallas a few years ago, after being restrained by the police with the knee on his back. My respondent believed he suffocated, but the actual autopsy said cardiac arrest due to cocaine, overdose EXD, and stress from restraint by police officers.

Tony Timpa had not only taken an overdose of cocaine, plus he was off his anti-schizophrenia medicine. Mental illness can also be a trigger for EXD, and according to the autopsy report, he displayed all the classic symptoms. The first phase, fear and panic, was fear of the onset of delirium itself — he himself called 911 for help. By the time the police arrived, security guards had already handcuffed him to restrain him. He was incoherent, out of control, found lying on the ground, the typical EXD position. The police pinned him down with a knee on his back for 13 minutes, saying he was at risk of rolling into the roadway, and suddenly he was dead.

Tony Timpa died in 2016. The family got the run-around,[16] and an autopsy was not released until 2019. The body cam footage was released, which showed the police behaving callously towards the subject. The officers were originally charged with homicide, but it was found they were not at fault, charges were dropped and they were reinstated. Timpa’s case is very similar to Floyd case in many ways, and there are also many differences — the starkest of course being the intensity of the public reaction.

Here is the text of the Timpa autopsy.[17]

Case: ME Page 7 of8

Timpa, Anthony Alan

Based on the case history and autopsy findings, it is my opinion that Anthony Alan Timpa, a 32-year-old white male, died as a result of sudden cardiac death due to the toxic effects of cocaine and physiologic stress associated with physical restraint.

Cardiac hypertrophy and bipolar disorder contributed to his death.

The mechanism of death in cases such as this is sometimes referred to as “excited delirium.” Classically, people affected by EDS are witnessed to exhibit erratic or aggressive behavior, and will often “throw off” attempts at restraint, requiring multiple people to subdue them. The person will appear to calm down and will suddenly become unresponsive. Most cases are associated with drug intoxication and/or illness.

In this case, several factors likely contributed to the death. The surveillance and body cam footage and witness reports fit the classic scenario of excited delirium and cocaine use and illness (bipolar disorder) are common predisposing risk factors for EDS. Cocaine leads to increased heart rate and increased blood pressure, making a cardiac arrhythmia more likely. Due to his prone position and physical restraint by an officer, an element of mechanical or positional asphyxia cannot be ruled out (although he was seen to be yelling and fighting for the majority ofthe restraint). His enlarged heart size also put him at risk for sudden cardiac death.

Although the decedent only had superficial injuries, the manner of death will be ruled a homicide, as the stress of being restrained and extreme physical exertion contributed to his demise.


[Signatures and seals of medical examiners]

(Note that homicide is not the same as murder, it also includes unintentional or accidental actions contributing to death.)

Anthony Timpa autopsy p. 5, blood tests — Cocaine and metabolites

Cocaine, 0.647 mg/L

Ecgonine Methyl Ester, 0.378 mg/L

Benzoylecgonine, 0.843 mg/L

The lethal dose of cocaine ranges from around 0.1 mg/L to 0.6 mg/L, according to different sources[18]

If we add the three numbers above for cocaine and metabolytes together it comes to about 18 mg/L. This is anywhere from 3 to 18 times the lethal dose. With such an overdose, plus being without his schizophrenia medication, Timpa had little if any chance of surviving.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry on Timpa, part of a series on the Dallas police.

“Killing of Tony Timpa [edit]

On August 10, 2016, Dallas Police killed Tony Timpa, a 32-year-old resident who had not taken his medication. Timpa was already handcuffed while a group of officers pressed his body into the ground while he squirmed. It took over three years for footage of the incident to be released. The footage contradicted claims by Dallas Police that Timpa was aggressive… Criminal charges against three officers were dropped in March 2019 and officers returned to active duty.”

Wikipedia doesn’t even mention cocaine, although that was the main cause of death. Likewise, the Wikipedia article makes no mention of a drug overdose or excited delirium. By entitling the articles “Killing” rather than “Death,” Wikipedians appoint themselves as a court of law.

It must be observed that the Minneapolis officers acted with far more consideration towards Floyd than the treatment Timpa received in Dallas. The way the officers made fun of Timpa was a scandal.[19] Then they were surprised when he suddenly died.

It is strange that George Floyd’s case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa got much worse treatment — even though Timpa hadn’t committed any crime, had no police record, and even called 911 himself.

Isn’t it odd, when we have a problem in the United States of many shootings by — and of — the police, that such an uproar has arisen, over a case where the police actually had little or nothing to do with the man’s demise?

The stress of restraint is most likely incidental. As reported by the WJEM, “Victims who do not immediately come to police attention are often found dead in the bathroom surrounded by wet towels and/or clothing and empty ice trays, apparently succumbing during failed attempts to rapidly cool down.” Hyperthermia or high body temperature is a classic symptom of EXD. Enormous energy is released by an uncontrolled adrenaline spike. The heat also feeds delirium, which is a familiar symptom of high fever.

Normally, it’s assumed that stress factors contribute to a heart attack, as medical examiners wrote in both the Floyd and Timpa cases. Yet the WJEM notes that “one important study found that only 18 of 214 individuals identified as having EXD died while being restrained or taken into custody.” All victims died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Drug overdose and EXD are sufficient causes for this outcome.

Both Floyd and Timpa had taken overdoses at triple the lethal level. Enough drugs to kill them three times over. Yet you can only die once… so how could the stress of restraint contribute more to their deaths? You can’t contribute to a glass that’s already full three times over. That is a little like saying that someone died because their parachute didn’t open, and the weight of their backpack also contributed to the fall. But they die from the fall once they hit the ground, whether it’s at 120 mph or 122 mph.

It’s true, that in this analogy, the extra weight makes the jumper hit the ground a little sooner. Forcibly restraining the victim can cause them to struggle and consume energy more quickly, accelerating the burnout. Giving the subject a little space and empathy could help calm them. In this case, restraint might reduce energy loss. If that delays cardiac arrest until an ambulance arrives, the patient might be saved. Victims are less likely to struggle when strapped to a gurney than when held down by police.[20]

We can compare Excited Delirium to an explosion or a wildfire, that rapidly consumes all the energy in the body. The police try to contain the explosion by restraining it, but can one blame the firefighter for the fire? The explosion continues until all the fuel is gone. Then life’s flame flickers out, and the drug-intoxicated body can not be resuscitated.[21] Presumably, the blood must be circulating in order for the antidote to neutralize the fentanyl.

In conclusion, excited delirium should be treated as a medical condition, at high risk of ending quickly in sudden death. An ambulance should be called immediately. Only the minimum necessary restraint should be applied. Police and paramedics should be trained in the symptoms and handling protocols.

It would be helpful if the AMA would recognize EXD as a real condition, rather than dismissing it as a cover story for police brutality. Ignorance of the symptoms can lead to unintentional cruelty by police, when they assume they are confronted by a typical case of a criminal violently resisting arrest, rather than a patient with a life-threatening intoxication.


[1] The full autopsy report was published here Diagnoses are summarized on pp. 1 and 2: I. The “blunt force injuries” are basically minor cuts and bruises: “cutaneous” injuries and contusions from handcuffing. II. Chronic conditions: Heart disease, hypertension and enlarged heart. These all tend to accelerate death from a drug overdose. They can also develop from long-term drug abuse. III. No injuries to the front of the neck or throat were found. This full 76-page report does not contain the word “homicide.”

[2] “The patients who were dead on arrival had gone into cardiac arrest due to blood concentrations of fentanyl that were much higher than what is administered therapeutically. “ Patients who died in hospital had concentrations of 9.5 ng/mL to 13 ng/mL. See also note 13. In other studies of death from heroin and morphine, there were deaths from only 100 ng/ml of morphine and “all cases with a blood concentration of 200 ng/ml and more of free morphine displayed a fatal outcome.” (Heroin quickly metabolizes into morphine.) Fentanyl is considered 100 times more potent than morphine. By this comparison, Floyd’s blood fentanyl concentration could have been 10 times the fatal level. In addition his morphine concentration of 86 ng/mL would usually be fatal by itself.
Concentration levels are relative to the volume of blood, so are independent of body size.

[3] A report commissioned by the Floyd family stated that asphyxiation from sustained pressure was consistent with the evidence, but the author Michael Baden didn’t have access to all the evidence, and chose not to endorse his opinion with the “expert opinion” label.

[4] The knee on the neck is a body hold, not a chokehold or carotid restraint, which involves putting pressure precisely on both carotid arteries, located on either side of the throat. A carotid restraint is usually applied by an elbow, and causes the subject to pass out in as little as 15 seconds. Blocking the arteries does not stop the breathing or heartbeat (pulmonary or cardiac arrest), which Floyd suffered after being restrained for many minutes. Once pressure on the arteries is released, the subject normally regains consciousness quickly.





[9] See also the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, “[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense.” in “Explaining the Unexplainable: Excited Delirium Syndrome and Its Impact on the Objective Reasonableness Standard for Allegations of Excessive Force,” The first few pages relate a narrative similar to the Floyd case, involving multiple police subduing a violent EXD victim, who suddenly dies from exhaustion. A media uproar then arises against alleged police brutality.


[11] From the incident report of the fire truck that was called to the scene, it appears that both police and bystanders called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The first call was Code 2, apparently for Floyd’s nosebleed, which summoned a fire truck, followed by a more urgent code 3, which was said to bring an ambulance within six minutes. It appears the police called the ambulance when Floyd’s breathing and heartbeat stopped. “Floyd goes limp and appears to lose consciousness. Hennepin EMS then arrive six minutes after the distress call.” The article refers to the incident report by the fire truck, which has a note implying the first call to EMS was from police and another call came from bystanders: “No clear info on pt [patient] or location was given by either initial pd [police department] officers or bystanders.” We need an incident report from the ambulance.

[12] TV news clips showing police restraining subjects who are exhibiting EXD symptoms and violently resisting arrest A TV news report and cellphone video on a more humane method of managing an EXD case, thanks to police training, putting safety of the subject and of bystanders first, rather than restraints. However, no details are given about the outcome or the drug dose.

[13] . Deaths from fentanyl have skyrocketed in the last seven years. In one incident in California, superlethal fentanyl doses of 53 ng/mL were successfully reversed with intravenous naloxone. However, some patients were dead on arrival.

[14] Wikipedia has a detailed narrative of the incident here . Certain notes there support the thesis of fentanyl intoxication, and resisting arrest as part of an EXD syndrome. Floyd struggled with Lane before leaving his own vehicle, and again when Kueng, then all four officers, tried to get him into the squad car. Floyd already complained he couldn’t breathe before they tried to get him into the police car, without any neck restraint, indicating the onset of respiratory depression from fentanyl. “They all tried to force Floyd into the backseat, during which time Floyd said he could not breathe, according to the complaint.”

He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, “This is why you don’t do drugs, kids.” By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named “Death of George Floyd,” as an accused is innocent until proven guilty.




[18] ,


[20] “Probably negligible involvement of position in contribution of death in cases of excited delirium, although allowing patients to breathe effectively is obviously important.”

[21] “According to Dr. Assaad Sayah, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, Excited Delirium Syndrome can be best explained as a ‘physical response to an actual psychological [or drug] problem resulting in their autonomic systems producing too much adrenaline.’ Dr. Sayah analogizes it to ‘having too much nitrous in a car; eventually the engine will blow up.’ In most cases, the cause of death is either ‘a heart attack or, less frequently, respiratory failure.’ Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every year in police altercations because the victims “are just overexciting [their] heart from the drugs and from the struggle.’” Op. cit.

Posted in USA, Human Rights, Politics1 Comment

Corona-Depression: Southern Europe Will Never Recover


Bad news for southern Europe. It looks like coronavirus will further entrench the European Union’s long-standing disparities between north and south.

