Category Archives: It’s All About Jews

It’s All About Jews

Jews and the White Slave Trade

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured) via: National Vangard

First published in March 1996

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S pseudo-historical film about a 19th-century mutiny and massacre aboard a Spanish slave ship, Amistad, and the subsequent trial of the Black mutineers is being praised by the reviewers. Spielberg, one of the wealthiest and most successful of Hollywood’s Jewish film makers, also is being praised by his kinsmen in various so-called “human rights” organizations for using his propaganda skills to sensitize White, Gentile audiences to the horrors of slavery and make them feel just a little more guilty for treating non-Whites so badly in the past. What the film doesn’t mention, of course, is that Spielberg’s Jewish kinsmen owned many, though not all, of the ships involved in the 18th- and 19th-century Atlantic trade in Black slaves and, in fact, played a very prominent role in bringing Black slaves to America.

The film rather tends to steer one away from blaming anyone for slavery except White Gentiles. This bit of misdirection is interesting in light of the fact that Jews have been dominant in the slave trade since at least Roman times — especially the trade in White slaves. Jewish slave dealers followed Caesar’s armies everywhere — into Gaul, into Germany, and into other northern lands — eager to buy as slaves all of the captives of the Romans — especially the female captives. Jews have remained dominant in the White slave trade until the present day — although during the Middle Ages the Christian Church tried unsuccessfully a number of times to stop them, beginning in the fifth century with an edict by the emperor Theodosius II against Jews owning Christian slaves. After being banned from owning or dealing in slaves by one emperor, the Jews would wait until the next emperor came along, then they would buy a charter giving them a monopoly in the slave trade. Then public outrage against the Jews would grow until another emperor would ban their slave-dealing again. Most of the time, however, the Jews were the undisputed masters of the White slave trade, and that is still the case today.

Interestingly enough, this fact was revealed in a recent news report in the Jewish newspaper the New York Times, of all places. The January 11 issue has a major article titled “Contraband Women” and written by a Jewish reporter in Israel. The article deals specifically with the Jewish trade in Ukrainian and Russian women — although it doesn’t label the trade as “Jewish.” What the report does say is this, and I quote: “Centered in Moscow and the Ukrainian capital Kiev, the networks trafficking women run east to Japan and Thailand, where thousands of young Slavic women now work against their will as prostitutes, and west to the Adriatic coast and beyond. The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs based in Moscow.” What the reader must understand is that these crime gangs don’t have a real Russian in them. They are entirely Jewish, but the agreed-upon subterfuge used by the newspapers in this country is to refer to them as Russian rather than as Jewish. Thus one reads in various news organs about the recent takeover of organized crime in many areas of America — especially the East Coast and Los Angeles — by Russian gangs and of the viciousness and cleverness of these Russian gangsters, but there is never any mention of the fact that they are not Russians at all, but Jews from the former Soviet Union: Jews like Mr. Clinton’s supporter Vadim Rabinovich, photographed shaking hands with Clinton at a Miami fundraiser when he was illegally in the United States, as I mentioned in my broadcast of December 27.

The story of the exploitation of eastern Europe by the Jews is a fascinating and infuriating story. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern era they focused on profiting from the weaknesses and vices of the Gentile populations of Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and others among whom they lived as a barely tolerated minority. In addition to being the moneylenders, they controlled the liquor business and owned the drinking establishments, the gambling dens, and the brothels. A number of 19th-century Russian writers, among them Dostoievski and Gogol, have described their destructive effects on Slavic peasant society and the perpetual condition of mutual hostility which existed between the Jews and the Slavs.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries the Jewish trade in White slaves from these lands expanded enormously. It has been described by the Jewish historian Edward Bristow in his 1982 book Prostitution and Prejudice, published by Oxford University Press and Schocken Books in New York. Although Bristow’s book is written from the viewpoint of one opposed to this Jewish trade in women, it is nevertheless enormously revealing. The Jews recruited peasant girls in Polish and Russian villages, usually under false pretenses, and transported them to brothels in Turkey, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East; to Vienna, Budapest, and other major cities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and as far away as New York, New Orleans, and Buenos Aires. This Jewish trade in Slavic women naturally caused a great deal of hatred against the Jews by the Slavs, and this hatred broke out in pogroms and other popular actions against the Jews over and over again.

