The Hamilton 68 episode played out as a nearly shot-for-shot remake of the McCarthy affair, with one important difference

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023

For more than half a century, McCarthyism stood as a defining chapter in the worldview of American liberals, Jacob Siegel argues, a warning about the dangerous allure of blacklists, witch hunts, and demagogues:

Until 2017, that is, when another list of alleged Russian agents roiled the American press and political class. A new outfit called Hamilton 68 claimed to have discovered hundreds of Russian-affiliated accounts that had infiltrated Twitter to sow chaos and help Donald Trump win the election. Russia stood accused of hacking social media platforms, the new centers of power, and using them to covertly direct events inside the United States.

None of it was true. After reviewing Hamilton 68’s secret list, Twitter’s safety officer, Yoel Roth, privately admitted that his company was allowing “real people” to be “unilaterally labeled Russian stooges without evidence or recourse.”

The Hamilton 68 episode played out as a nearly shot-for-shot remake of the McCarthy affair, with one important difference: McCarthy faced some resistance from leading journalists as well as from the U.S. intelligence agencies and his fellow members of Congress. In our time, those same groups lined up to support the new secret lists and attack anyone who questioned them.

When proof emerged earlier this year that Hamilton 68 was a high-level hoax perpetrated against the American people, it was met with a great wall of silence in the national press. The disinterest was so profound, it suggested a matter of principle rather than convenience for the standard-bearers of American liberalism who had lost faith in the promise of freedom and embraced a new ideal.


At companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon, the upper management levels had always included veterans of the national security establishment. But with the new alliance between U.S. national security and social media, the former spooks and intelligence agency officials grew into a dominant bloc inside those companies; what had been a career ladder by which people stepped up from their government experience to reach private tech-sector jobs turned into an ouroboros that molded the two together. With the D.C.-Silicon Valley fusion, the federal bureaucracies could rely on informal social connections to push their agenda inside the tech companies.


  1. VXXC says:

    Politics is Power, continued….

  2. Wang Wei Lin says:

    The left believes any lie that is counter to any moral or religious tradition or evidence.

  3. Adar says:

    And this Roth probably too now at the forefront of the effort to ban “hate speech” or “misinformation”.

    Roth also probably considers himself to be an expert on what constitutes “hate” and “misinformation”.

  4. McChuck says:

    (((Yoel Roth)))
    Every. Single. Time.

  5. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    McCarthy ran into a problem for a simple reason; he seriously underestimated the extent to which the communists (little c) were already in charge of everything.

    (I’m partial to the theory that he was deliberately set up by the glow-n______s as a sacrificial ‘face’ to rightist sentiment in America, an easy target which could then be knocked down to collectively discredit opposition to whiggism, securing the dominion of the Wilsonian order in totality. They use this kind of play all the time.)

    The rhetoric of liberalism is always used in a one-way direction; when the gnostic is out of power, he insists on his ‘rights’ to constrain the power of others (his targets); and when he is in power, he makes sure not to make the same mistake of extending that same leniency to his potential rivals.

    He says ‘do not interfere with our organizing to increase in power’; and at the same rate makes sure to interfere with the ability of other men to organize; for power especially, but also for anything in general; because any group of men capable of working together has assabiyah, and can always threaten to turn into sovereignty.

  6. Jim says:

    And who were these “communists”, dear Pseud?

  7. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Men like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his buttbuddy Alger Hiss.

    What else is there to say? The judeo-bolsheviks were simply not capable of prevailing on their own without the whole-hearted support of bluetribe hwhites who saw them as fellow travelers. If someone can’t recognize Teddy’s runty cousin as a traitor to America then they are the same kind of traitor tbqhwyrnfam (to be quite honest with you right now family).

  8. Jim says:

    “Judæo-Bolsheviks employed White Anglo-Saxon Protestants as face for their pinko agenda, therefore White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are responsible for Judæo-Bolsheviks’ evildoings.”

    Oy, gevalt! Such victim-blaming!

    Did you also believe that Robert Mueller was running the “Mueller Investigation”?