According to the European Commission’s estimates, the economies of Italy, Spain, and Greece will all shrink over 9%. By comparison, the EU average is 7.4%. France will shrink 8.2%, while most Nordic/Germanic countries will shrink less than 6.5% (that’s Germany, the Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Finland).

EU unemployment expected to rise from 6.7% to to 9% this year. Unemployment will rise to 9.7% in Portugal, 10.1% in France, 11.8% in Italy, 18.9% in Spain, and 19.9% in Greece. Germany will have 4%.

Deficits are going through the roof, from 0.6% of GDP in 2019 to 8.3% this year. Debt will rise to over102% of GDP, with huge disparities: over 115% for Spain and France, and almost 160% for Italy and 200% for Greece. By contrast, Germany’s debt will rise to 75% of GDP and Great Britain’s to 102%.

In terms of jobs and debt reduction, all of the hard-won gains of the past five years or so have been annihilated.

Nominal GDP per capita (in euros) in selected European countries (source: Eurostat). Italy and Greece never recovered the standards of living of the early 2000s. Note France and Germany decoupling since 2010.

Nominal GDP per capita (in euros) in selected European countries (source: Eurostat). Italy and Greece never recovered the standards of living of the early 2000s. Note France and Germany decoupling since 2010.

Unemployment (%) in selected European countries (source: Eurostat). Southern European countries never recovered from the 2010 eurozone crisis. Notice that France’s performance has been noticeably worse than Germany’s and Britain’s since then as well.

Unemployment (%) in selected European countries (source: Eurostat). Southern European countries never recovered from the 2010 eurozone crisis. Notice that France’s performance has been noticeably worse than Germany’s and Britain’s since then as well.

Macroeconomically, France is now effectively part of southern Europe. From around 1965 to 2000, France was, uncharacteristically, significantly richer than Britain. In the 90s, France was about as rich as Germany, which was then hobbled by the annexation of formerly communist eastern Germany. Today, not having its own currency (unlike Britain) and having an enormous welfare and overregulated labor market (relative to Germany), there is no denying that France is falling behind.

Even before the COVID recession, southern Europe was barely on track for slowly growing out of debt. Now these hopes are completely dashed.

The economic disparities between northern and southern Europe – which have been manifest at least since the late nineteenth century and particularly since the Second World War – are going to become deeply entrenched.

This is part of the reason that I am skeptical of short or even medium term race war scenarios in Western Europe. The fact is that the most diverse and, most often, zealously diversitarian parts of the Western world – Germany, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, Great Britain, the United States, and the former White Dominions, mostly of north-west European and Germanic background – continue to be more economically dynamic.

Northern Europe and its colonial offshoots continue to be better at creating economic wealth – despite being hobbled by African, Islamic, and Hispanic minority populations which represent an economic drag relative to the natives – than comparatively homogeneous southern European nations and their colonial offshoots (namely the Whitish nations of Argentina and Chile, which have a fair amount of Amerindian blood).

In the 90s and early 2000s, the European Union could still confidently hope that, despite considerable inequalities, its nations would gradually converge to the same standard of living and level of development.

These hopes were encouraged by peculiarly Boomer assumptions: that wealth grows on trees and everyone is equal. When the euro common currency was created in 1999-2002, the European Central Bank declared that the public debt of southern European countries was just as credit-worthy as that of Germany and investments in them were effectively be subsidized. German and, especially, French banks jumped at the opportunity make massive investments in southern Europe, leading in particular to a hypertrophied public sector in Greece and a huge property bubble in Spain. The bubble burst circa 2010.

All this has great political ramifications. The scale of the economic disaster in southern Europe is presumably why German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to a remarkable doubling of the EU budget by €500 billion over the next three years, raising EU loans to fund transfers to countries hit by coronavirus, particularly southern Europe.

This improvized quasi-federal scheme is quite unprecedented, in terms of speed and scale, in EU history. As Jean Quatremer observes, given that the new budget would be financed by relatively painless loans, European leaders may have strong incentives to resort again to such plans in order to find the concluding fudge during their interminable summit negotiations.

Significantly, it appears that the German establishment – not counting the German Constitutional Court – has basically accepted the ECB’s adoption of Anglo-style mass lending to shore up the economy. If continued indefinitely, this will presumably prevent a 2010-11-style financial panic in southern Europe, but this has controversial redistributionary and inflationary implications in the medium term.

Today, even not accounting for highly-fertile immigrants, northern Europe’s fertility seems to be somewhat higher than that of southern and eastern Europe, I suspect because (potential) parents enjoy superior childcare/welfare services and higher/more secure incomes in northern Europe.

If southern Europe does not recover economically, we can expect continued depopulation as their fertility rates remain depressed and their more enterprising youth, particularly the educated, head north. These nations’ financial and political dependence on the north will grow. North-European economies will of course benefit from the inflow of southern European immigrants, partly counteracting the effects of Afro-Islamic immigration.

Politically, we have fertile ground for instability. The Macron régime is already barely able to keep the more uppity elements of the (neo-)French population – whether white gilets-jaunes or Afro-Islamic BLM marchers – at bay.

Italy looks to be on the verge of explosion. Both the political establishment and the people at large are becoming anti-EU. The inchoate populist-leftoid Five-Sar Movement has collapsed. Matteo Salvini’s nationalist Lega is being outflanked . . . by the even more nationalist Brothers of Italy.

Imagine that the euro-globalist establishment in these countries will now have to manage these pressures with additional grinding years of mass unemployment and belt-tightening. Italy has strong prospects for decisively flipping to a national-populist regime in the coming years and joining the ranks of Visegrád. (I am less optimistic for France.)

In the long run, I am talking 30-40 years, we can expect that northern Europe will become so dysfunctional that people prefer living in southern or eastern Europe. Non-Whites currently make up around 20% of the north-west European population. When this rises to 40 or 50%, we can expect the situation to get very unstable indeed.

Hopefully, by then , the southern and eastern Europeans will have taken note of their brethren’s mistakes and start taking the necessary measures. I mean the adoption of enlightened biopolitics: the preservation their ethno-national identities (accepting only assimilable immigrants, including fellow Europeans) and systematic policies to ensure their nations reproduce and, more than that, do so with a view to improving genetic and phenotypic quality. European nations will be so marginal in the world by then that we will really have no room for yet more excuses, delusions, and half-measures.

Posted in Europe, HealthComments Off on Corona-Depression: Southern Europe Will Never Recover

How Fake Is Roman Antiquity?


This is the first of a series of three articles challenging the conventional historical framework of the Mediterranean world from the Roman Empire to the Crusades. It is a collective contribution to an old debate that has gained new momentum in recent decades in the fringe of the academic world, mostly in Germany, Russia, and France. Some working hypotheses will be made along the way, and the final article will suggest a global solution in the form of a paradigm shift based on hard archeological evidence.

Tacitus and Bracciolini

One of our most detailed historical sources on imperial Rome is Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 CE), whose major works, the Annals and the Histories, span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD, to the death of Domitian in 96.

Here is how the French scholar Polydor Hochart introduced in 1890 the result of his investigation on “the authenticity of the Annals and the Histories of Tacitus,” building up on the work of John Wilson Ross published twelve years earlier, Tacitus and Bracciolini: The Annals forged in the XVth century (1878):

“At the beginning of the fifteenth century scholars had at their disposal no part of the works of Tacitus; they were supposed to be lost. It was around 1429 that Poggio Bracciolini and Niccoli of Florence brought to light a manuscript that contained the last six books of the Annals and the first five books of the Histories. It is this archetypal manuscript that served to make the copies that were in circulation until the use of printing. Now, when one wants to know where and how it came into their possession, one is surprised to find that they have given unacceptable explanations on this subject, that they either did not want or could not say the truth. About eighty years later, Pope Leo X was given a volume containing the first five books of the Annals. Its origin is also surrounded by darkness. / Why these mysteries? What confidence do those who exhibited these documents deserve? What guarantees do we have of their authenticity? / In considering these questions we shall first see that Poggio and Niccoli were not distinguished by honesty and loyalty, and that the search for ancient manuscripts was for them an industry, a means of acquiring money. / We will also notice that Poggio was one of the most learned men of his time, that he was also a clever calligrapher, and that he even had in his pay scribes trained by him to write on parchment in a remarkable way in Lombard and Carolin characters. Volumes coming out of his hands could thus imitate perfectly the ancient manuscripts, as he says himself. / We will also be able to see with what elements the Annalsand the Histories were composed. Finally, in seeking who may have been the author of this literary fraud, we shall be led to think that, in all probability, the pseudo-Tacitus is none other than Poggio Bracciolini himself.”[1]

Hochart’s demonstration proceeds in two stages. First, he traces the origin of the manuscript discovered by Poggio and Niccoli, using Poggio’s correspondence as evidence of deception. Then Hochart deals with the emergence of the second manuscript, two years after Pope Leo X (a Medici) had promised great reward in gold to anyone who could provide him with unknown manuscripts of the ancient Greeks or Romans. Leo rewarded his unknown provider with 500 golden crowns, a fortune at that time, and immediately ordered the printing of the precious manuscript. Hochart concludes that the manuscript must have been supplied indirectly to Leo X by Jean-François Bracciolini, the son and sole inheritor of Poggio’s private library and papers, who happened to be secretary of Leo X at that time, and who used an anonymous intermediary in order to elude suspicion.

Both manuscripts are now preserved in Florence, so their age can be scientifically established, can’t it? That is questionable, but the truth, anyway, is that their age is simply assumed. For other works of Tacitus, such as Germania and De Agricola, we don’t even have any medieval manuscripts. David Schaps tells us that Germania was ignored throughout the Middle Ages but survived in a single manuscript that was found in Hersfeld Abbey in 1425, was brought to Italy and examined by Enea Silvio Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, as well as by Bracciolini, then vanished from sight.[2]

Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) is credited for “rediscovering and recovering a great number of classical Latin manuscripts, mostly decaying and forgotten in German, Swiss, and French monastic libraries” (Wikipedia). Hochart believes that Tacitus’ books are not his only forgeries. Under suspicion come other works by Cicero, Lucretius, Vitruvius, and Quintilian, to name just a few. For instance, Lucretius’ only known work, De rerum natura “virtually disappeared during the Middle Ages, but was rediscovered in 1417 in a monastery in Germany by Poggio Bracciolini” (Wikipedia). So was Quintilian’s only extant work, a twelve-volume textbook on rhetoric entitled Institutio Oratoria, whose discovery Poggio recounts in a letter:

“There amid a tremendous quantity of books which it would take too long to describe, we found Quintilian still safe and sound, though filthy with mould and dust. For these books were not in the library, as befitted their worth, but in a sort of foul and gloomy dungeon at the bottom of one of the towers, where not even men convicted of a capital offence would have been stuck away.”

Provided Hochart is right, was Poggio the exception that confirms the rule of honesty among the humanists to whom humankind is indebted for “rediscovering” the great classics? Hardly, as we shall see. Even the great Erasmus (1465-1536) succumbed to the temptation of forging a treatise under the name of saint Cyprian (De duplici martyrio ad Fortunatum), which he pretended to have found by chance in an ancient library. Erasmus used this stratagem to voice his criticism of the Catholic confusion between virtue and suffering. In this case, heterodoxy gave the forger away. But how many forgeries went undetected for lack of originality? Giles Constable writes in “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages”: “The secret of successful forgers and plagiarists is to attune the deceit so closely to the desires and standards of their age that it is not detected, or even suspected, at the time of creation.” In other words: “Forgeries and plagiarisms … follow rather than create fashion and can without paradox be considered among the most authentic products of their time.”[3]

We are here focusing on literary forgeries, but there were other kinds. Michelangelo himself launched his own career by faking antique statues, including one known as the Sleeping Cupid (now lost), while under the employment of the Medici family in Florence. He used acidic earth to make the statue look antique. It was sold through a dealer to Cardinal Riario of San Giorgio, who eventually found out the hoax and demanded his money back, but didn’t press any charges against the artist. Apart from this recognized forgery, Lynn Catterson has made a strong case that the sculptural group of “Laocoon and his Sons,” dated from around 40 BC and supposedly discovered in 1506 in a vineyard in Rome and immediately acquired by Pope Julius II, is another of Michelangelo’s forgery (read here)[4].