One would believe from the works of Mr. Spielberg and other Jewish propagandists that the hatred the Slavs bore against the Jews was based only on religious bigotry and that the Jews were completely innocent and inoffensive. One fascinating fact which Bristow’s book reveals is that the center of the Jewish trade in Polish girls was in a little town called Oswiecim. The German name for this town was Auschwitz.

I don’t mean to imply that the Jews were the only ones at fault in the White slave trade. Gentile politicians and police officials gladly accepted bribes from the Jews and in return allowed them to carry on their dirty business. And in the United States non-Jewish criminal elements such as the Mafia collaborated with the Jews or even ran their own White slave operations. But the trade in White slaves from eastern Europe has been an exclusively Jewish activity for the last 200 years.

It is ironic that another Jewish enterprise, organized Marxism, put a temporary crimp in the Jewish trade in Slavic women. When the Jewish Bolsheviks seized control of Russia and Ukraine after the First World War, and of Poland and other Slavic lands after the Second World War, they clamped down on all capitalist activity, including that of their Jewish brethren in the White slave business. What they did instead was establish a huge empire of slave-labor camps, of which Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written so eloquently. Jewish slave dealers became commissars and slave camp bosses. And of course, they butchered their Gentile opponents by the millions. The time of communism was the Jews’ time for getting rid of all of the Russian and Ukrainian patriots, who had hated them for so long.

Actually, some capitalist activity did survive throughout the communist years in the form of organized crime. Two excellent books on the subject were published in the United States, both written by Soviet Jews thoroughly familiar with organized crime in the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the authors, Yuri Brokhin, was a former member of a Jewish organized crime gang in Russia, where he worked as a pimp. His book, Hustling on Gorky Street, was published in 1975 by Dial Press. The other author, Konstantin Simis, was a Jewish defense lawyer for organized Jewish criminals. His book, USSR: The Corrupt Society, was published in 1982 by Simon and Schuster. Both of these Jewish authors write quite frankly about the Jewish domination of organized crime during the communist years. Brokhin brags about it, in fact. He says Russians and other Slavs can only be ordinary criminals, depending on guns and strong-arm tactics, but they aren’t smart enough for successful, large-scale organized crime; only Jews are smart enough for that. A factor neither author mentions which was more important than smartness was the connections Jewish criminals had with Jewish communists in the Soviet bureaucracy. When Abe, who ran a prostitution and drug racket in Moscow, could count on his cousin Hymie in the prosecutor’s office to keep him informed about police plans for raids, as well as a little covert assistance if matters ever came to court, he had a distinct advantage over his Russian competitors.

Eventually communism bled eastern Europe dry, and with the economies of the countries under their control on the verge of collapse the communists switched hats, declared themselves “democrats” instead of communists, and announced a return to capitalism. The Jewish slave dealers went back into business, and business was good for them. Other Jewish communists went into business too. As the economies were “privatized” — that is, as state-owned factories and businesses were sold to private entrepreneurs at bargain-basement prices — Jews used their connections with their now-“democratic” kinsmen in the bureaucracies to snap them up. Other Jews, who had monopolized organized crime during the Communist years, remained as organized crime bosses but greatly expanded the scope of their operations. Often, the new entrepreneurs and the new crime bosses are the same people.

The richest man in Russia today is Boris Berezovsky, who since the collapse of communism has become a multi-billionaire by buying up banks, television networks, and newspapers from the government, with the aid of his fellow Jews still in the bureaucracy. Berezovsky speeds around Moscow in a bulletproof vest and an armored limousine, and anyone who gets in the way of his business interests has a tendency to get shot or simply to disappear. Second only to Berezovsky in wealth is another Jewish media mogul, Vladimir Gusinsky. Between them, Berezovsky and Gusinsky control most of the mass media in Russia. They also exercise pretty thorough control of Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s alcoholic president, who is sort of a Slavic version of Bill Clinton, plus vodka. It was only through the support of Berezovsky’s and Gusinsky’s media that Yeltsin won his last election.

If you remember, Clinton and all of the Jewish media in the United States also were rooting enthusiastically for Yeltsin during that election. They all were afraid that a genuine Russian patriot might beat Yeltsin, in which case the Jewish control of Russia would have been finished.

