David Skrbina – The Occidental Observer May 1, 2025

My Dear Friends,

It’s a hard time to be a liberal.  I know, because I used to be one.  Or rather, I still am one, but a true liberal, unlike the many fake liberals out there.  Allow me to explain.

Long ago, as an idealistic college student, I valued my high moral principles, my faith in the vague notion of human equality, my trust in authorities, and my open-mindedness.  I believed that most people in positions of power were well-intentioned, if a bit misguided, and that political and economic situations ran into trouble mostly because of bad luck or the occasional bad actor.  I believed that people had to be judged as individuals, and that any assessment of entire groups constituted a sweeping generalization or a caricature that lacked merit.  I believed all people and all races could live together; I believed that we owed something to the less-fortunate of society, no matter who they were.  I believed that, by and large, the American system worked, and that the best would move up in society and prosper.  And I believed that most everyone shared these views.

But I later found out that I was wrong on nearly every count.  Years of hard thinking, research, discussion, personal experience, and observant daily life proved the deficiency of my former views; one by one, they eroded away.  I found out that group characteristics are real and objective, and that they are indicative of broad social trends, even if there exist many individual exceptions.  I saw systemic actions in academia, media, government, and business to promote certain values, to disparage other values, and to advance a certain worldview or mindset that benefited specific people.  I realized that corruption in social institutions was far deeper and more entrenched than I dared believe.  I came to see that religion—and specifically Christianity—was a malevolent force in society, one that again served to benefit a certain group of people at the expense of many others.  I came to understand that much of history was distorted, misrepresented, or outright falsified.  I thought I lived in a largely open-minded and liberal world, but I discovered, to my dismay, that I lived in a controlled and manipulated world.

The final straw, for me, was the realization that many people in positions of authority also knew about many of these things but that they either said nothing, covered them up, or actively participated in them.  In short, I realized that I had been lied to or otherwise deceived on a massive scale, for years, by people at virtually every level of society—people that I trusted and respected.

I don’t know about you, my liberal friends, but if there is one thing I hate in this world, it is being lied to by people in authority.  I can forgive ignorance and I can forgive naiveté, but willful deception is unforgiveable.  “You knew better,” I said (figuratively) to people in power; “You knew this was wrong, you knew what was going on, but you said nothing.”  Worse: “You sustained it, and you profited from it.”  This permanently destroyed my simple-minded liberalism.

Let me offer a few specifics, starting with the question of race.  I had virtually no contact with Blacks growing up, at least until late high school.  I vaguely considered this a good thing, given that my limited knowledge of Black culture was based on those living in our inner city, which was a decidedly unpleasant place to live.  But they had their sphere of life, we had ours, no big deal.  Then when I came to apply for college, I ran into the issue of affirmative action, which was just coming to a head at that time; racial quotas were ruled illegal, but race could still be used as a factor in college admissions.  I was admitted with no problem, but other classmates did not get in, and it is unclear how many lost places to otherwise less-qualified Blacks or other minorities.

The official justification for affirmative action in university admissions has always been “to remedy past and current discrimination”; but how does that relate to the less-qualified Black who got in?  Was it discrimination that caused him to be less-qualified in the first place?  And why penalize my 18-year-old friend who never discriminated against anyone?  Are the children paying for the sins of the fathers?  (How very Old-Testament!)

And was it really helping the less-qualified Blacks, to let them in, only to have them struggle and fail at disproportionately high rates?  According to recent data, 68% of Whites graduate within six years of university study, versus just 45% of Blacks.  Why is that?  Can it be “systemic racism”?

Be that as it may, affirmative action might be tolerable if there were an actual plan with actual objectives.  But there was not; there never is, with our liberal administrators.  If they had said, “Look, we need affirmative action to break the cycle of Black families without college degrees.  So, we need to do this for 20 years, to raise a full generation of degreed Blacks.  Then, everything will be even, and we can go back to normal, merit-based admissions.”  Had they said this, and provided some data supporting it, I might have gone along.  But of course they said no such thing.  Obviously—does any sane person think that after 20 years of preferential treatment, that Blacks would thereafter perform at levels equal to Whites?  Of course not!  Thirty years?  Fifty years?  Of course not.  The reality is that our liberal overseers want affirmative action forever.

