Hitlers Hiding In Austria’s Judiciary

Every good left-winger knows there are Hitlers everywhere. Little Hitlers and Big Hitlers. There’s a Hitler with the Republican Party presidential nomination in America. There’s a Hitler running Russia. Another Hitler in Syria. One Hitler in Britain just caused the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and we know he is a Hitler because as soon as he accomplished that, he resigned from his party, which is exactly what a Hitler would do. There are Hitlers under the bed and Hitlers in the closet.

There was a Hitler running wild in Austria, which makes sense because that’s where Hitler was born, and we know Austrians are white people bursting with unchecked privilege, but he was stopped just in time by an Austrian Bernie Sanders, which makes sense because Austria is a progressive, tolerant, 21st century society free of hate.

This week, it was tragically announced that the Hitlers were hiding in plain sight: right on the seats of the Constitutional Court of Austria, which ruled that the presidential election won by the Green Party candidate with a margin of 30,000 votes must be re-held in the fall due to irregularities.

Since the irregularities cropped up primarily amongst postal ballots that tipped the result from a solid majority for the far-right candidate Norbert Hofer – a result that was actually less overwhelming than the two major polls conducted immediately before the election – to a slim majority for the chain-smoking Green Party septuagenarian, it seems that the Hitlers on the small country’s supreme court just overturned the democratic mandate of illegal volunteer ANTIFA ballot counters and installed a Hitler of their own in power.

A second election without “irregularities” means voters will almost certainly return a far-right victory. Democracy in Austria may never recover from such a gross injustice.

I have written previously on my vague intuition that Austria is not quite a Western European state, but is not quite a Central or Eastern European state, either. It is somewhere in the middle. It has the tolerant, open-minded progressive set that runs society, just like in Germany, Britain, Sweden, and the United States, but it also has a consistently powerful far-right represented by the Freedom Party of Austria. Austria’s Right is several times larger than its counterparts in other Western countries and is substantially more right-wing in its platform.

Mere proximity to hate-wave radiation floating across the nearby borders of Hungary and Poland is not enough to explain the fact that Austria only behaves like Germany 50% of the time, despite sharing a language and culture, and behaves like Hungary or Poland the other 50% of the time, such as when casting votes to elect a president – though the process of vote counting appears to be derived from the Western progressive tradition. But there’s your 50/50!

In light of the decision by the Constitutional Court of Austria, I realized what the key to Austria’s semi-sovereignty may be that Austria’s judiciary, in particular its highest body, as well as probably other Austrian institutions, date to a time before there was an American military and intelligence presence on European soil.

Harvard, the CIA, and the State Department took over Western Europe from 1944 onwards in the wake of World War II and the looming menace of the Soviets in the East. The Constitutional Court of Austria that ruled in favor of the Freedom Party was founded in 1920, and was the direct successor to the older Imperial Law Court of Austria’s Habsburg monarchy. The Imperial Law Court dates to 1867. The same networks of Austrian judges, lawyers, jurists, and legal scholars almost certainly staffed both courts.

We can do an analysis and comparison of some courts in Europe and see if we notice anything about the people who staff them: where did they study? Where did they work? Who taught them? Who are their intellectual mentors? Who told them how the world works, what right and wrong are? I already did such an analysis of the important political figures of European and other countries, showing how a small triangular area in the Northeastern United States produces the presidents and prime ministers of virtually every “sovereign and independent” country on the planet, except for Russia and China.

Later, Nydwracu did a similar analysis of the sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices compared to Donald Trump’s nominee picks. Every single sitting Supreme Court Justice has attended Yale or Harvard, except for the most liberal one. Only one of Trump’s picks attended either. Trump might as well have declared war on Yale and Harvard, which may explain some of the establishment’s animosity towards him. Would the sitting Supreme Court or Trump’s court be more likely to contain enough hidden Hitlers to grant a re-election to another Hitler seeking the Presidency?

Let’s look at two other courts in Europe relevant to Austria that aren’t the Constitutional Court of Austria to get an idea of what the ideological legal landscape looks like.

First, there’s the European Court of Justice, the so-called Supreme Court of the EU. Of the 37 members listed on its site, six studied and/or taught in the United States. That’s 16%, including the president of the court. We count four Harvard degrees and a Harvard visiting scholar. Two Fulbright scholars. Several more studied at Cambridge or Oxford, and I would say nearly half studied outside of their country of origin. President of the Court Koen Lenaerts was a Fulbright scholar, and has an LLB from Harvard, as well as a Master of Public Administration from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government – the gold standard signifier for a true-blue USG man. The ECJ was established in 1952.

Then there’s the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, established in 1951. Of the 16 members of this court, five studied and/or taught in the United States. That’s 31% of the country’s Supreme Court. Do we notice Harvard JFK fingerprints here? Of course! JFK, Harvard Law, Yale, University of Michigan – a number of the usual suspects are implicated.