After the election, Yeltsin appointed Berezovsky to Russia’s national security council, but when some of the few media in Russia which still are independent publicized Berezovsky’s connections to Jewish organized crime gangs, Yeltsin was forced to fire him. Yeltsin has made up for that, however, by appointing another Jew, Boris Nemtsov, to the position of deputy prime minister, one of the most powerful positions in the government. One thing Yeltsin never has done, however, is make any move to curtail the operations of Russia’s organized Jewish crime gangs, which are running rampant through the country and displaying their wealth and power, while ordinary Russians struggle to feed themselves and keep their homes warm this winter.

And tens of thousands of pretty but naive young Russian and Ukrainian women are being swept up by the Jewish gangs — called “Russian” gangs by the New York Times — and shipped off to a life of misery and degradation in Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, and Israel, as well as to countries in Western Europe, where Jews also control organized crime. The young women, unable to find work in Russia or Ukraine or Poland and facing a bleak future in countries ravaged by decades of communism, are eager for any chance at a better life. They respond to advertisements that offer them work abroad as receptionists or secretaries and also promise free training and transportation. When the girls arrive at their destinations, however, they find something quite different — but by then it is too late.

One of these girls, Irina, a 21-year-old, green-eyed Ukrainian blond, was interviewed in Israel. She told how her Israeli employer took her to a brothel soon after her arrival in Israel. He took her passport away from her, burned it before her eyes, and told her that she now was his property and must work in the brothel. When Irina refused, she was beaten and raped. Luckier than most of the Slavic women lured to Israel, Irina eventually was swept up in a police raid and sent to prison as an illegal alien. She was awaiting deportation, along with hundreds of other Russian and Ukrainian women, when she was interviewed. She lamented the fact that the Israeli who had raped her and forced her to work in the brothel was not even arrested. Indeed, according to Jewish law, the rape of a Gentile woman is not illegal. Nor is it illegal in Israel to buy and sell slaves, so long as the slaves are not Jewish. Amazingly, the New York Times article reveals this fact.

The White slave trade is big business in Israel. Ukrainian authorities estimate that as many as 40,000 Ukrainian women under the age of 30 are taken from Ukraine each year. Some of these women respond to advertisements promising employment abroad, like Irina did, and some are simply kidnapped and smuggled out of the country. Those who try to escape from their Jewish captors are treated brutally. Often they are butchered in front of other captive women to keep the others terrified into doing whatever they are told. At slave markets operated by the Jewish gangs in Italy young Slavic women are stripped, put on blocks, and auctioned off to brothel owners.

The most astounding thing about this whole, filthy business is that most people are forced to learn about it from a Jewish newspaper like the New York Times. And really, you should read for yourself the article to which I referred. It was in the January 11 issue, and the news is not likely to be repeated. But ask yourself, why doesn’t Interpol, the international police agency, do something to put a stop to this White slave trade? Why don’t the governments of the countries from which the women are being abducted do something? Why don’t the mass media raise a hue and cry? Why don’t powerful feminist organizations demand the eradication of White slavery?

And the answer to all of these questions is easy: they dare not do or say anything because it is a Jewish business. In places like Germany, where the Jews have almost total control of organized crime, anyone who announces that fact publicly will be arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred. Germany and most other European countries have laws against what they call “hate speech.” Saying anything negative about Jews, true or not, invokes these laws. Jewish organizations — and of course, the Clinton administration — would like very much to have similar laws in the United States. Interpol, which has plenty of other work to keep it busy, is not eager to be charged with “anti-Semitism” by going after the Jewish White-slave gangs. Even if Interpol did arrest the gangsters, it wouldn’t do much good, because the fix is in nearly everywhere. There’s a huge amount of money made from selling women: enough money to pay off politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and policemen.

Jews like to say about the so-called “Holocaust” of the Second World War, “Never again.” They like to talk about how it is necessary to stamp out anti-Semitism and pass laws against so-called “hate speech,” so that there can never be another “Holocaust.” But by their own behavior they guarantee that there will be.

While some Jews beat the drums for more reparations payments from Switzerland, Germany, France, and other countries they claim didn’t treat them right or took some of their ill-gotten gold from them 55 or 60 years ago, other Jews are still bleeding countries like Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic nations of money and of their young women. Countries which suffered for decades under the brutal rule of communist commissars are still being exploited by the same people, now calling themselves “democrats.”