This is an admission of failure.  It is an admission that Blacks are congenitally incapable of performing at levels equal to Whites, and that American Whites must pay for the “sins” of slavery forever.  In short, there is no solution to the “Black problem” in America.  Short of ridding ourselves of Blacks, we must pay the price forever.  Or such is the liberal state of affairs.

And then there was history.  I had always been a sort of World War Two buff, and was always fascinated by the German story, by Hitler’s life, and by the drama and grandeur of the entire event.  So it took me a while to realize that World War Two shows up a lot in popular discourse—in fact, far more than might reasonably be expected from an event that was several decades ago and was largely played out on other continents.  And of course, the coverage was so routinely slanted that, for a long time, I never really noticed it.  It took me years to ask myself very basic questions: Why is it that every aspect of Hitler’s Germany gets negative coverage?  Why is Hitler the universal measuring rod for evil?  Why is ‘Nazi’ synonymous with ‘bad’?  Why do we hear so much about the Holocaust?

At about the same time, as I was progressing in my “liberal” education, I started thinking more about the Jewish situation.  Growing up, I had never known any Jews—or at least, none that were public.  Once in college, I encountered a fair number of guys in the residence halls that were, shall we say, rude; they were known to us as “the guys from New York.”  They were loud, pushy, obnoxious. …  Oh well, I said to my liberal self, people are people.  Just stay out of their way.  And don’t make any plans to visit NYC!

Only late in my schooling did I realize that “the guys from New York” were all, to a man, Jewish, and that this fact might well be significant.  I then discovered that my campus was something like 15% Jewish—in a state that was maybe 1% Jewish.  Wait, how does that happen?  Then I realized that my university president was a Jew, that nearly half of the Board of Regents were Jews, and that a large chunk of my humanities professors were Jews—wait a minute, how does that work?  Common sense and basic liberal values dictate that if 1% of my state is Jewish, that roughly one out of a hundred of my fellow students and teachers should be Jews, that one out of a hundred college administrators should be Jews, and so on.  If that were not the case—as it clearly wasn’t, by a factor of 10 or more—then that could only be due to some “systemic racism” in favor of Jews.  Is that fair?  Could all those buildings named after wealthy Jewish donors have something to do with it?  No, never, I told my liberal self.

As I progressed into grad school, earned a PhD in philosophy, and became a lecturer at my alma mater, I became aware of the “BDS” movement—the campus efforts to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel over actions in the occupied territories.  Objectively, the case was clear: Israel was in violation of international law, flouted UN resolutions for decades, engaged in periodic episodes of abuse and torture of the Palestinians, inflicted collective punishment, and committed murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.  It was an open-and-shut case; of course, any thinking, ethical person would have to agree that Israel was in the wrong—criminally so—and that any moral institution would want to dissociate itself, at least, from such evil.  This was the bare minimum.

So why, then, was virtually all BDS action led by students?  Or so I wondered.  Aren’t faculty ethical as well?  Don’t they claim to be liberal also?  Didn’t many of them have personal histories with Vietnam War protests?  Why weren’t they active in BDS?  And the same with the administrators—the nominal “leaders” of the university.  Shouldn’t they be blazing the trail, pushing for BDS on all fronts?  Wouldn’t that be the best of all messages, from a liberal institution to its liberal student body: that we refuse to invest in, and profit from, cruelty and injustice?  Wouldn’t that be a real lesson for the students?

Oh, no!  The faculty—apart from myself and a literal handful of brave individuals—were invisible on the topic; “we don’t want to get political,” they said.  And the university administration was worse: they actively opposed BDS.  They began imputing ill motives to student and faculty leaders on BDS; they began rigidly enforcing “campus security” rules that no one had ever seen before; they worked to marginalize campus support; and they ensured that no word of publicity got out about any BDS actions.  (If there is one thing that universities hate, it’s bad publicity.)  When pressed for explanations for their resistance, administrators routinely spouted lines about how their investments are “not political” and how “donors give money for specific reasons” and therefore, somehow, the university could not divest from Israel—even though they did precisely that to South African apartheid years before.  And purely academic boycotts against Israeli scholars or institutions never got so much as a single word of support.