When one comes to think about it seriously, one can find several reasons to doubt that such masterworks were possible any time before the Renaissance, one of them having to do with the progress in human anatomy. Many other antique works raise similar questions. For instance, a comparison between Marcus Aurelius’ bronze equestrian statue (formely thought to be Constantine’s), with, say, Louis XIV’s, makes you wonder: how come nothing remotely approaching this level of achievement can be found between the fifth and the fifteenth century?[5] Can we even be sure that Marcus Aurelius is a historical figure? “The major sources depicting the life and rule of Marcus are patchy and frequently unreliable” (Wikipedia), the most important one being the highly dubious Historia Augusta (more later).

The lucrative market of literary forgeries

“Literary Forgery in Early Modern Europe, 1450-1800” was the subject of a 2012 conference, whose proceedings were published in 2018 by the John Hopkins University Press (who also published a 440-page catalog, Bibliotheca Fictiva: A Collection of Books & Manuscripts Relating to Literary Forgery, 400 BC-AD 2000). One forger discussed in that book is Annius of Viterbo (1432-1502), who produced a collection of eleven texts, attributed to a Chaldean, an Egyptian, a Persian, and several ancient Greeks and Romans, purporting to show that his native town of Viterbo had been an important center of culture during the Etruscan period. Annius attributed his texts to recognizable ancient authors whose genuine works had conveniently perished, and he went on producing voluminous commentaries on his own forgeries.

This case illustrates the combination of political and mercantile motives in many literary forgeries. History-writing is a political act, and in the fifteenth century, it played a crucial role in the competition for prestige between Italian cities. Tacitus’ history of Rome was brought forward by Bracciolini thirty years after a Florentine chancellor by the name of Leonardo Bruni (1369-1444) wrote his History of the Florentine people (Historiae Florentini populi) in 12 volumes (by plagiarizing Byzantine chronicles). Political value translated into economic value, and the market for ancient works reached astronomical prices: it is said that with the sale of just a copy of a manuscript of Titus Livy, Bracciolini bought himself a villa in Florence. During the Renaissance, “the acquisition of classical artifacts had simply become the new fad, the new way of displaying power and status. Instead of collecting the bones and body parts of saints, towns and wealthy rulers now collected fragments of the ancient world. And just as with the relic trade, demand far outstripped supply” (from the website of San Diego’s “Museum of Hoaxes”).

In the mainstream of classical studies, ancient texts are assumed to be authentic if they are not proven forged. Cicero’s De Consolatione is now universally considered the work of Carolus Sigonius (1520-1584), an Italian humanist born in Modena, only because we have a letter by Sigonius himself admitting the forgery. But short of such a confession, or of some blatant anachronism, historians and classical scholars will simply ignore the possibility of fraud. They would never, for example, suspect Francesco Petrarca, known as Petrarch (1304-1374), of faking his discovery of Cicero’s letters, even though he went on publishing his own letters in perfect Ciceronian style. Jerry Brotton is not being ironic when he writes in The Renaissance Bazaar: “Cicero was crucial to Petrarch and the subsequent development of humanism because he offered a new way of thinking about how the cultured individual united the philosophical and contemplative side of life with its more active and public dimension. […] This was the blueprint for Petrarch’s humanism.”[6]

The medieval manuscripts found by Petrarch are long lost, so what evidence do we have of their authenticity, besides Petrarch’s reputation? Imagine if historians seriously questioned the authenticity of some of our most cherished classical treasures. How many of them would pass the test? If Hochart is right and Tacitus is removed from the list of reliable sources, the whole historical edifice of the Roman Empire suffers from a major structural failure, but what if other pillars of ancient historiography crumble under similar scrutiny? What about Titus Livy, author a century earlier than Tacitus of a monumental history of Rome in 142 verbose volumes, starting with the foundation of Rome in 753 BC through the reign of Augustus. It is admitted, since Louis de Beaufort’s critical analysis (1738), that the first five centuries of Livy’s history are a web of fiction.[7] But can we trust the rest of it? It was also Petrarch, Brotton informs us, who “began piecing together texts like Livy’s History of Rome, collating different manuscript fragments, correcting corruptions in the language, and imitating its style in writing a more linguistically fluent and rhetorically persuasive form of Latin.”[8] None of the manuscripts used by Petrarch are available anymore.

What about the Augustan History (Historia Augusta), a Roman chronicle that Edward Gibbon trusted entirely for writing his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? It has since been exposed as the work of an impostor who has masked his fraud by inventing sources from scratch. However, for some vague reason, it is assumed that the forger lived in the fifth century, which is supposed to make his forgery worthwhile anyway. In reality, some of its stories sound like cryptic satire of Renaissance mores, others like Christian calumny of pre-Christian religion. How likely is it, for example, that the hero Antinous, worshipped throughout the Mediterranean Basin as an avatar of Osiris, was the gay lover (eromenos) of Hadrian, as told in Augustan History? Such questions of plausibility are simply ignored by professional historians.[9] But they jump to the face of any lay reader unimpressed by scholarly consensus. For instance, just reading the summary of Suetonius’ Lives of the Twelve Cesars on the Wikipedia page should suffice to raise very strong suspicions, not only of fraud, but of mockery, for we are obviously dealing here with biographies of great imagination, but of no historical value whatsoever.

Works of fiction also come under suspicion. We owe the complete version of The Satyricon, supposedly written under Nero, to a manuscript discovered by Poggio Bracciolini in Cologne.[10] Apuleius’ novel The Golden Ass was also found by Poggio in the same manuscript as the fragments of Tacitus’ Annales and Histories. It was unknown before the thirteenth century, and its central piece, the tale of Cupid and Psyche, seems derived from the more archaic version found in the twelfth-century Roman de Partonopeu de Blois.[11]

The question can be raised of why Romans would bother writing and copying such works on papyrus volumen, but the more important question is: Why would medieval monks copy and preserve them on expensive parchments? This question applies to all pagan authors, for none of them reached the Renaissance in manuscripts allegedly older than the ninth century. “Did the monks, out of pure scientific interest, have a duty to preserve for posterity, for the greater glory of paganism, the masterpieces of antiquity?” asks Hochart.

And not only masterpieces, but bundles of letters! In the early years of the sixteenth century, the Veronian Fra Giovanni Giocondo discovered a volume of 121 letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger (friend of Tacitus) and Emperor Trajan around the year 112. This “book”, writes Latinist scholar Jacques Heurgon, “had disappeared during the whole Middle Ages, and one could believe it definitively lost, when it suddenly emerged, in the very first years of the sixteenth century, in a single manuscript which, having been copied, partially, then completely, was lost again.”[12]Such unsuspecting presentation is illustrative of the blind confidence of classical scholars in their Latin sources, unknown in the Middle Ages and magically appearing from nowhere in the Renaissance.

The strangest thing, Hochart remarks, is that Christian monks are supposed to have copied thousands of pagan volumes on expensive parchment, only to treat them as worthless rubbish:

“To explain how many works of Latin authors had remained unknown to scholars of previous centuries and were uncovered by Renaissance scholars, it was said that monks had generally relegated to the attics or cellars of their convents most of the pagan writings that had been in their libraries. It was therefore among the discarded objects, sometimes among the rubbish, when they were allowed to search there, that the finders of manuscripts found, they claimed, the masterpieces of antiquity.”

In medieval convents, manuscript copying was a commercial craft, and focused exclusively on religious books such as psalters, gospels, missals, catechisms, and saints’ legends. They were mostly copied on papyrus. Parchment and vellum were reserved for luxury books, and since it was a very expensive material, it was common practice to scrape old scrolls in order to reuse them. Pagan works were the first to disappear. In fact, their destruction, rather than their preservation, was considered a holy deed, as hagiographers abundantly illustrate in their saints’ lives.

How real is Julius Caesar?

Independently of Hochart, and on the basis of philological considerations, Robert Baldauf, professor at the university of Basle, argued that many of the most famous ancient Latin and Greek works are of late medieval origin (Historie und Kritik, 1902). “Our Romans and Greeks have been Italian humanists,” he says. They have given us a whole fantasy world of Antiquity that “has rooted itself in our perception to such an extent that no positivist criticisms can make humanity doubt its veracity.”

Baldauf points out, for example, German and Italian influences in Horace’s Latin. On similar grounds, he concludes that Julius Cesar’s books, so appreciated for their exquisite Latin, are late medieval forgeries. Recent historians of Gaul, now informed by archeology, are actually puzzled by Cesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico—our only source on the elusive Vercingetorix. Everything in there that doesn’t come from book XXIII of Poseidonios’ Histories appears either wrong or unreliable in terms of geography, demography, anthropology, and religion.[13]

A great mystery hangs over the supposed author himself. We are taught that “Caesar” was a cognomen (nickname) of unknown meaning and origin, and that it was adopted immediately after Julius Caesar’s death as imperial title; we are asked to believe, in other words, that the emperors all called themselves Caesar in memory of that general and dictator who was not even emperor, and that the term gained such prestige that it went on to be adopted by Russian “Czars” and German “Kaisers”. But that etymology has long been challenged by those (including Voltaire) who claim that Caesar comes from an Indo-European root word meaning “king”, which also gave the Persian Khosro. These two origins cannot both be true, and the second seems well grounded.

Cesar’s gentilice (surname) Iulius does not ease our perplexity. We are told by Virgil that it goes back to Cesar’s supposed ancestor Iulus or Iule. But Virgil also tells us (drawing from Cato the Elder, c. 168 BC) that it is the short name of Jupiter (Jul Pater). And it happens to be an Indo-European root word designating the sunlight or the day sky, identical to the Scandinavian name for the solar god, Yule (Helios for the Greeks, Haul for the Gauls, Hel for the Germans, from which derives the French Noël, Novo Hel). Is “Julius Caesar” the “Sun King”?

Consider, in addition, that: 1. Roman emperors were traditionally declared adoptive sons of the sun-god Jupiter or of the “Undefeated Sun” (Sol Invictus). 2. The first emperor, Octavian Augustus, was allegedly the adoptive son of Julius Caesar, whom he divinized under the name Iulius Caesar Divus (celebrated on January 1), while renaming in his honor the first month of summer, July. If Augustus is both the adoptive son of the divine Sun and the adoptive son of the divine Julius, and if in addition Julius or Julus is the divine name of the Sun, it means that the divine Julius is none other than the divine Sun (and the so-called “Julian” calendar simply meant the “solar” calendar). Julius Caesar has been brought down from heaven to earth, transposed from mythology to history. That is a common process in Roman history, according to Georges Dumézil, who explains the notorious poverty of Roman mythology by the fact that it “was radically destroyed at the level of theology [but] flourished in the form of history,” which is to say that Roman history is a literary fiction built on mythical structures.[14]

The mystery surrounding Julius Caesar is of course of great consequence, since on him rests the historiography of Imperial Rome. If Julius Caesar is a fiction, then so is much of Imperial Rome. Note that, on the coins attributed to his era, the first emperor is simply named Augustus Caesar, which is not a name, but a title that could be applied to any emperor.