  9. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    They aren’t ‘victims’, these aren’t innocent babes duped by superhuman shtetl dwelling ubermensch who are just so much more crafty than they are, they are evil scum, they are backbiters, defectors, gnostic solipsists, the kinds of evil scum that all peoples in all times and all places need to always be capable of Physically Removing if they wish to survive as a people.

    Noone gets anywhere in a white society without a group of white men standing behind them facilitating everything. Not even skypes are an exception to this, and they don’t get a pass any more than basketballs do either.

  10. Jim says:


    Are you insinuating that Jews aren’t capable of effective organization, that Jews aren’t competent to capably wield institutional power against their enemies, or that Jews aren’t white?

  11. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:


    With maybe a little bit of ‘no’ in the middle depending on how you define ‘competent to capably wield institutional power against their enemies’.

    All species of humanoids that develop more advanced forms of civilization are occasions that also generally see increasingly large subsets of that population given to leftish behaviors as a form of defection for contingent advantage in terms of social status at the expense of neighbors, the future, the potency of the larger social organisms they nominally inhere in.

    The unique quality of the modern khazar is in having a greater exacerbation of leftist phenotypicality than perhaps any other humanoid species in history. The genesis of this historical spandrel lies primarily in fact that, over the past millennia, ‘society’ for the wandering who was always something ‘ready made’, something that was always *someone else’s* problem; forms of being what would be incoherent with the providence of civilization were never especially selected against, while forms of being adaptive to parasitizing off of it were selected for. Any parts of the clade that would be even halfway eusocial or otherwise compatible with other populations of the broader societies they may have squatted in, long since also have sublimated into such larger populations, leaving only the most inveterately fractious, antisocial, irascible examples possible as the ones left to carry on the name ‘jew’.

    In other words, much of the same ‘selection dynamics’ that tend to see the proliferation of human-shaped cancers in old civilizations in general, were, by historical contingency, especially concentrated in such khazar demographic(s) in particular.

    They are defectors. An impulse to be subversive to others is an impulse to be subversive, tout court. A level of defectiveness on each other that is only slightly exceeded by defectiveness on other thedes – so much so that not even nominal racial enemies can match the levels of treachery they mete out on each other.

    The greatest threats a leftist will ever meet in its life, are its ‘fellow travelers’; noone in history has ever killed more communists, than other communists (facts which good Godly men may ought endeavor to change); noone has spent more resources on instigating globohomoism in Israel than Soros himself. They are always shitting where they eat.

    One may find him as a lawyer, but not a Law Man; he may be stockbroker, but not a Steward; he may be preacher, but not a Pastor.

    He may, in a more sophisticated example of the species, view the social organisms in which he is embedded as like a complexified mechanism, with many levers and pulleys which, if manipulated the right way, produce desirable outputs. But he does not possess a *proprietary instinct* towards this ‘mechanism’. He might view what it can do for him as good, but he does not view it *in of itself* as a good. He is not a mechanic for such a machine, for he lacks the will to do so. He is not an architect for such a machine, for he lacks the ability to do so.

  12. Jim says:

    Pseudo-Chrysostom…are you Jewish…?

  13. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    A khazar entryist will never criticise khazars in a way that is unflattering to khazars. That’s the irony of movies like ‘The Believer’; implying a heeb-centric theory of the world where everything in existence is captured by hebraism, including even opposition to hebraism. ‘Skypes are omnipotent masters of the universe and the modern world is bad because as the master race ruling over everyone they are simply consciously choosing to make it bad’ is of course a very flattering ‘criticism’ of skypes that many skypes themselves find quite copacetic. In reality of course they are basket-cases no good for anyone, including themselves.

  14. Jim says:

    That’s all very nice, but it dodges the question:

    Pseudo-Chrysostom, are you Jewish?

    (For this purpose, “Jewish” means one or more of: one-quarter or more ethnically Jewish, implicitly or explicitly affiliated with any overtly secular or religious Jewish organization, or now or previously a non-Jewish convert to any flavor of religious Judaism.)

Leave a Reply