Every good person 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 among 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.

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? Derek Kowalczyk 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.

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).

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.

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.

Keep an eye on Austria.