At this point, most readers will have lost patience. With those whose curiosity surpasses their skepticism, we shall now argue that Imperial Rome is actually, for a large part, a fictitious mirror image of Constantinople, a fantasy that started emerging in the eleventh century in the context of the cultural war waged by the papacy against the Byzantine empire, and solidified in the fifteenth century, in the context of the plunder of Byzantine culture that is known as the Renaissance. This, of course, will raise many objections, some of which will be addressed here, others in further articles.

First objection: Wasn’t Constantinople founded by a Roman emperor, namely Constantine the Great? So it is said. But then, how real is this legendary Constantine?

How real is Constantine the Great?

If Julius Caesar is the alpha of the Western Roman Empire, Constantine is the omega. One major difference between them is the nature of our sources. For Constantine’s biography, we are totally dependent on Christian authors, beginning with Eusebius of Caesarea, whose Life of Constantine, including the story of the emperor’s conversion to Christianity, is a mixture of eulogy and hagiography.

The common notion derived from Eusebius is that Constantine moved the capital of his Empire from Rome to Byzantium, which he renamed in his own honor. But that general narrative of the first translatio imperii is itself replete with inner contradictions. First, Constantine didn’t really move his capital to the East, because he was himself from the East. He was born in Naissus (today Nis in Serbia), in the region then called Moesia, West of Thracia. According to standard history, Constantine had never set foot in Rome before he marched on the city and conquered it from Maxentius.

Constantine wasn’t just a Roman who happened to be born in Moesia. His father Constantius also came from Moesia. And so did his predecessor Diocletian, who was born in Moesia, built his palace there (Split, today in Croatia), and died there. In Byzantine chronicles, Diocletian is given as Dux Moesiae (Wikipedia), which can mean “king of Moesia”, for well into the Early Middle Ages, dux was more or less synonymous with rex.[15]

Textbook history tells us that, on becoming emperor, Diocletian decided to share his power with Maximian as co-emperor. That is already odd enough. But instead of keeping for himself the historical heart of the empire, he left it to his subordinate and settled in the East. Seven years later, he divided the Empire further into a tetrarchy; instead of one Augustus Caesar, there was now two Augustus and two Caesars. Diocletian retired to the far eastern part of Asia Minor, bordering on Persia. Like Constantine after him, Diocletian never reigned in Rome; he visited it once in his lifetime.

This leads us to the second inner contradiction of the translatio imperii paradigm: Constantine didn’t really move the imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium, because Rome had ceased to be the imperial capital in 286, being replaced by Milan. By the time of Diocletian and Constantine, the whole of Italy had actually fallen into anarchy during the Crisis of the Third Century (AD 235–284). When in 402 AD, the Eastern emperor Honorius restored order in the Peninsula, he transferred its capital to Ravenna on the Adriatic coast. So from 286 on, we are supposed to have a Roman Empire with a deserted Rome.

The conundrum only thickens when we compare Roman and Byzantine cultures. According to the translatio imperii paradigm, the Eastern Roman Empire is the continuation of the Western Roman Empire. But Byzantium scholars insist on the great differences between the Greek-speaking Byzantine civilization and the earlier civilization of the Latium. Byzantinist Anthony Kaldellis wrote:

“The Byzantines were not a warlike people. […] They preferred to pay their enemies either to go away or to fight among themselves. Likewise, the court at the heart of their empire sought to buy allegiance with honors, fancy titles, bales of silk, and streams of gold. Politics was the cunning art of providing just the right incentives to win over supporters and keep them loyal. Money, silk, and titles were the empire’s preferred instruments of governance and foreign policy, over swords and armies.”[16]

The Byzantine civilization owed nothing to Rome. It inherited all its philosophical, scientific, poetic, mythological, and artistic tradition from classical Greece. Culturally, it was closer to Persia and Egypt than to Italy, which it treated as a colony. At the dawn of the second millenium AD, it had almost no recollection of its supposed Latin past, to the point that the most famous byzantine philosopher of the eleventh century, Michael Psellos, confused Cicero with Caesar.

How does the textbook story of Constantine’s translatio imperii fit in this perspective? It doesn’t. In fact, the notion is highly problematic. Unwilling, for good reasons, to accept at face value the Christian tale that Constantine settled in Byzantium in order to leave Rome to the Pope, historians struggle to find a reasonable explanation for the transfer, and they generally settle for this one: after the old capital had fallen into irreversible decadence (soon to be sacked by the Gauls), Constantine decided to move the heart of the Empire closer to its most endangered borders. Does that make any sense? Even if it did, how plausible is the transfer of an imperial capital over a thousand miles, with senators, bureaucrats and armies, resulting in the metamorphosis of a Roman empire into another Roman empire with a totally different political structure, language, culture, and religion?

One of the major sources of this preposterous concept is the false Donation of Constantine. While it is admitted that this document was forged by medieval popes in order to justify their claim on Rome, its basic premise, the translation of the imperial capital to the East, has not been questioned. We suggest that Constantine’s translatio imperii was actually a mythological cover for the very real opposite movement of translatio studii, the transfer of Byzantine culture to the West that started before the crusades and evolved into systematic plunder after. Late medieval Roman culture rationalized and disguised its less than honorable Byzantine origin by the opposite myth of the Roman origin of Constantinople.

This will become clearer in the next article, but here is already one example of an insurmountable contradiction to the accepted filiation between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. One of the most fundamental and precious legacy of the Romans to our Western civilization is their tradition of civil law. Roman law is still the foundation of our legal system. How come, then, that Roman law was imported to Italy from Byzantium at the end of the eleventh century? Specialists like Harold Berman or Aldo Schiavone are adamant that knowledge of Roman laws had totally disappeared for 700 years in Western Europe, until a Byzantine copy of their compilation by Justinian (the Digesta) was discovered around 1080 by Bolognese scholars. This “700-year long eclipse” of Roman law in the West, is an undisputed yet almost incomprehensible phenomenon .[17]

Who were the first “Romans”

One obvious objection to the idea that the relationship between Rome and Constantinople has been inverted is that the Byzantines called themselves Romans (Romaioi), and believed they were living in Romania. Persians, Arabs and Turks called them Roumis. Even the Greeks of the Hellenic Peninsula called themselves Romaioi in Late Antiquity, despite their detestation of the Latins. This is taken as proof that the Byzantines considered themselves the heirs of the Roman Empire of the West, founded in Rome, Italy. But it is not. Strangely enough, mythography and etymology both suggest that, just like the name “Caesar”, the name “Rome” travelled from East to West, rather than the other way. Romos, latinized in Romus or Remus, is a Greek word meaning “strong”. The Italian Romans were Etruscans from Lydia in Asia Minor. They were well aware of their eastern origin, the memory of which was preserved in their legends. According to the tradition elaborated by Virgil in his epic Aeneid, Rome was founded by Aeneas from Troy, in the immediate vicinity of the Bosphorus. According to another version, Rome was founded by Romos, the son of Odysseus and Circe.[18]The historian Strabo, supposedly living in the first century BC (but quoted only from the fifth century AD), reports that “another older tradition makes Rome an Arcadian colony,” and insists that “Rome itself was of Hellenic origin” (Geographia V, 3). Denys of Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities, declares “Rome is a Greek city.” His thesis is summed up by the syllogism: “The Romans descend from the Trojans. But the Trojans are of Greek origin. So the Romans are of Greek origin.”

The famous legend of Romulus and Remus, told by Titus Livy (I, 3), is generally considered of later origin. It could very well be an invention of the late Middle Age. Anatoly Fomenko, of whom we will have more to say later on, believes that its central theme, the simultaneous foundation of two cities, one by Romulus on the Palatine Hill, and the other by Remus on the Aventine, is a mythical reflection of the struggle for ascendency between the two Romes. As we shall see, the murder of Remus by Romulus is a fitting allegory of the events unfolding from the fourth crusade.[19] Interestingly, that legend evokes the history of the brothers Valens and Valentinian, who are said to have reigned respectively over Constantinople and Rome from 364 to 378 (their story is known from one single author, Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek writing in Latin). It happens that valens is a Latin equivalent for the Greek romos.

We have started this article by suggesting that much of the history of the Western Roman Empire is of Renaissance invention. But as we progress in our investigation, another complementary hypothesis will emerge: much of the history of the Western Roman Empire is borrowed from the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, either by deliberate plagiarism, or by confusion resulting from the fact that the Byzantines called themselves Romans and their city Rome. The process can be inferred from some obvious duplicates. Here is one example, taken from Latin historian Jordanes, whose Origin and Deeds of the Goths is notoriously full of anachronisms: in 441, Attila crossed the Danube, invaded the Balkans, and threatened Constantinople, but could not take the city and retreated with an immense booty. Ten years later, the same Attila crossed the Alps, invaded Italy, and threatened Rome, but couldn’t take the city and retreated with an immense booty .

The mysterious origin of Latin

Another objection against questioning the existence of the Western Roman Empire is the spread of Latin throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond. It is admitted that Latin, originally the language spoken in the Latium, is the origin of French, Italian, Occitan, Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese, called “Western Romance Languages”. However, the amateur historian and linguist M. J. Harper has made the following remark:

“The linguistic evidence mirrors the geography with great precision: Portuguese resembles Spanish more than any other language; French resembles Occitan more than any other; Occitan resembles Catalan, Catalan resembles Spanish and so forth. So which was the Ur-language? Can’t tell; it could be any of them. Or it could be a language that has long since disappeared. But the original language cannot have been Latin. All the Romance languages, even Portuguese and Italian, resemble one another more than any of them resemble Latin, and do so by a wide margin.”[20]

For that reason, linguists postulate that “Romance languages” do not derive directly from Latin, but from Vulgar Latin, the popular and colloquial sociolect of Latin spoken by soldiers, settlers, and merchants of the Roman Empire. What was Vulgar Latin, or proto-Romance, like? No one knows.

As a matter of fact, the language that most resembles Latin is Romanian, which, although divided in several dialects, constitutes by itself the only member of the Eastern branch of Romance languages. It is the only Romance language that has maintained archaic traits of Latin, such as the case system (endings of words depending on their role in the sentence) and the neutral gender.[21]

But how did Romanians come to speak Vulgar Latin? There is another mystery there. Part of the linguistic area of Romanian was conquered by Emperor Trajan in 106 AD, and formed the Roman province of Dacia for a mere 165 years. One or two legions were stationed in the South-West of Dacia, and, although not Italians, they are supposed to have communicated in Vulgar Latin and imposed their language to the whole country, even north of the Danube, where there was no Roman presence. What language did people speak in Dacia before the Romans conquered the south part of it? No one has a clue. The “Dacian language” “is an extinct language, … poorly documented. … only one Dacian inscription is believed to have survived.” Only 160 Romanian words are hypothetically of Dacian origin. Dacian is believed to be closely related to Thracian, itself “an extinct and poorly attested language.”

Let me repeat: The inhabitants of Dacia north of the Danube adopted Latin from the non-Italian legions that stationed on the lower part of their territory from 106 to 271 AD, and completely forgot their original language, to the point that no trace of it is left. They were so Romanized that their country came to be called Romania, and that Romanian is now closer to Latin than are other European Romance languages. Yet the Romans hardly ever occupied Dacia (on the map above, Dacia is not even counted as part of the Roman Empire). The next part is also extraordinary: Dacians, who had so easily given up their original language for Vulgar Latin, then became so attached to Vulgar Latin that the German invaders, who caused the Romans to retreat in 271, failed to impose their language. So did the Huns and, more surprisingly, the Slavs, who dominated the area since the seventh century and left many traces in the toponymy. Less than ten percent of Romanian words are of Slavic origin (but the Romanians adopted Slavonic for their liturgy).