The Jews believe that with their deathgrip on the mass media nearly everywhere, with their puppets — like Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin — in positions of power in the East and in the West, with the enormous wealth they have at their disposal, and with so many Gentiles buffaloed by “Holocaust” propaganda of the sort cranked out by Steven Spielberg and a hundred others, they can keep getting away with their exploitation of us forever. But they are wrong. They themselves are building up the hatred and the resentment and the rage which will destroy them all: the gang members, the media bosses, the “advisers” to Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, the professional “Holocaust” wailers, the former commissars, and all the rest, even those who are not currently involved in any of these activities. They are guaranteeing that there will be another “Holocaust.” And this time it will be a real one.

Thanks for being with me again today — and do find and read that article on the White slave trade in the January 11 New York Times.

AI says Israel is an “Apartheid State” – Silence.

by Tom Fowdy

Earlier this week, Amnesty International released a report branding Israel an “apartheid state” and accusing it of a “crime against humanity” in its treatment of Palestinians. Despite the gravity of these findings, and the report’s wide circulation on social media, the political and media response to it was, predictably, muted.

Indeed, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison dismissed the report, merely remarking that “no country is perfect,” while the US State Department openly attacked it in their daily press briefing.

The BBC, which has run regular coverage of human rights issues in China, and makes a point in astroturfing any report Amnesty publishes on Beijing – including publishing one article branding the Xinjiang region a “dystopian hellscape” – also conveniently omitted the Israel news from the front page of its website. It was criticised by some on social media for not featuring it on its flagship TV news programme (instead including a piece on the puzzle, Wordle).

In a nutshell, a country was accused of crimes against humanity in an extensive report, and the US and its allies simply ignored it. The same people making a lot of noise over the Chinese region of Xinjiang were somehow unavailable for comment.

Without wishing to address the specific merits of what Amnesty is claiming regarding Israel, there is a wider issue worth looking at here. And that is understanding how the comparative reactions to Israel- and China-related issues mark a firm demonstration of the way that the rhetoric of human rights is opportunistically and manipulatively weaponized in Western political and media discourse as a means to advance foreign policy objectives.

Quite simply, there is a noticeable and deliberate inconsistency in the level of attention and urgency given to certain issues, which shows how human rights are used as a stick to shape public opinion as opposed to being a genuine concern.

This is part of a process known as ‘manufacturing consent’, whereby atrocity-based propaganda is used to build emotional and political opposition to target countries for geopolitical reasons, but is never utilised sincerely and consistently. The reactions to Amnesty’s Israel report, relative to China’s treatment over Xinjiang, serve as an important case study in demonstrating this insincerity.

Western liberal ideology is able to manipulate so readily through the assumptions it peddles to its own populations concerning its own identity. In the West, nations consider themselves to possess an ultimate state of political enlightenment and that their values constitute an absolute political and moral truth. Within this context, these values and ‘liberal democracy’ can never be used in a bad faith, insincere, or opportunistic way.

This thinking is derived from the legacy of Christianity, where one side has the truth, and acts with pure intent, and the other does not. This shapes the Western view of the world as a binary clash between good and evil, and instils the belief that the West has a divine right to project its values onto others.

This viewpoint, however, negates the reality that people are at heart motivated by self-interest, and that it is characteristic of human social behaviour to use value sentiments to advance their own interests.

Human rights are undeniably important. However, it is wrong to assume that they exist on a higher plane than the material world we live in, and that all moralistic rhetoric is holistically distinct from people’s financial and political interests.

While Western politicians understand this, Western populations, generally, do not, which means many genuinely believe their governments espouse the rhetoric of human rights in a moralistic, benevolent mission to save other people.

It is for this reason that World War I and World War II have been popularly understood not as hegemonic struggles between conflicting empires, but righteous battles between good and evil fought purely out of altruism and for the sake of freedom. This explains why human rights are often used deceptively and selectively to drive an agenda.

The public see the relentless focus by the Western media on issues such as Xinjiang – with certain ‘experts’ regularly presented to provide commentary – and do not recognise that it is a deliberate manipulation campaign to incite hatred against China. Instead, they believe that it is an objective set of facts being presented to them by concerned, impartial media on an issue of moral alarm and importance, and there is no agenda but to help the people involved. In other words, the public are made to care about issues that the media want them to care about.

This is why Xinjiang has been relentlessly focused on by the Western media, with references to ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’, but similar accusations are not consistently applied in coverage elsewhere, because it is deliberatively selective. When the BBC, for one, runs a story concerning Israel, do you ever see a line to the effect of ‘Israel is accused of committing crimes against humanity’ or ‘there are concerns about human rights abuses in Israel’?