The Constitutional Court of Austria, in contrast, does not have a single sitting friend or alumnus of Harvard or Yale. Not one out of 14 members. The president of this court studied in Graz and Salzburg, not even making it to Vienna, the old cosmopolitan imperial capital. We note three instances of foreign influence: New York University, the College d’Europe in Belgium, and the University of Limerick in Ireland. A grand total of 7% who studied or taught in the United States, less than half of the ECJ and less than a quarter of Germany’s supreme court. The one infringement is NYU, not JFK or Yale Law, which might make the one infringement a Trump-tier heresy.

And since we all know Trump is Hitler, the case on Austria is closed: ruled by hidden Hitlers!

Harvard, Yale, and the rest of the usual suspects do such a good job of molding reality around their self-assured superiority that it can be easy to forget, even for dissidents, that there is nothing really special about the stuff taught at Yale or Harvard. It confers no particular objective advantage on the learner except insofar as he is ready to submit unquestioningly to the promulgated dogma and accepted hierarchy of the progressive religion and the Cathedral. In fact, I’m quite certain these schools do more to damage and twist their subjects’ understanding of the world than to enhance it.

Is it strange and objectionable that 31% of Germany’s supreme court spent time studying law in a foreign country on another continent in another language? Or that 16% of the “European” supreme court has done the same? Or that there is a direct correlation between your alma mater’s proximity to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor and the height of your position in the government and ruling class of your country?—no matter if you’re from Australia or Angola, Ukraine or Utah, Georgia in the Caucuses or Georgia in the South? (Russia and China exert an invisible force field that alters the laws of physics, making righteous Harvard brain magic useless in those places. The force field, rumors say, was invented by Hitler).

Not if you think the Ivy League has some kind of historically anomalous monopoly on the objectively best political, legal, economic, philosophical, and social thought. But if that’s the case, why are Russia and China putting so little effort into stealing Harvard’s insights into social justice and human rights? They sure put a lot of effort into stealing secrets from the nuclear engineering and computer science departments. Social thinkers from Boston, etc. go to Russia with the express purpose of transmitting their wisdom to the unenlightened Russians, and get forcibly removed by Russian law. Gee, just how dumb are these Russians and Chinese? Don’t they want to succeed in life?

The lack of Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government scholars on Austria’s supreme institutions means that Austria is basically taking a move out of the Russian playbook of sovereignty: don’t let the foreigners tell you what is right, and what is wrong, and how the world works, and should work.

Germany’s entire government apparatus was rebuilt under Allied military occupation and CIA-State Dept. oversight in the late 1940s and 1950s. Germany is not sovereign or independent. The European Union institutions were developed in a similar manner, but with more input and agency from semi-sovereign French and British elites. The European Union is less restrained than Germany itself is, but still not sovereign or independent. The institutions of Hungary and Poland were created either under fascist or Soviet occupation, depending on how the history shakes out. Russia’s current institutions were created by the Bolsheviks in 1917 or shortly before then, and updated bloodily and heavily away from internationalism and towards national sovereignty plus empire by Stalin and his successors.

Austria is not fully sovereign, nor even as sovereign as Hungary or Poland. Austria, however, is a lot more sovereign than Germany — about four times more so, if we can use the supreme court figures as a heuristic. It is a lot more sovereign than the EU, on average, and a lot more sovereign than Western Europe. This sovereignty emanates from Austrian government institutions like the Constitutional Court that were created prior to Allied military occupation and Harvard, CIA or State Dept. involvement. These institutions were created either during the Imperial Habsburg monarchy or during the Interwar Republic of Austria.

The funny thing about Austria’s Constitutional Court is that the very same institution that just ruled in favor of Norbert Hofer and the Freedom Party allowed Austrian fascists to take over the country in 1934, and then German national socialists to invade and do the same a few years later. It protested heavily according to its official English website, but as they say: the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

The lady is probably a Hitler too anyway. And if the Constitutional Court of Austria let fascists and Nazis take over Austria less than a century ago, why wouldn’t it do it again? There are no JFK alums to stop them.

ABD0055_20160623 - WIEN - …STERREICH: Gerhart Holzinger, PrŠsident des Verfassungsgerichtshofes (VfGH), am Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016, vor Beginn einer šffentlichen VfGH-Verhandlung zur BP-Wahl-Anfechtung der FP… in Wien. - FOTO: APA/HERBERT NEUBAUER

Which Volk, Hitlers?

Keep an eye on Austria.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Great article, am sharing.

  2. “Austria is not fully sovereign, nor even as sovereign as Hungary or Poland.” Sovereignty is not a gradient. You either possess it or not.

    1. Hadley Bishop July 7, 2016 at 12:19 pm

      Would you call it levels of ‘independence’ instead?

      1. Same issue. These places have merely not breached the point of claiming actual sovereignty. Once they do, Nato will be on them. Imagine if one of them denounced democracy for example, and not just liberal democracy, but democracy in toto? So the terms sovereignty and independence should be used with extreme care.

    2. Then how do we talk about the obvious and easily visible gradient?

      1. There is no gradient. You just note a number of behviours which don’t hit the international community’s threashold for military intervention. These nations are acting poorly, so the IC will be applying corrective behaviour. But none of them have stepped outside the IC bounds. If one of them goes full autarky, then we can talk about sovereignty.