One more thing: although Latin was a written language in the Empire, Romanians are believed to have never had a written language until the Middle Ages. The first document written in Romanian goes back to the sixteenth century, and it is written in Cyrillic alphabet.

Obviously, there is room for the following alternative theory: Latin is a language originating from Dacia; ancient Dacian did not vanish mysteriously but is the common ancestor of both Latin and modern Romanian. Dacian, if you will, is Vulgar Latin, which preceded Classical Latin. A likely explanation for the fact that Dacia is also called Romania is that it—rather than Italy—was the original home of the Romans who founded Constantinople.[22] That would be consistent with the notion that the Roman language (Latin) remained the administrative language of the Eastern Empire until the sixth century AD, when it was abandoned for Greek, the language spoken by the majority of its subjects. That, in turn, is consistent with the character of Latin itself. Harper makes the following remark:

“Latin is not a natural language. When written, Latin takes up approximately half the space of written Italian or written French (or written English, German or any natural European language). Since Latin appears to have come into existence in the first half of the first millennium BC, which was the time when alphabets were first spreading through the Mediterranean basin, it seems a reasonable working hypothesis to assume that Latin was originally a shorthand compiled by Italian speakers for the purposes of written (confidential? commercial?) communication. This would explain:

a) the very close concordance between Italian and Latin vocabulary;

b) the conciseness of Latin in, for instance, dispensing with separate prepositions, compound verb forms and other ‘natural’ language impedimenta;

c) the unusually formal rules governing Latin grammar and syntax;

d) the lack of irregular, non-standard usages;

e) the unusual adoption among Western European languages of a specifically vocative case (‘Dear Marcus, re. you letter of…’).[23]

The hypothesis that Latin was a “non-demotic” language, a koine of the empire, a cultural artifact developed for the purpose of writing, was first proposed by Russian researchers Igor Davidenko and Jaroslav Kesler in The Book of Civilizations (2001).

How old is ancient Roman architecture?

The strongest objection against the theory that ancient Imperial Rome is a fiction is, of course, her many architectural vestiges. This subject will be more fully explored in a later article, but a quotation from Viscount James Bryce’s influential work, The Holy Roman Empire (1864), will point to the answer:

“The modern traveller, after his first few days in Rome, when he has looked out upon the Campagna from the summit of St. Peter’s, paced the chilly corridors of the Vatican, and mused under the echoing dome of the Pantheon, when he has passed in review the monuments of regal and republican and papal Rome, begins to seek for some relics of the twelve hundred years that lie between Constantine and Pope Julius the Second. ‘Where,’ he asks, ‘is the Rome of the Middle Ages, the Rome of Alberic and Hildebrand and Rienzi? the Rome which dug the graves of so many Teutonic hosts; whither the pilgrims flocked; whence came the commands at which kings bowed? Where are the memorials of the brightest age of Christian architecture, the age which reared Cologne and Rheims and Westminster, which gave to Italy the cathedrals of Tuscany and the wave-washed palaces of Venice?’ To this question there is no answer. Rome, the mother of the arts, has scarcely a building to commemorate those times.”[24]

Officially, there is hardly a medieval vestige in Rome, and the same applies to other Italian cities believed to have been founded during Antiquity. François de Sarre, a French contributor to the field of research here presented, was first intrigued by the magnificent palace of the Roman emperor Diocletian (284-305 AD), in the center of the city of Split, today in Croatia. The Renaissance constructions are integrated to it in such a perfect architectural ensemble as to be almost indistinguishable. It is hard to believe that ten centuries separate the two stages of construction, as if the ancient buildings had been left untouched during the whole Middle Ages.[25]

Also puzzling is the little-known fact that ancient Roman architecture used advanced technologies such as concretes of remarkable quality (read here and here), used for example to build the Pantheon’s beautifully preserved dome. The secrets of fabrication of Roman concrete is described in Vitruvius’ multi-volume work entitled De architectura (first century BC). Medieval men, we are told, were totally ignorant of this technology, because “Vitruvius’ works were largely forgotten until 1414, when De architectura was ‘rediscovered’ by the Florentine humanist Poggio Bracciolini in the library of Saint Gall Abbey” (Wikipedia).[26]

As a temporary conclusion: all the oddities that we have pointed out are like pieces of a puzzle that do not fit well within our conventional representation. We will later be able to assemble them into a more plausible picture. But before that, in the next article, we will focus on ecclesiastical literature from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages, for it is the original source of the great historical distortion that later took a life of its own before being standardized as the dogma of modern chronology and historiography.


[1] Polydor Hochart, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, 1890 (on, pp. viii-ix.

[2] David Schaps, “The Found and Lost Manuscripts of Tacitus’ De Agricola,” Classical Philology, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 28-42, on

[3] Giles Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages,” in Culture and Spirituality in Medieval Europe, Variorum, 1996, p. 1-41, and on

[4] Lynn Catterson, “Michelangelo’s ‘Laocoön?’,” Artibus Et Historiae, vol. 26, n° 52, 2005, pp. 29–56, on

[5] David Carrette, L’Invention du Moyen Âge. La plus grande falsification de l’histoire, Magazine Top-Secret, Hors-série n°9, 2014.

[6] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 66-67.

[7] Louis de Beaufort, Dissertation sur l’incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l’histoire romaine (1738), on

[8] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, op. cit., pp. 66-67.

[9] It is never raised, for example, by Royston Lambert in his Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous, Phoenix Giant, 1984.

[10] Petronius, The Satyricon, trans. P. D. Walsh Oxford UP, 1997, “Introduction,” p. xxxv.

[11] Gédéon Huet, “Le Roman d’Apulée était-il connu au Moyen Âge ?”, Le Moyen Âge, 22 (1909), pp. 23-28.


[13] Jean-Louis Brunaux, The Celtic Gauls: Gods, Rites, and Santuaries, Routledge, 1987; David Henige, “He came, he saw, we counted: the historiography and demography of Caesar’s gallic numbers,” Annales de démographie historique, 1998-1, pp. 215-242, on

[14] Georges Dumézil, Heur et malheur du guerrierAspects mythiques de la fonction guerrière chez les Indo-Européens (1969), Flammarion, 1985, p. 66 and 16.

[15] Dux Francorum and rex Francorum were used interchangibly for Peppin II, for example.

[16] Anthony Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade, Oxford UP, 2019, p. xxvii.

[17] Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard UP, 1983; Aldo Schiavone, The Invention of Law in the West, Harvard UP, 2012.

[18] Sander M. Goldberg, Epic in Republican Rome, Oxford UP, 1995, pp. 50-51.

[19] Anatoly T. Fomenko, History: Fiction or Science? vol. 1, Delamere Publishing, 2003, p. 357.

[20] M. J. Harper, The History of Britain Revealed, Icon Books, 2006, p. 116.

[21] Clara Miller-Broomfield, “Romanian: The forgotten Romance language”, 2015.

[22] We need to take into account that Southeastern Romania is located in the Pontic Steppe which, according to the widely held Kurgan hypothesis, is the original home of the earliest proto-Indo-European speech community.

[23] M. J. Harper, The History of Britain Revealed, op. cit., pp. 130-131.

[24] Viscount James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire (1864), on

[25] François de Sarre, Mais où est donc passé le Moyen Âge ? Le récentisme, Hadès, 2013, available here.

[26] More on Roman concrete in Lynne Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome: Innovations in Context, Cambridge UP, 2005.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on How Fake Is Roman Antiquity?

What the Bourgeois Bolsheviks Want


The ongoing anti-white rampage of the Unpopular Front — Millennial lumpen-bourgeoisie, black criminals, academics, journalists, and woke capital — has led to more questions than answers.

Some call them communists, but the terrorists do not have any economic demands. On the contrary, they have a close relationship with corporate America. Conservatives are desperate to link them to the Democratic Party, but they don’t support Biden and have long forgotten Bernie. Others wish to blame foreign intelligence services to build energy for discredited neo-conservatism, but the Chinese are mostly sitting back and laughing at America.

The Unpopular Front’s targets for violence (social, economic and physical) are usually white working people not educated in the cutting edge of political correctness. The primary target is local police officers, who have a median salary of $52,000 a year, which is paltry compared to the $21,000 Black Lives Matter figurehead Shaun King charges to speak for an hour. All they do is punch down.

They have no party. They mindlessly repeat slogans and use their power to crush those who disagree, due to a lack of policy proposals or ideas. They’re a headless chicken running around attacking any figure and person with a white face. Their terrorist acts more or less enjoy immunity from prosecution by the Department of Justice, whose prosecutors and agents share Bourgeois Bohemian class solidarity and sympathy with the rioters.

As far as direction, the rioters appear to be activated largely by the Jewish press, targeting statues listed by publications like the New York Times or Washington Postas racist. The ideas and history of the 1619 Project, christened official institutional ideology by New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein, is the only important text the anarchists and Black Lives Matter groups seem to be inspired by.

So What Do They Want?

So the question is, what do the rioters want? The jobs and power of their older colleagues.

Peter Turchin’s elite overproduction theory partially supports this view. When it comes to societies on the the cusp of civil war, Turchin has found a pattern: universities producing a glut of lawyers, academics and other ambitious professionals vying for managerial positions that outnumber job openings

The result of this in the American context has been the quiet collapse in the compensation and social status given for legal, media and academic work.

Over 50% of college professors today are adjuncts — part time workers making about $3,000 per three-credit course. The numbers are even more lopsided if we select for generation, e.g., Millennial professors. 75% of college professors are not on track to tenure, a guarantee of academic freedom that is now little more than a relic.

In the legal field, only 63% of law graduates obtain employment in their trained field. Many of these people go on to work for anti-white nonprofit litigation firms funded by oligarchs, where they generally make less than $40,000 a year despite being saddled with debt. This appears to be the case of at least one of two of the anarchists arrested for throwing bombs at a rally.

In the media, a freelance journalist could once upon a time support himself and his family. This is no longer true in the age of digital publishing, which has become an extended internship for those aspiring to work at a real newspaper or corporation. Major digital publication figures like HuffPo’s black lesbian Editor-in-Chief Lydia Polgreen or Buzzfeed’s Jewish EIC Ben Smith have in 2020 moved on greener media pastures. Most Millennial freelance journalists, the majority who grew up in wealthy homes, live in cramped Brooklyn apartments with others like them, rationing their Extra-Firm Whole Foods Tofu and Ketamine supply until Mom and Dad wire money at the end of the month.

The outcome of this is that the politically important fields of higher education, media and law select for left-liberal fanatics– largely Jewish and white but also some upper class nonwhites — who 1) require a privileged background in order to have families supplementing their income indefinitely, 2) must demonstrate particular ideological fervor in advancing the ruling class’ agenda in order to score a job and advance, especially if they are of non-Jewish European descent.

This helps explain the ‘Bourgeois Bolshevik’ phenomenon. The bloodiest terror is happening inside our institutions, with a younger class of hate filled demagogues scalping their older colleagues in order to replace them.

The starving and scorned Millennial professionals are tired of warming the bench and waiting for older liberals to retire. Many of these older white liberals being driven out of administrative positions in academia, media and other important institutions still believe in some form of free speech and don’t necessarily want to kill people for their race.

The Millennial professional middle class ghouls, mostly white sexual deviants, careerists and Jews, have allies in the Jewish super-elite.

Many scratched their heads when Jewish New York Times heir A.G. Sulzberger sided with young extremists in his newsroom over the publication of a sitting US Senator’s Op-Ed, which led to the firing of 54-year-old opinion editor James Bennett.