This moralistic sense of self-superiority and the selective discourse of ‘concern’ make it very difficult for one to argue against the narrative being presented, because in the Western mindset, what is deemed to be morally true is also considered to be empirically true. While the West is assumed to always act in good faith in making such accusations, the opposite is true of those who counter them. They are accused of acting in bad faith.

The West can opportunistically push a human rights issue to build support for a war, sanctions, or something else, and anyone who challenges this is deprived of their own agency. Hence, there can be no legitimate objections to coverage of Xinjiang, because anyone who flags inconsistencies or concerns ‘must be paid by the Communist Party of China’ or be a ‘state actor’. Hence the weaponization of human rights becomes an irrefutable dogma in which questioning the motivations behind it places you on par with those committing the crime itself.

The reactions to the latest Amnesty report have served as an important example in showing how human rights have become a political weapon. If you are an activist against China, such as the NBA’s Enes Kanter Freedom, you will be given a platform by Western mainstream media and maximum publicity. While he no doubt sincerely believes in his own cause, he is being weaponized as a tool of public manipulation. As another example, consider how Donald Trump, during the campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ against North Korea, began using defectors, as well as the parents of Otto Warmbier – who died after being held in captivity in the county – in his publicity campaign. But the moment his policy changed and he decided to negotiate with Kim Jong-un, these people disappeared and we have rarely heard from them since.

But if you are an activist against Israel, or are campaigning against reported Indian human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, or are opposing the brutal war in Yemen, you will probably find that the Western mainstream media ignores you.

It’s abundantly clear that it doesn’t matter how grave the crimes you are warning the world about are, what really matters is the politics. The highlighting of abuses in one part of the world that are ignored elsewhere should set the alarm bells ringing for any critical thinker.

The Truth About The Conflict With Russia

By Biblicism Institute

Excerpts – published in 2015

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” – Winston Churchill

The current conflict between the US and Russia is due to one simple reason: the Ashkenazim. They have a debt to settle with Russia.

Allow us to forward a bit of chronological tables as we delve into the nitty-gritty behind the conflict.

The Ashkenazim are the descendants of the Gentile (Goy) Ashkenaz, the Japhetite.

“The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Javan… The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.” Genesis 10:2,3

“By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.” Genesis 10:5

They are a resilient, roaming Turkic people. They have a knack for reinventing themselves. They first surfaced in world annals as the notoriously barbaric Scythians or Sakadeans, depending on regional phonetic.

“Here there is no Gentile or Judahite, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Colossians 3: 11

The word Scythian or Sakadean comes from the word Saka – with its Iranian verbal root Sak, meaning to roam.

The Scythians settled Central Eurasia which they conquered with their Gentile brother Togarmath and various other cousins, expanding across a vast track of land that encompassed but was not limited to parts of present-day Turkey and Iran. Their Gentile brother Riphath along with their uncle Javan’s descendants settled in Greece.

Later on, they reinvented themselves and settled a land they would call Khazaria – from the word Qasar, with its Turkic root Qaz, meaning to roam – following the break-up of the western Turkish Steppe Empire. Then the country converted en masse to Judaism/Pharisaism, sometime between 740 and 920 AD, just so they could remain independent of the two competing empires of that time, Christianity and Islam.

Judaism was the most actively proselytizing religion,” explained Jewish historian Shlomo Sand. “The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas.”

Khazaria

Then, Sviatoslav I of Kiev destroyed Khazaria around 1048 and absorbed it into Kievan Rus’, a territory that would later become part of the Russian Empire.

In Imperial Russia, [following the inclusion of Poland’s Pale of Settlement Jews – n.Ed.] the Ashkenazim were [continued to be – n.Ed.] kept under tight control and enclosed in the Pale of Settlement. Something the Ashkenazim never forgave Russia [and Poland – n.Ed.]

Khazar Jews 1878

Khazar Ashkenazi Jews 1878

Biding their time, they nurtured their hatred and plotted their revenge along with a new reinvention. They became the power behind the heinous Bolsheviks who took over the Russian government in the 1910s, killed 66 million Christians, [number disputed – n.Ed.] including 200,000 members of the Christian clergy, and destroyed 40,000 churches.