And this, my liberal friends, was 20 years ago!

It was also in spending time with our Arab students that I heard murmurings about the “so-called Holocaust.”  Whoa, what’s up with that?  I did a little digging and quickly realized how little I knew, and also how hard it was to find straight answers to apparently simple questions—questions that no one else apparently considered important.  Like:  When and how did they determine that 6 million Jews died?  Where were they killed?  By what means?  How did those infamous gas chambers work?  And where are the bodily remains today?  I was frankly shocked to learn how little clear information was available on this most-important historical event.  As I researched the topic, it quickly became obvious that much of the current story was wrong. The many false witnesses, the internal contradictions, the biased and coerced “confessions,” the technical impossibilities, and the practical absurdities—not to mention the striking fact that claims of “6 million suffering Jews” had been in the news for years, decades, before WW2; all this was highly damning for the conventional story, in my opinion.

As a now-waning liberal, I assumed that others would be curious about this as well.  But when I began to even mention this to my liberal friends, they said things like, “Well, that doesn’t matter,” or, “Everyone knows that the 6-million story is false.”  Really?  Everyone?  But we all just pretend like it’s true?  Why?  To placate whom?  And if it doesn’t matter, why is it thrust into our face so often?  Why are Holocaust books mandatory reading in our schools?  Why does every third film seem to have some reference to Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust?  Why is simply asking questions about it prohibited by law in 19 countries?  Why is that?  My liberal friends had no good answers.

A bit more digging on my part, and other troubling questions arose.  Why does the US pump $3 billion to $6 billion annually to Israel as “foreign aid”?  Why do we so often vote alone, or with a handful of client nations, with Israel in the UN?  Why do we provide them with diplomatic cover?  Why are so many of their enemies also our enemies?  Why are so many of our recent military engagements targeted against Israel’s enemies?

Thus I ran directly into the Israel Lobby—otherwise known as the Zionist Lobby or the Jewish Lobby.  I quickly realized that most of the major players in the Israel Lobby were Zionist Jews, that most American Jews were Zionists, and that there was near-unanimity that Jewish interests must be protected at home and Israeli interests protected abroad.  This unanimity is transferred to Congress, where, depending on the context, between 90% and 100% of Representatives and Senators regularly vote in favor of Jewish/Israeli interests.  This is not speculation; it is a matter of public record.

Why?  Money.  I soon learned that at least 25% of Republican money, and at least 50% of Democratic money, comes from Jewish sources.  This, to me, was truly astonishing.  According to Open Secrets, there are something like 13,800 lobbying organizations in Washington.  And yet, of all these, one group donates between 25% and 50% of all campaign funds.  Imagine if you were living off regular donations from 13,000 wealthy friends; and that one friend consistently gave you half of all your money each year, and that the other half was divided amongst the other 12,999 friends.  Which friend would be your best friend?  Who would you listen to the most?  Who would you most like to please?  No surprises there.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson from last year (20 June 2024), US representative Thomas Massie made some interesting statements about the leading component of the Jewish Lobby, AIPAC.  Every congressman, he said, has an “AIPAC minder” or “babysitter,” who watches over you, tracks what you do, and makes sure you do “the right thing.”  And if you don’t do “the right thing,” they will slander you in the press and they will fund a pro-Israel opponent in your next election.  No other lobby does anything close to this.  Perhaps you should watch this interview, my liberal friends—but no!  You absolutely hate Tucker Carlson!  Neither he nor his guests can possibly have anything of value to say!