Some claimed it was cowardice from the neo-liberal establishment, but Sulzberger is eager to acquiesce. Jews at the New York Times have recently gone to war with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and its editor for resisting an internal Millennial revoltand standing by an opinion piece called “Racism is the new McCarthyism.” The New York Times then spit vitriol against the paper after asking two young “journalists” on staff who openly support Black Lives Matter to recuse themselves from covering the riots.

At the prestigious Cambridge, the English faculty’s external affairs officer — the Jew Lisa Gold — responded to outcry over critical theory malcontent Priyamvada Gopal claiming “white lives don’t matter” by recommending her for a promotion to full professorship.

Generally speaking, academics in the hard sciences ignore the absurdities of what is taught at the humanities at their schools. But no longer. At the University of Plymouth, an activist gave administrators a long list of tweets liked by acclaimed physicist Dr. Mike McCulloch. He is now under investigation.

Anarchists in particular have weaponized accusations of sexual harassment and racism to dislodge the old guard and turn popular institutions into circuses they are the ringleaders of. The work of “antifa” members like Jamie Peck and others like her to frame men associated with the Vice brand for sexual assault allowed for people in her social circle to infiltrate and take over the company’s news and commentary room. Vice went from a bastion of transgressive free speech, publishing Jim Goad under the direction of Gavin McInnes, to a publication that seems to only hire rabid political correctors in “antifa.”

The majority of college educated Millennials do not believe in the right to free speech, due process, or democracy — a number that would come close to 100% if we only polled the media, law, government or academic classes.

For this reason, Jews appear to be accelerating their ascendance to power in a time when baby boomer liberals, with watered down views, continue to hold on to positions past their primes. The promise of their moment about to arrive will encourage professional Millennials on the fence to double down on their vocal signaling in favor of psychotic and unpopular policies favored by the elite.

Powerful Jews are overseeing and encouraging these internal revolutions at newsrooms, FBI stations and corporate boardrooms because the Millennials they have working for them have been selected for the anti-white fanaticism Jews feel needs to be tapped to end the rise of white populism through force.

The good news is that white Millennials outside of these tiny cliques are also radicalizing in the direction of nationalism and racialism.

The outcome of this Kosher revolution will be the crowning of Millennial Yagodas and Dzerzhinsky the dispensers of terror in our country in what Jews perceive to be a national emergency of white consciousness.

The Unpopular Front’s attacks on the majority will intensify as boomers begin to pass on. An era of violence and strife that makes current left-wing antics look mild lies ahead.

Posted in USAComments Off on What the Bourgeois Bolsheviks Want

A vote for Kanye West is a vote for Trump

Weakly Political on Twitter: "In 2020, Kanye's gonna be like: "8 ...

Dear editor,

Kanye West announced on Twitter he’s running for President. As of now, West has never registered with Federal Election Commission and he has missed the deadline to file in several states.

Why can’t we get even one sane, competent, and intelligent person to run? Kanye is an adamant supporter of Trump who is obviously attempting to pull black votes away from Biden to his buddy Trump. Please do not fall for this because this is a political ploy. It would be hilarious if Kanye were to pick Rosie O’Donnell as his Vice Presidential candidate. Maybe that way he could chip away women voters from Biden.

I have a better chance to get hit by lightning than Kanye West becoming president. As my 16-year-old son Chafique told me, “A vote for Kanye is a vote for Trump.”

Mahmoud El-Yousseph     

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on A vote for Kanye West is a vote for Trump

JTA reports where & how Dems, Repubs are wooing Jewish voters (for IsrHell)


JTA reports where & how Dems, Repubs are wooing Jewish voters (for Israel)

Democratic and Republican Jewish groups are both working to get out their vote, and to promote candidates who support Israel… 

“We will be on TV, we will be in the mail, we will be on the telephone, we will be digital. We will be in every form of communication known to human beings.”

(We’re guessing they won’t be mentioning Israel’s long record of human rights abuses, systemic racism, and damage to the US…)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) has just published a detailed report on how both parties are working to get out the Jewish vote, particularly in swing states.

Journalist Ron Kampeas writes: “One thing we know about elections is that Jewish voters can make a difference.

Take Florida: The Sunshine State’s Jewish voters helped deliver its critical electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Problematic ballots in heavily Jewish Broward County may have clinched George W. Bush’s win in 2000.

In years past I have sat among crowds rallied by Jewish campaign surrogates in packed synagogues in Ohio and bingo halls in Florida, and I’ve followed canvassers searching for mezuzahs in neighborhoods known for having large Jewish populations.


Kampeas reports that so far this year the Republican Jewish Coalition has “the most advanced operation in place.” It already has “$10 million pledged to reelect Donald Trump and secure GOP control in Congress..”

The RJC’s get-out-the-vote operation already has four workers on staff in Florida, according to Matt Brooks, its executive director, and volunteers have made 300,000 phone calls to Jewish voters in swing states — a preliminary round of phone banking where the goal is not persuasion but identification, to see how committed a voter is to reelecting Trump and what issues they are considering ahead of Election Day.

This lays the ground for more calls and texts later in the season that are tailored to the individual voter.

Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania & Georgia

But with Trump’s polling in freefall, the group doesn’t have that many states to direct that energy. Brooks told me his swing-state operation was focusing on Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

“We’re monitoring and looking at and ready to pivot to see how Michigan and Wisconsin continue to shape up,” he added.

Brooks said the RJC chose those states because the vote there is “competitive.” That’s notable: Trump’s 2016 victory included narrow wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona.

Including Georgia and Ohio in the mix indicates the deep trouble Trump is in. In 2016, he won Georgia by 5 points and Ohio by 8.

From Brooks’ map it would appear that the RJC doesn’t think there’s a chance for Trump to win in Michigan or Wisconsin. Polls show Joe Biden leading Trump in both states by double digits.

Among other things, the RJC is airing a video calling Trump “the most pro-Israel president in history.”

Democrats’ 14 state plan

Kampeas reports that “the  Jewish Democratic Council of America has a much more expansive map. In addition to the five states the RJC is targeting, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, the JDCA says it is ready to target Jewish voters in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Virginia — a 14-state plan, as director Halie Soifer put it.

Soifer said she hoped to spend over $1 million and as much as $5 million in pushing out the vote.

“They are the states where we think the Jewish vote can make a difference in the presidential and key Senate and House elections,” she said.

JDCA has organized a number of webinars, and has launched phone banking. Soifer told me she hopes to reach “hundreds of thousands, if not over a million” Jewish voters. “First it will be persuasion methods, and then get out the vote,” she said.

The political action committee associated with the Democratic Majority for Israel is planning to highlight Biden’s pro-Israel record in a digital campaign.

But the PAC’s emphasis will be down-ballot, Mellman said, because that’s where it makes more sense to spend money; both presidential campaigns have plenty of resources already. The messaging down-ballot will not necessarily be about Israel, he said, but about issues of importance to local voters.

DMFI head Mark Mellman is a prodigious fundraiser and says his group would be spending “in the millions of dollars in a broad campaign.”

The DMFI PAC has already run ads blasting candidates running against its chosen candidates. While the PAC’s support is based on helping Israel, the ads focus on other themes.

Mellman is quoted: “We will be on TV, we will be in the mail, we will be on the telephone, we will be digital. We will be in every form of communication known to human beings.”

The Jewish Democratic Council of America added 17 names to its congressional endorsements, bringing the total to 89.

“Most of the new batch is challenging Republicans in states that Trump won in 2016, including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Alaska, South Carolina and Tennessee.”

Sometimes Israel wins either way

In some Senate races the partisan PACs may compete against one another, based on their endorsements (which suggests that Israel will win either way):

Maine: The Republican Jewish Coalition has endorsed Sen. Susan Collins; the Democratic Majority for Israel, J Street and the Jewish Democratic Council of America are backing her challenger, Sara Gideon.

South Carolina: RJC, Sen. Lindsey Graham; JDCA and J Street, Harrison.

Georgia: RJC, Sen. David Perdue; JDCA and J Street, Ossoff.

Colorado: RJC, Sen. Cory Gardner; JDCA, DMFI and J Street, challenger John Hickenlooper.

Michigan: JDCA and DMFI, Sen. Gary Peters; RJC, challenger John James.
Arizona: RJC, Sen. Martha McSally; JDCA and J Street, challenger Mark Kelly.

According to Kampeas, “Five state-level Jewish Democratic organizations are working together to influence down-ballot elections in their states.”

The Florida Democratic Party Caucus of American Jews; Jewish Democratic Women’s Salon Atlanta; Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus; Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania; and Wisconsin Jewish Democrats.

The groups will particularly use text messages and targeted social media ads:

“In 2008, we would go door to door and look for the mezuzah,” said Soifer, who ran Jewish outreach for Obama’s Florida campaign that year.

“Now we can purchase lists of Jewish voters and with a click of a button target hundreds of thousands with digital advertising.”

Both parties will be running ads.

Kampeas reports that “Brooks’ RJC has rolled out the highest-profile digital campaign so far, and he said he has money to spend on broadcast and cable ads.”

The Democrats are not far behind…

The Jewish Democratic Council of America has just launched two ads on social media platforms. And Mellman said he had available technology that would allow the Democratic Majority for Israel’s PAC to target individual voters depending on their known preferences.

“We have a pretty sophisticated way to figure out who the targets are that are going to be most movable, persuadable, in the House and Senate races,” he said.

“We can identify those people, and we can target ads on digital directly to those people, and do the same thing with the mail and with the phones.”


Meet the candidates challenging pro-Israel Democrats in US Congress

Pro-Israel PAC Funds Go to Democrats To Keep Them in Line

Super Tuesday: Israel partisans work to block Sanders’ nomination

Adelson to donate $100 million to Trump & Repubs, fundraisers say

The arms race between Dems and GOP for pro-Israel donors

Midterm scoreboard reveals massive pro-Israel influence on Congressional candidates

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on JTA reports where & how Dems, Repubs are wooing Jewish voters (for IsrHell)

Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-‘Israel’ Bias

Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-Israel Bias

Paul Godfrey, executive chairman of Postmedia, which controls 30 percent of the Canadian newspaper market, chairing the 2014 Jewish National Fund (JNF) of Calgary Negev Gala, whose mandate is to recognize individuals for their excellence in community leadership and dedication to Israel. He is with with the emcee for the gala, journalist Catherine Ford. (Bill Brooks/Calgary Herald)

Glaring Canadian media bias is enforced at every level of the media, from editorial boards all the way to ownership. It remains untouchable.

By Davide Mastracci, reposted from Passage

Last year, I almost quit journalism. A major reason was an evolution in my perspective on the industry.

My first journalism experience was at the McGill Daily as an undergraduate student. The independent paper is explicitly leftist, so my understanding of journalism was built from a progressive perspective. As such, I didn’t think I had illusions about corporate media in Canada, especially as we had an antagonistic relationship with these outlets.

Regardless, when I decided to pursue journalism as a career, I thought I could carve out a niche in the industry for the sort of work I was inspired by. Yet after moving to Toronto for a journalism masters at Ryerson, I started to see things differently, realizing that you can’t be part of something but divorce yourself from the harms it perpetuates. I started to feel that I was complicit.

This change of heart was due to many factors, including a deeper understanding of one of the strongest biases the Canadian media has: pro-Israel and anti-Palestine.

I eventually decided I’d continue in journalism if I could do a few things differently than before, including proactively combating the pro-Israel bias.

With that in mind, I’m now going to explore the bias by offering my experiences with it, and then breaking down the various ways it is upheld, from the level of individual journalists all the way to outside interference on the media. As a whole, this process ensures Israel is rarely held to account for its actions.