“You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians,” revealed famed Christian Russian writer Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. “They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

solzhenitsyn-with-putin

Solzhenitsyn with Putin

The great majority of these vicious Bolsheviks were Ashkenazi Jews such as Vladimir Lenin [disputed – n.Ed.] Leon Trosky, Lev Kamenev, Gregory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, etc.. They were financed by Ashkenazi bankers from New York and London, such as Rothschild Bank and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn and Loeb & Co., who themselves championed the […] ideology of the Ashkenazi Karl Marx.

Revenge Round 1. Done.

Khazaria Map

Khazaria overlapped Ukraine & Crimea

Today, Russia is under fire for the conflict in Ukraine. A conflict that was started by the neocon Ashkenazi Victoria Nuland in the US State Department, with her neocon Ashkenazi husband Robert Kagan working in the background via powerful organizations such as Project for a New American Century, the Brookings Institution, and Council on Foreign Relations. The Ashkenazi George Soros also contributed financially to the Ukrainian Maidan “Revolution.”

“Many of the participants in Kiev’s ‘EuroMaidan’ demonstrations were members of Soros-funded NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and foundations,” wrote William F. Jasper in The New American. “The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given ‘more than any other donor organization’ to ‘democratic transformation’ of Ukraine.”

In other words, the Ashkenazim or the Jewish neocons are goading the Russian bear by wagging the American dog. The dog can’t really decline because AIPAC has it by the groin, bribing equally both the Republicans (Trump included) and the Democrats, who are nothing but political whores willing to betray their country and risk the peace of the world. And remember, AIPAC is controlled by powerful Ashkenazi-American business leaders. See How the Ashkenazi Jews conquered the West.

Their sole purpose is to destroy Russia once again by starting a fire in its underbelly, Ukraine. A fire they’re planning to spread into Russia proper via economic and military warfare – not unlike what they did to Germany with the economic boycott of 1933 followed by all out military conflict. Why?

Because Russia has had the gall to rise from its still warm Ashkenazi-induced ashes. [Twice – n.Ed]. And because Russia has had the temerity to arrest their well placed thieving agents known as “oligarchs,” with some fleeing the country. And because Russia has had the audacity to impede the American war on Syria, which was orchestrated by AIPAC for the benefit of Israel.

Revenge Round 2. In progress.

After the destruction of Khazaria, a great number of Ashkenazim scattered East and West throughout Europe and reinvented themselves as Errant Jews or Wandering Jews – meaning Roaming (Khazarian/Sakadean or Scythian) Jews. That label had nothing to do with a longing for Palestine but a longing for Khazaria or perhaps a longing for a new land, any new land. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:

In 1903 Theodore Herzl presented the British Uganda Program at the Sixth Zionist Congress in Basel.

In the late 1930s, the British Zionist League considered a number of other places where a Jewish homeland could be established. The Kimberley region in Australia was considered until the Curtin government (in office: 1941–1945) rejected the possibility.

With the support of the then Premier of Tasmania, Robert Cosgrove (in office from 1939), Critchley Parker proposed a Jewish settlement at Port Davey, in south west Tasmania. Parker surveyed the area, but his death in 1942 put an end to the idea.

The Jewish Autonomous Oblast set up in the Russian Far East in 1934, represented a Soviet approach to providing a Jewish homeland.

Jewish Autonomous OblastBirobidzhan Main Square

In the wake of World War 2, a great number reluctantly assimilated themselves throughout the Americas. However, the great majority migrated to Palestine where they created many terrorist groups such as the Irgun, the Stern gang, and Haganah. They terrorized the Palestinian population, killed thousands upon thousands, and forced hundreds of thousands out of their homes and into neighboring Arab countries. Consequently, they stole Palestine and renamed it Israel in order to reinvent themselves as Hebrews and hoodwink gullible Christians in the West.

“It is certain that there is no ethnic or racial continuum between the Biblical Israelites and the (Ashkenazic) Khazarians who lead the Jewish state,” wrote Gilad Atzmon, Jewish writer and musician.

In their adoptive countries outside of Israel, including the US and Europe, the Ashkenazim have become financial and influential powerhouses, not because they’re Jews – at heart the majority of them are really not religious at all and couldn’t care less – but because they’re a shrewd people. They have learned much from their roaming throughout history, and they assimilate themselves fast and hard. They’re the ultimate Nomads.

Khazaria Map

Was this on Putin’s mind?

Now could it be that, after two successive ideological failures in the forms of Communism and the current slow-motion destruction of Zionism in Israel, somewhere deep inside the minds of die-hard Ashkenazi leaders lies a plan for a new reinvention?