We need to realize what this means.  It means we have one lobby that works on behalf of American Jews, who constitute perhaps 2% of the US population, and that their interests totally dominate everyone else’s interests:  seniors, students, other minorities, the needy, the disabled, environmentalists.  And I mean, totally dominate; unless your interests happen to align with American Jews, you have almost no chance of getting a fair hearing.  It also means that we have one American lobby that works, globally, on behalf of Israeli Jews, who constitute some 0.19% of the world’s population, to the detriment of the remaining 99.8% of humanity.  What’s up with that, my liberal friends?  Are you satisfied with that situation?  Is it fair?  Is it just?  No?  What are you doing about it?

Perhaps you have been a bit too bamboozled by our American, and Western, media—a media that uniformly operates on behalf of Jewish and Israeli interests. Do you doubt me?  Why are no anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish viewpoints or opinions allowed in any branch of mainstream media?  Why has that been true, for decades, at least?  Do you need proof?  Why are all five of the major American media conglomerates—ABC/Disney, Warner Discovery, NBC/Universal, Fox Corp, and Paramount—owned or operated by Jews or Zionists?  (Shall we check the names?  Oh, no, never that!)  Why are the top five Hollywood studios—Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, Paramount, and Warner Bros.—run by Jews or Zionists?  In a fair and just world, only 2% of these corporations would be Jewish-owned—which means, in all likelihood, none of them; but in fact, Jews own or manage all of them.  Why is that, my liberal friends?  Do you not care?  Do you not believe in fairness and justice?

My friends:  Let’s bring this up to the present day.  It is clear and beyond dispute that Jews in America, and in Europe, have a virtual monopoly on the press, on academia, and on our so-called democratic governments.  Any monopoly is dangerous, but a Jewish monopoly is deeply and profoundly dangerous, as the world can see in Gaza.  To date, officially over 50,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed.  Likely the actual numbers are double or triple that.  Some may have been armed fighters, but surely 95% were unarmed civilians.  And yet America, and the world, does nothing, says nothing.  Mass murder and genocide before our eyes, and…nothing.  Worse than nothing:  America supplies weapons and cash to the killers, and political cover in the UN, and the world does…nothing.

What are individual Jews doing?  Worse than nothing; they support the action.  According to surveys from last year, around 80% of American Jews and perhaps 90% of Israeli Jews support the ongoing war effort.  Yes, they want their (now) 59 hostages back, but they think nothing of the 50 or 100 Gazans killed every day, on average, over the course of the year-and-a-half slaughter.  “Cease fire for the hostages!” they scream; but they want neither true peace nor true justice.  If and when they get their hostages, then the ethnic slaughter will surely press ahead unimpeded.  It is Old Testament vengeance in the 21st century.

And what are you doing about all this, my liberal friends?  Wringing your hands?  Feeling badly?  Silently condemning it?  How is that working?

And what are you saying or doing to those who are taking serious, direct action against the Jewish monopoly that has a stranglehold on America and Europe?  Are you helping those people?  Praising them?  No!  You are condemning them!  You call them ‘evil,’ ‘Nazis,’ and ‘far-right extremists’!  You call them ‘haters,’ ‘bigots,’ and best of all, ‘White supremacists’!  Why, the Jewish Lobby couldn’t do a better job themselves if they tried!  And there you are, doing their job for them, attacking those who might expose the danger.  Why?  Are Jews threatening you?  Holding a gun to your head?  No?  Then why do you work so hard on their behalf—my “liberal” friends?

Here is how I see it:  The state of affairs in the world today is like a big sandbox.  And the powers-that-be need to contain your thinking and your outrage, and so they direct it away from the actual cause—themselves—and toward other things.  In this way, they confine you to half the sandbox.  The liberal, leftist Jews who donate to, and run, the Democratic Party, and who monopolize the mainstream media, want you to see the Republicans, or Trump, or conservatives, or White men, as the enemy.  They do everything in their power to demonize these groups.  One need only glance at CNN, or MSNBC, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, to see that this is true.  For their part, the ‘right wing’ media (Fox) and the Republicans are just as anxious to demonize the leftist Democrats; again, watch any episode of Fox’s evening commentary shows.