My Experiences With The Bias

I’ve never had anything more than an entry-level position in corporate media. Those that have can give you more insightful anecdotes of the bias in action, and I’ll go into some of them later. Regardless, my experience, which has included roles at eight different publications and freelancing for dozens of others, is still useful to see how the bias works at a low level. Here are some examples.

A few years ago, I pitched an Israel/Palestine article to a publication I had little prior experience with. It was accepted, edited by a junior staff member, published and well-received. A day later, I was informed by a senior editor that the junior editor should have run the article by them before sending it to publication. I wasn’t made aware of this procedure beforehand, and didn’t understand why I, as a new writer, was being reprimanded. Then the editor casually added that their publication wasn’t sure of their editorial stance on Israel/Palestine, so it would be especially important to consult with them on this topic. I realized the issue wasn’t primarily about chain of command, but rather that I was critical of Israel. This sent me an implicit message: don’t tackle this subject again.

Another time, an article I wrote on Israel/Palestine was pushed out on social media late on a weekend night — a traffic graveyard — despite being published earlier. This seemed like an attempt to bury the story. I mentioned it to someone in that newsroom, and they told me the person responsible for the scheduling had interfered with other journalists’ critical work on Israel in the past, so it’s unlikely the scheduling was an oversight.

On another occasion a few years back, I was invited onto a radio show to discuss an Israel/Palestine issue. At the time, I was required to get approval from my employer to do any outside writing or appearances, so I asked. These appearances were typically quickly approved, and celebrated, because it meant people cared about our work. This time around, I had to follow up before being called into a meeting with a few people. I was told I could go on the radio show, but couldn’t give my opinion, and could only describe the events from an “objective” perspective. The reason offered was that the brand wasn’t sure about their stance on the “complicated” issue. It didn’t matter that I wouldn’t be speaking on behalf of the company or that I’d made other outside appearances offering views higher ups likely disagreed with. Something about this topic was special.

Finally, a few years back I tweeted a mild criticism of an Israeli official. It didn’t get any retweets, just a couple likes — hardly noteworthy. A few days later, I got a phone call from a higher up asking me to remove the tweet because someone had complained. They wouldn’t tell me who, or even if it came from within the company. They didn’t even seem to understand the alleged problem with the tweet. Regardless, they wanted it down. I was also asked to remove any mention of the company from my Twitter bio, which they claimed was standard procedure. Yet the timing made the real issue clear, especially given others in my position hadn’t been asked to do the same.

I’ve written about many “controversial” things over the years, and this is the only topic where I’ve faced this sort of interference. Others have dealt with more egregious experiences. I know from speaking with Arab journalists that many either avoid the subject, or have received so much hate when they do speak out — including either condemnation from higher ups or no support — that they don’t approach it again.

Yet when journalists refuse to shut up, the bias is enforced in different ways. I’m going to discuss a few now, to show how the bias thrives through individual journalists and editorial boards, corporate interference, journalism organizations and lobby groups, with the cumulative effect of a staunchly pro-Israel media landscape.

Personal and Editorial Views

The personal views of mid- to senior-level journalists can have a major impact on what gets published, in a few ways. One is that critical pitches on Israel/Palestine can be rejected regardless of quality, which, if done enough, tells journalists not to bother anymore. Another is stories in progress being killed, or edited beyond recognition, when the right people find out. Even just a couple of these individuals in the right positions can make a difference in upholding the bias.

The editorial pages of major newspapers in Canada are instructive in this regard. They aren’t representative of all journalists, but they do mark the publication’s official view. In 2018, I looked at the editorial stances the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post have taken on military conflicts between Israel and Palestinians. Below, I will quote heavily from the article.

In 2009, Israel launched a ground invasion into Gaza, killing more than 760 Palestinian civilians, including 345 minors. Israel violated international law, and used white phosphorus, a chemical smoke that burns people’s skin, in civilian areas.

Despite this, the Globe wrote that the invasion of Gaza, which they referred to as “Hamas’s ‘statelet,’” was “well justified,” with no mention of the destruction it caused. In a June 2010 editorial, they simply referred to the invasion as a “regrettable incident,” but claimed that the more important issue was turning Gaza into a territory that wouldn’t pose a threat to Israel.

In 2012, Israel rained missiles on Gaza, killing more than 100 Palestinians, including four children playing on a soccer field.

The Post published a pair of editorials in support of these strikes. They wrote, “Our view is that [prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu] waged this mini-war in exactly the right way,” and that, “Israel had no choice but to strike at Gaza.” They claimed Israel is a “civilized and humane nation” in contrast to Gaza, and argued Israel had been careful to limit rocket fire to “terrorists.” The Star applauded the bombardment, claiming Netanyahu couldn’t be “faulted” for his supposedly justified actions. No Palestinian civilian casualties were mentioned, and while they claimed that the “scope” of the airstrikes “raised a few eyebrows,” they concluded Netanyahu couldn’t seem soft on security in the upcoming elections.

In 2014, Israel launched its most destructive attack on Gaza yet. More than 1,460 Palestinian civilians were killed, compared to six Israeli civilians.

The Globe wrote, “It cannot be wrong for Israel to defend itself,” referring to this invasion as the “latest round of grass-mowing” in Gaza, where Israel supposedly “cut back the military capabilities of their enemies.” The Post described the conflict as a “fight between a Canadian ally and a vicious terrorist group,” failing to mention civilian casualties.

These are just a few examples, focusing on one aspect of the conflict, in just six years. The bias extends far beyond them. I chose to focus on military conflicts because they’re when the contradictions are most laid bare, and you see Canada’s major outlets cheering military efforts that result in mass civilian deaths.

Corporate Interference

While the views of journalists at the editorial level make a difference, upper-management and ownership can be more important, especially as the media becomes increasingly monopolized and centralized.

Before proceeding, it’s important to note that not all Jews are Zionists, most newspaper chains are not owned by Jewish people, not every owner of a paper interferes to the extent you’ll see, and when they do so, it is not always, or exclusively, on Israel, and often occurs on other issues as well. Support for Israel just so happens to be a uniting factor of a wide-range of right-wingers, from Hindutva extremists to American evangelicals. The idea that the media is owned by a secret Jewish cabal, as many anti-Semites believe, or some other Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque conspiracy theory, is wrong and should be opposed.

Owners of news chains do, however, have a record of using them to advocate for their own financial interests and ideological beliefs, including, in some cases, support for Israel. The CanWest news chain — whose properties now belong to Postmedia — offers an illuminating case study of the pro-Israel bias because of how openly and proudly it was carried out, with countless employees testifying to its existence.

CanWest Global Communications was founded in 1974 by Israel Asper, a Winnipeg lawyer and self-declared Zionist who proudly declared an “unshakeable commitment” to Israel, which he saw as a “symbol and teacher of excellence for all of humankind.”

In July 2000, CanWest announced its $3.2 billion purchase of media properties from Hollinger Inc., a media company established by National Post founder Conrad Black in 1985. According to a CBC article that month, the deal meant, “CanWest picks up 136 daily and weekly newspapers, including half of The National Post, 13 large big-city dailies, 85 trade publications and directories … [and] all of the Hollinger and Southam Internet properties.”

In an October 2002 speech to the Israel Bonds Gala, which the National Post published, Asper described his disgust with Canadian media for supposedly “destroying the world’s favourable disposition toward” Israel. Asper claimed this is because journalists, including his own, are “lazy, or sloppy, or stupid” or “biased, or anti-Semitic.” Asper concluded the speech by stating all Canadians should “stand tall … for the right of Israel to exist and to take whatever actions it needs to battle its savage attackers, and to demand that our media and our politicians act with honour in this quest.”

Asper’s newspaper chain had already become a battleground for this war, with many journalists being censured or fired for being anything less than completely supportive of Israel.

In September 2001, Michael Goldbloom, the publisher of then-CanWest property the Montreal Gazette, quit, citing differences with the company. The Globe and Mail reported that this was due in part to “senior editors at the paper [being] told in August to run a strongly worded, pro-Israel editorial on a Saturday op-ed page.”

In December 2001, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter at the Montreal Gazette, went on CBC’s “As It Happens” to discuss reporters pulling their byline from the publication after CanWest imposed a policy requiring all of its local papers to run editorials written by the chain’s editor-in-chief, Murdoch Davis. Marsden noted that this had resulted in a strong pro-Israel perspective.

Marsden told CBC that,

They do not want to see any criticism of Israel. We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East. We do not have that free-wheeling debate that there should be about all these issues.

We even had an incident where a fellow, a professor at … the University of Waterloo, wrote an op-ed piece for us in which he was criticizing the anti-terrorism law and criticizing elements of civil rights. Now that professor happens to be a Muslim and happens to have an Arab name. We got a call from headquarters demanding to know why we had printed this. Now this kind of questioning goes on all the time. 

CBC also interviewed Davis, asking him if a chain in the paper wanted to write an editorial regarding Israel that was “absolutely contrary to the editorial written from your office, would they be able to write that?” Davis said, “No. It is clearly the intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues of overarching national or international importance.”

In November 2001, Peggy Curran, a TV critic at the Montreal Gazette, wrote a column on a CBC documentary, In the Line of Fire, that criticized Israel for its treatment of Palestinian journalists. The column was initially held by editors, and it took Curran filing a union grievance, and then making a major change to the review, for it to be published. Curran quit her job soon thereafter in protest. In April 2002, Curran told the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that, “Usually criticism is criticism and you’re allowed to say what you want. I can’t think of another occasion when this has happened to me.” Curran added, “Whether you know it or not, you start censoring yourself.”

In January 2002, Doug Cuthand, a First Nations columnist for CanWest’s Regina Leader-Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, wrote a column sympathizing with Palestinians. According to a Toronto Star article published that month, Cuthand wrote that “their loss of land, placement in camps and control by a more powerful force, made them similar to Canada’s aboriginal peoples.” The article was killed by editors, the first time that had happened to Cuthand in 10 years of writing for the publications. Cuthand said that some in the newsroom told him the column was too anti-Israel for CanWest. He stated, “Of course I’m going to carry on and continue writing. But it will never be the same … I’ll always be looking over my shoulder.”

In August 2002, shortly after Halifax Daily News was sold by CanWest, columnist David Swick wrote about the pro-Israel bias under their ownership. Swick said, “Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, I wrote a few columns about that event. I was soon informed I was no longer allowed to write anything to do with the Middle East. The reason: I was not perceived to be adamantly pro-Israel. The Aspers are adamantly pro-Israel, and their papers must reflect this sentiment.”

Peter March, another Daily News columnist, said he was dropped from his position of 10 years because of a column he wrote criticizing Israel.

Describing this period, Charles Shannon, a copy editor at the Montreal Gazette, told the Nation in 2007 that, “One definite edict that came down was that there should be no criticism of Israel. And by that I mean not even a mild rapping of the wrist.”

This corporate-enforced bias wasn’t limited to editorials or opinion writing.

In 2006, the Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation of Canada released a study looking at the National Post’s depiction of Palestinians in 2004. According to a 2008 Georgia Straight article, the report found that the “National Post was 83.3 times more likely to report an Israeli child’s death than a Palestinian child’s death in its news articles’ headlines or first paragraphs” which “made it appear that Israeli kids were killed at a rate four times higher than Palestinian children during 2004 when, in fact, 22 Palestinian children were killed for every Israeli child that year.”