Will that reinvention be the re-conquest of their Khazar Khaganate – a land that is situated deep inside Russia and encompasses Ukraine and Crimea? Is that why Putin suddenly reattached Crimea to Russia?

Could it be that the Ashkenazim’s plan is to take back and re-settle their ancient Khazaria after the Downfall of Apartheid Israel? Is it why the duly elected President of Ukraine was forcibly removed in order to install a puppet government of two subsequent Jewish presidents, Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky.

Will they be okay with just Ukraine?

Revenge Round 3? If so, prepare for World War 3.

How Anti-Semitic is Dracula?

by ANDREW JOYCE via Unz.com Excerpts

One of the clearer explorations of alleged anti-Jewish allegories in Bram Stoker’s Dracula can be found in the work of Sara Libby Robinson, especially her brief essay “Blood will tell: Antisemitism and vampires in British popular culture, 1875–1914.” While I don’t agree with all of Robinson’s conclusions, there are some interesting parallels and relationships in imagery, and I find it interesting in any case to explore Jewish paranoia and sensitivities (Robinson is based at Brandeis and almost certainly Jewish) to certain types of image (that of the gold-seeking dwarf being another that Jews are prone to focus on). For Robinson, Dracula is not like older vampire tales from Eastern Europe because it is fundamentally about a dangerous immigrant arriving in the British Isles:

At the time of publication in 1897, Count Dracula was only one in a long line of fictional vampires. However, Dracula differed from his earlier ancestors in some important ways. As described in Gordon Melton’s encyclopedia of vampires in myth, literature, and film, from Polidori’s Lord Ruthven in 1819, to Rymer’s Varney the Vampire in the 1840s, to Le Fanu’s Carmilla in 1872, whatever their menace, vampires had typically belonged to the social circles they preyed upon; no worse than a local, decadent aristocrat. Varney’s origins in particular are explicitly British. Count Dracula, on the other hand, does not belong to the society he threatens. He is an outsider, specifically an immigrant from Eastern Europe just when large numbers of Eastern European Jews were arriving on England’s shores. … The Jewish population [of Britain] more than doubled in the last quarter of the nineteenth century due to immigration from Eastern Europe. … [I]n taking jobs, money, food, and housing away from native Britons, Jews were not only viewed as competitors, but as parasites, metaphorical vampires who lived by draining away economic opportunities rather than blood.

Count Dracula himself is a kind of faux aristocrat—a member of a decaying race that can only survive by leeching on the vitality of new peoples. He is an elite of sorts, and has some of the trappings of wealth, but he remains fundamentally vile and befouls his surroundings wherever he goes, literally leaving a stench. For Robinson, Dracula is an amalgam of late twentieth-century British views of the Jews. On the one hand, Britons were confronted with an older generation of prominent Jewish oligarchs that had gradually intermarried with the British aristocracy. Like Dracula, these oligarchs sought to mimic their surroundings (Dracula is especially keen to mask his foreign accent, for example), but were essentially regarded as parasitic shape-shifters. In 1891, one newspaper, the Labor Leader, referred to the Rothschilds, a quintessential example of this Anglo-Jewish elite, as “leeches [that] have for years hung on with distended suckers to the body politic of Europe.” On the other hand, Britons were also confronted with a new generation of lower-class Jewish immigrants who brought with them the white slave trade,[8] grass-roots financial exploitation and criminality[9], mass-produced pornography[10] and moral degradation, and political terrorism (both Anarchist and Communist),[11] seen by many as literally befouling the areas they came to inhabit. Dracula, both fake aristocrat and stinking subversive, is argued by Robinson to have encapsulated both experiences.

An especially interesting argument advanced by Robinson, and which had escaped my attention when recently re-reading the novel, is Stoker’s portrayal of Dracula as having an obsession, or special relationship, with money. Robinson writes.