But strangely enough, both parties, who hate each other with such vehemence, are in agreement on just one special issue:  Jewish and Israeli interests, which they both bend over backward to serve.  Recall any presidential debate of the past few decades: all candidates and all parties are emphatic that they alone are the “true friends of Israel,” and that they alone can best tackle “the evil of anti-Semitism.”  And you, the viewer, are left with choosing between a left-leaning “friend of Israel” and a right-leaning “friend of Israel.”  Some choice, isn’t it?

In this way, they trap you in half the sandbox: You only see the enemy of their choosing: either “the right” or “the left.”  But never “the Jewish Lobby.”  That’s the half that you are missing.  In fact, you are not even allowed to know that that half exists.  Anyone who dares venture there is, by definition, a “far-right extremist” and “a hater”; and since both the left and the right agree on that, it seems like a unanimous decision.  Clever, isn’t it?

But the Gaza war is a true eye-opener, isn’t it, my liberal friends?  Your fellow liberals have been raised from birth to be hyper-sensitive to everyone’s needs, everyone’s concerns, everyone’s feelings.  Slavery was wrong (of course); colonialization was wrong (yes); and it is the Whites of the world who inflict “systemic racism” on all the people of color (wrong).  Every oppression of a “person of color,” every attack on a vulnerable minority, was seen as the gravest of social ills—until Palestine.  Then, everything changed.  There, the “people of color” are now terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers, or supporters of terrorism, and thus need to be shot, bombed, burned, and otherwise destroyed by the righteous Israeli Jews.  The 2.4 million people of Gaza are now to be held collectively responsible for the actions of a few resistance fighters.  They will be moved here, moved there, and finally removed, as the Israeli Jews complete their ethnic cleansing.  And they will do so with the support of 80% of American Jews and 90% of Israeli Jews.

And what if you should object to these state crimes, my liberal friends?  Oh, I’m sorry, you’re screwed.  Should you choose to join an encampment on your local campus, the university police will haul you off to jail, perhaps expel you from school, and perhaps get you fired—as happened to one young Arabic lady just last week, at my own esteemed alma mater.  Also, the local Hillel Jewish students will photograph you, identify you, and post your personal information online, just to make it harder for you to get a job, join a social group, or become active in any way.  And if you happen to be a foreign student, or a foreigner of any kind, you risk getting booked and deported—by our Jewish-friendly president Trump.  All for protesting a genocide!

So:  Where does this leave us, my liberal friends?  Or perhaps you no longer call yourselves ‘liberal’?  A wise move, my friends!  But are you now conservative?  Oh no, of course not—another wise move.  You are coming to learn that simplistic, dualistic, Manichean terms like ‘liberal,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘left,’ and ‘right,’ are now almost meaningless, so distorted has their meaning become.  Perhaps you are learning that the power structures of America and the West have such a notable Judean orientation that this fact alone becomes decisive in thinking about social dilemmas and social conflicts.  Perhaps you are learning that those “liberals” in academia and politics are really only liberal when it serves their interests; otherwise, they become positively authoritarian.  Perhaps you are learning that Israeli brutality in Gaza is not a consequence of one bad leader but rather a reflection of the mindset of an entire people.  Perhaps you are learning that ‘far right’ is a functional synonym for ‘opponent of the Jewish Lobby.’  And perhaps you are learning that many on the ‘far right’ are at least partially justified in their righteous indignation at the national and global state of affairs.

For my part, call me a true liberal: from the root word liber, ‘free.’  I prefer to live free, think free, speak free, and act free.  But I can’t do this in present-day America, or in present-day Europe, or else the Jewish-oriented powers-that-be will come down upon me with an Old Testament vengeance.  This is a fact.  Therefore, let us (1) openly state this fact, (2) openly state our objection to this fact, and (3) work to create a society and a world where this is not a fact.  What could be more important than that—my liberal friends?

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Michigan.  He is the author or editor of several books, including The Metaphysics of Technology (2015) and most recently, The Jesus Hoax (2^nd edition, 2024)

Source