That same year, the chain’s bias became so blatant that Reuters asked CanWest to remove the names of their reporters from wire stories before using them, or not include any connection with Reuters at all. The request came after CanWest implemented a policy to use the word “terrorist” more liberally, for example swapping out “rebel” in Reuters articles with “terrorist.” CanWest was also forced to issue multiple corrections after doing the same thing with Associated Press copy, including calling six Palestinians killed by Israeli troops “terrorists” when the original referred to them as “fugitives.”

The examples go on, stretching from Asper’s Hollinger takeover to the period after his 2003 death when his children ran the chain.

In 2010, the chain was sold and became the Postmedia Network. And yet, much remained the same.

In 2008, CanWest had appointed Paul Godfrey, then on the company’s board of directors, to the position of National Post president and CEO. Godfrey was the one to assemble the ownership group that purchased the CanWest media properties, and then became the CEO and president of the new Postmedia Network, a position he remained in until 2019. He is still the company’s executive chairman.

Centralization of the chain has also remained an issue. In 2015, for example, Godfrey ordered every major Postmedia publication to write an endorsement of then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the upcoming election. (The endorsement claimed that Conservatives “kept Canada firmly on the right side of history in Ukraine, the Middle East and in North Africa.”) Moreover, according to a 2019 Canadaland article, “Postmedia has given a directive for all of its papers to shift to the political right, in an unprecedented, centralized fashion” that employees fear “will eradicate the local perspectives and political independence of some of Canada’s oldest and most important newspapers.”

While it may be tempting to write this off as the work of one newspaper chain, Postmedia is the largest in the country, controlling nearly 30 per cent of the Canadian newspaper market as of 2017. A maintenance of uncritical support for Israel as part of the paper’s continued rightward shift would be very dangerous.

Journalists scoff at the idea that higher ups tell them what to do, but the record proves it to often be true. To make matters worse, the sort of groups that used to call out corporate interference have become part of the problem.

Journalist Advocacy Groups

When the Asper family was pushing a pro-Israel line in their newspapers, journalism watch groups in Canada and abroad took notice and fought back. Now, however, some journalism groups have effectively worked to keep a pro-Israel bias in place.

A recent, and particularly galling, example came in April 2018 at the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), ostensibly a group that “defends and promotes free expression and access to information in Canada and internationally.” This incident, more than almost any other, was what damaged my faith in the profession.

On March 30, Palestinians took part in the first of a series of protests calling for the right of return to their land. Israel cracked down harshly. On the first day of protests, at least 17 Palestinians were killed, and more than 1,400 were injured, including 10 journalists.

On April 2, CJFE’s promotions and communications coordinator Kevin Metcalf put out a statement calling on the government to “condemn the one-sided use of military force against civilian demonstrators and media in Gaza.” Despite the organization’s mission of protecting journalists, examples of similar statements the CJFE put out directed at other countries and the clear violation of press freedom and international law by the Israelis, this statement was publicly condemned by a range of journalists.

On April 8, two days after Israel killed a Palestinian journalist wearing a blue PRESS vest, the statement was removed from the website. That same day, Metcalf wrote, “I have learned that in the last week, a half-dozen resignations have been tendered on the organization’s executive committee and Gala committee, including the resignation of the acting Executive Director and President of the Board.” He added, “CBC employees who were powerful contributing members of the Gala fundraising committee resigned after they or their handlers at CBC disapproved of the statement.”

Metcalf, who would be fired a week later, also wrote, “It is troubling that pressure exerted by public employees at the state broadcaster has lead [sic] to the censorship of a protest letter by an advocacy organization. It is my opinion that this illustrates an attempt by public employees to exert undue influence over a civil society group, ostensibly on behalf of a foreign government.”

One of the CBC employees that resigned from the CJFE, “As It Happens” host Carol Off, told another CBC journalist, “I think Israel’s excesses should be treated differently than those of Saudi Arabia. Israel has democratic institutions, a free press and a claim to transparency. Saudi Arabia does not. And so I think the language is different, as it would be for the United States.”

The CJFE also released a statement, noting that, “This recent event at CJFE has made it clear that the Board needs to review its governance processes, but most importantly, it needs to focus its efforts on its core mandate and on securing adequate funding to carry on its work. … We will take the next few months to review, refocus, and ensure CJFE is an organization that continues long into the future.” This statement, and other CJFE employees, made it clear the mass resignations and donation withdrawals effectively forced the organization to close its doors.

Over the next few months, Israel killed more than 180 Palestinians in these protests, wounding more than 9,200. This included two journalists killed and at least 39 injured by live ammunition. A United Nations Human Rights Council commission report on the protests found “reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot journalists intentionally, despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such.”

The pro-Israel bias has become so entrenched in Canadian media that a journalism advocacy organization couldn’t stomach mild criticism of a government that likely intentionally killed journalists.

Lobby Groups

When anything remotely critical of Israel manages to slip into publication, lobby groups take over. To be clear, lobby groups exist for all sorts of causes. Yet those working on behalf of Israel are particularly well-funded and effective, as outlined in Al Jazeera’s series on the lobby in the United Kingdom and the United States, which was censored at Israel’s behest and is only available because it leaked. Many of these groups exist in Canada, but I’m going to focus on one in particular because it has a sole purpose of working to ‘defend’ Israel in the media.

HonestReporting Canada (HRC), founded in 2003describes itself as an “independent grass-roots organization promoting fairness and accuracy in Canadian media coverage of Israel and the Middle East.” The groups’ Endorsements page includes glowing praise from a former Israeli ambassador to Canada, the former consul general of Israel in Montreal and former CanWest president and CEO, Leonard Asper, son of Israel Asper. The HRC’s website boasts of having more than 45,000 subscribers, and of having “prompted hundreds of apologies, retractions, and revisions from news outlets,” efforts which they claim are “changing the face of the media and reporting of Israel throughout the world.”

Essentially, the way the HRC functions is that employees and subscribers scan Canadian media for things they don’t like. Then, HRC staff work to get corrections, retractions, apologies or the chance to have favourable rebuttals published, by leaning on relationships with compliant journalists or using their email list to flood targets with complaints.

A 2004 incident involving the British Medical Journal (BMJ) provides an insightful example, although it focuses on another HonestReporting initiative, which the one in Canada has been described as being affiliated, but not directly linked, with.

In October 2004, the BMJ published an article by senior lecturer Derek Summerfield critiquing “what he saw as systematic violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the Israeli army in Gaza.” Then, as recounted in a 2009 BMJ article by Karl Sabbagh, the journal and its Arab editor were flooded with criticism, much of which, he claims, “resulted from a request from HonestReporting” for readers to send emails to the journal and its editor. More than 970 emails came in, including death threats against the editor, claims of bias because of his “mid-eastern name,” violent Islamophobia and praise for HonestReporting for attacking them.

Sabbagh writes these sort of campaigns focus on getting articles retracted and editors fired, unlike the “average heated but civilised debate one expects to find in a scientific or medical journal.” Crucially, Sabbagh also wrote that, “For that suppression to take place it has to be directed at people who are unfamiliar with the issues and who might be persuaded that they have somehow got it wrong. Reading through the emails sent to the BMJ, editors, and the people who manage and fund their publications, might well believe that a ghastly editorial mistake had been made. And creating that belief is, of course, the intention. If straying into the Israel-Palestinian conflict provokes such a large and hostile reaction, not to mention strident allegations that important details are wrong, then the temptation is quietly to avoid the topic in future.”

While this example deals with a medical journal, similar tactics are used for the media. As a 2002 post on the U.S. HonestReporting website quoting Jerusalem Post notes, “ readers sent up to 6,000 e-mails a day to CNN executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system.” As an editor, I’ve been the recipient of these sorts of emails before, although nowhere near the extent of the BMJ or CNN.

The HRC websitelists more than 75 Canadian publications they’ve successfully taken action against, providing details on each one. Some of the listed corrections are simple errors, such as a wrong date. However, many of their other “corrections,” or attempts to get them, are clearly examples of the HRC’s own bias.

For example, a June 5 “Media Alert” focuses on a tweet from Andray Domise reading, “Shout out to the Palestinian freedom fighters holding space in your hearts for Black folks in our shared struggle.” The HRC post states, “So much for objectify [sic] and political neutrality in Canadian media. HonestReporting Canada has alerted Macleans [sic] editors of this matter.” What crime is Domise, who writes opinion articles for Maclean’s, accused of here? Daring to express solidarity between Black people in North America and Palestinians?

Here is a recent successful example, at Radio-Canada. On April 24, they published an article by reporter Kamel Bouzeboudjen looking at how Israel has exacerbated the dangers Palestinians in Gaza face from COVID-19, featuring interviews with Gazans themselves. Four days later, the HRC sent a complaint to Radio-Canada Ombudsman Guy Gendron about the article, claiming it was “replete with errors.” Canadaland host Jesse Brown noted, “In fact, this list of ‘10 errors’ was not a list of 10 errors. It was a counterargument. Nine of the points were simply saying, ‘It’s not, in fact, Israel to blame. It’s Hamas.”

Despite this, on May 12, Gendron replied to HRC, letting them know that “we decided … to withdraw this article from our platforms,” and that, “Follow-up was done with Mr. Bouzeboudjen and the team to make them aware of this situation.” The article was then removed from the website, with a retraction notice published at another link.

As Brown pointed out, CBC and Radio-Canada’s editorial policies make this decision an incredible oddity. According to CBC/Radio-Canada’s “Journalistic Standards and Practices” on article deletion, “Our published content is a matter of public record. To change the content of previously published material alters that record. Altering the record could undermine our credibility and the public’s trust in our journalism. There can be exceptions to this position– where there are legal or personal safety considerations to the person named.” These exceptions clearly do not apply to this story.

In sum, the HRC was able to get Radio-Canada to violate their own standards to censor an article and scold an Arab reporter because he dared to speak to Gazans, who are rarely heard in the media. This is just one example, but there are hundreds of listed corrections on their website. As you can imagine, these add up to a restricted media, squashing much of the critical reporting on Israel that manages to evade other filters.

Most people see journalism as either having one, or both, of the following two functions: inform the public; comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

The pro-Israel bias has certainly prevented journalists from properly informing the public, as even by the most elementary “two sides to every story” thinking, coverage is insufficient. Readers who rely solely on corporate media for coverage of Israel and Palestine would have a completely warped understanding of the conflict, understanding it along the lines of Israeli propaganda rather than the truth. This is a failure.

Yet the unwillingness to address power imbalances through coverage is even worse. Israel is a settler-colonial state built on the murder and dispossession of Palestinians, who are now subjected to an apartheid system. Israel is in flagrant violation of international law at many levels. It is set to annex major chunks of the West Bank, effectively completing the destruction of Palestine. The media working to enforce a pro-Israel bias now is the equivalent of them defending South African apartheid.

Crucially, the Canadian government is one of Israel’s major supporters on the international level. This means that journalists are failing to do justice by the oppressed, but also effectively falling in line with their government’s foreign policy stance, leading to an abdication of responsibility internationally and at home. This coverage also plays a role in dissuading the public from working to hold Israel to account.

I hope that this article will prove useful in contextualizing the state of Canadian media coverage of the conflict, and will give you the tools to combat the bias when you see it. Although I’m speaking up about the bias now, I’ve been silenced by it before. That won’t happen again.


Canadian Journalists for Free Expression under attack

Canadian Jewish Federations Act as Israel Lobbyists

Canada’s Israel Lobby By Peyton Vaughan Lyon

Canada’s Israel lobby

Canadian doctor: Israeli soldiers shot me in both legs as I was treating injured protesters in Gaza

WATCH: CBC exposé “The Godfather” on Adelson’s influence on US & Canadian policies

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Campaigns, CanadaComments Off on Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-‘Israel’ Bias

Shoah’s pages