        1. Yes, but why are they behaving poorly, and how poorly? The gradient is sovereignty, independence or very close to either of the two. Corrective behavior by the IC is not even a given at this point because coordination is so poor and degraded. Haphapzard correctives probably.

          1. Moldbug recomends Vattel’s definition : “every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state. Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other State. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it governs itself by its own authority and laws.”” there is no gradient here.

  3. Also, why not just come out an say it – the only way to “win” democracy is to take over the judicial branch and use it to boot load an executive. To take over the judicial branch would take electoral victory, unless the left (who already own it) just auto-coup and put an executive in full control.
    Either way – reaction wins. Just don’t do it on the basis of saving democracy.

    1. Because its not true. Austria did not “boot load” an executive.

  4. R. J. Moore II July 7, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    These parties are the European equivalent of 19th century Progressives, national democrats like Wilson’s ilk – hardly “far-right”, and only right at all by positioning.

  5. This is hysterical and the best thing you’ve written in awhile. It has been shared.

    You have to admire the weaponization of education utilized by Washington. It creates an incredible amount of bang for buck. It is a strategy NRx and those on the Outer Right need to serious consider mimicking. The problem for the Western Reactionary is that there are almost no institutions of higher learning that exist outside the halls of the Cathedral that teach within the Western Tradition, this needs to change. Without institutions to train future generations the Western Civilization is doomed.

    I would much rather send my kid off to study in Moscow or Bejing than subject them to the brutal ideological indoctrination they’d face at a US Ivy.

    1. What we really need to do is get some of our best and brightest to go to Harvard or Yale and get poli-sci degrees. Then become professors.

      Once an inside man becomes Dean of Harvard, the game’s up for the Cathedral.

      Alternatively, one of our men could sit on the Board of Trustees.

      We should get on that. It’s a long row to hoe, but it needs doing.

      1. The problem with this idea is that, unlike midcentury conservatives, Liberals will not tolerate heterodox views within their academies. Try doing this as a Reactionary Academic and see how quickly your career is 86’d.

        It would be extremely difficult to take it over from within.

        So in a strange way, I’d say you’d be better off destroying the Humanities in order to save them. Embrace online learning and STEM studies while attempting to defund/delegitimize the Cathedral academies. All while building your own to eventually take their place.

      2. This is such an obviously terrible idea that I’m fairly certain Rhetocrates is joking.

        1. Mark’s not quite right. It was an example of saying something so wrong that someone would have to leap in and correct me as an attempt to actually get the conversation going.

          Neoreaction is right about activism, but we frankly don’t have much time. In the perfect world we would play the long game, but instead we live in the Camp of the Saints.

          So what can we do about this oh-so-valuable and oh-so-effective machine the Left has built? How can we wreck it?

          There was an atheist Jew in Moldbug’s comment section whose solution to the whole thing was to defund higher education. It’s a good solution, if you can pull it off. Make all those Gender Studies professors actually work for a living and you’ll have a sane society in two decades.

          The only problem is, Harvard and Yale are effectively untouchable; their private endowments would allow them to spread the unqualified good of social progress regardless of the fiscal actions of the Department of Education, so what needs to be done, and what of it can we do?

          Here’s another fairly terrible idea to get the ball rolling: use one set of enemies against the other. Convince ISIS that their problems stem not from Rome and DC, but from Harvard and Yale. With bombs going off on the quads of their alma maters, our elites at least would finally sit up and take notice.

          1. Our plan is simple and working:

            Create a space free of ideological signalling, then put the elites in there and persuade enough of them that the NRx plan is a superior bargain for them than the Leftist singularity.

            If you want to join, e-mail me.

  6. [blockquote]Create a space free of ideological signalling, then put the elites in there and persuade enough of them that the NRx plan is a superior bargain for them than the Leftist singularity.[/blockquote]

    If you’re referring to the blogospiderweb, you got me, and if not…

    [blockquote]If you want to join[/blockquote]

    I do.

  7. I think Harvard and Yale were penetrated by the KGB somehow. Probably not by hard core bribery but by the soft sale. That is, the KGB probably had their best and brightest wine and dine and discuss polices and political philosophy with the best students from those places.

  8. All the KGB needed to do was to send over people that could argue convincing from Hegel and the whole long string of Leftist philosophers and talk to the most impressionable and brightest students from the 1970 and on. See the utube by Bezmenov. They did not need to convince all of America’s youth. All they need to do was to penetrate the top universities. And they had plenty of funding for this kind of operation. And there is no question they spent most of their funding on disinformation and most of that on the “Glavni protivnik,” the top enemy- the USA.

  9. I do not find Kant to be any less than Hegel and I think good arguments could be made. But the right is not as interested in power as the Left. The Right wants nice neighborhoods and to go to school and pay bills and go to church on Sundays.

    The Left wants pure unadulterated power. There is no contest when it comes to passion. The Left is foaming at the mouth. The Right is nice sedate old guys in country clubs.

    I should mention that I am on the side of traditional Judaic Christian Civilization and values. But I realize you have to argue for this from the side of Kant. You can’t simply argue from faith or even from the Rambam. You need to have a rigorous intellectual basis for faith.

Comments are closed.