Count Dracula is a faithful embodiment of the caricature of Jews as greedy and parasitic, placing money above all else. Despite his supernatural abilities, Dracula is an essentially commercial character. His first action of the book (while still disguised as a coachman) is to mark the sites of buried treasure. His next is to go over deeds of purchase and other business matters with Harker, in Transylvania representing Dracula’s solicitors in Britain. While dining at Castle Dracula, Harker notes that “the table service is of gold,” an ostentatious show of wealth similar to those which Jewish bankers and nouveaux riches were accused. When Harker explores the castle, he finds a room filled with “a great heap of gold … of all kinds, Roman, and British, and Austrian, and Hungarian, and Greek[,] and Turkish.” Like the modern Jewish financier, Dracula does business and reaps profit from all over the world. The most significant scene, however, comes towards the end of the novel. In it, the heroes have cornered Dracula, and Harker lunges at him with a knife. Not stabbed, “The [knife’s] point just cut the cloth of [Dracula’s] coat, making a wide gap whence a bundle of bank-notes and a stream of gold fell out. … The next instant, with a sinuous dive he swept under Harker’s arm … , and, grasping a handful of the money from the floor, dashed across the room.” This demonstration of putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life shows that stereotypes regarding Jews and their money were alive and well in the late nineteenth century, and enacted in the fictional character of Dracula, making them seem truly monstrous.

Also interesting are Stoker’s (alleged) insinuations about Jewish loyalties. Robinson points out that Jews have often been accused of seeking after their own tribal interests rather than the interests of the nation they inhabit. She comments,

This nightmare certainly comes true with Stoker’s representation of Dracula as a symbol for supposed Jewish greed and self-interest. Dracula places his loyalty wherever it suits his convenience; speaking both German and English as easily as his native tongue. Dracula has the skills necessary to join forces with Germany, England’s chief rival, if he so wishes. In fact, when fleeing Britain, Dracula enlists the aid of a German Jew named Hildesheim, “a Hebrew of rather the Adelphi Theater type, with a nose like a sheep” who must naturally be bribed in order to aid Stoker’s heroes. Tellingly, the one overtly Jewish character in the novel is neither British nor on the side of the heroes, reinforcing the anti-Semitic charge that Jews cannot be counted upon to give help solely to aid the national interest, regardless of personal and pecuniary gain.

Like Dracula, Hildesheim’s financial transactions move across Europe, with the money leaving its country of origin, and globalizing capital. Stoker writes that Hildesheim “had been paid for his work by an English pound-note, which had been duly cashed for gold at the Danube International Bank.”

In terms of his physical attributes, Dracula has “a very strong … aquiline [nose], with [a] high bridge and peculiarly arched nostrils.” In Robinson’s view, Dracula’s nose is “labeled constantly throughout the book as hooked or ‘beaky’ [and] is [thus] simultaneously stereotypically Jewish and criminal.” Robinson connects the Count’s “bushy eyebrows, pointed ears, sharp teeth, and ugly fingers” as well as his nose to negative physical attributes commonly ascribed to Jews, as well as to the ideas of the Italian founder of criminal anthropology Cesare Lombroso which posited that the criminal face often bore a nose “like the beak of a bird of prey.”

It’s been pointed out that one of Stoker’s major source materials for Transylvania was Major E.C. Johnson’s travelogue On the Track of the Crescent, with some descriptions and incidents being reproduced so closely as to provoke accusations of plagiarism. Equally interesting, however, are some of Johnson’s descriptions of the physical characteristics of Jews he encountered in his travels, including the following:

Who can mistake them? The oval face; the ‘parroty’ beak, out of all proportion to the other features, the stooping gait and long flowing beard, the furtive glances from under shaggy eyebrows, now cringing, now vindictive. … [A]ll these show unmistakably the Hungarian branch of that race ‘against whom is every man’s hand,’ and who returns the compliment with compound interest.

In Dracula, Bram Stoker appears to have significantly increased the role of Christianity and Christian symbolism as methods of defeating vampires, another cause for Robinson to suspect anti-Semitic subtexts to the novel: “Christian iconography had not been emphasized in vampire fiction earlier in the century. Crucifixes and communion wafers, however, figure prominently in combating Dracula, at a time when a religious community that did not embrace Christianity—the Jews—was on the rise.”

While I find some of these links and allusions quite compelling, or at least entertaining to consider, Robinson stretches too far with her attempt to portray Stoker as a kind of proto-genocidal anti-Semitic eugenicist. The argument goes that Dracula’s opponents are scientifically-minded professionals (two doctors and a lawyer) who are determined to stop Dracula bringing about the degeneration of Britain through the breeding of “a new and ever-widening circle of semi-demons”—in Robinson’s view, a metaphor for miscegenation. From here, in my view, Robinson departs firmly into the deep recesses of Jewish paranoia in which all roads lead to a Spielbergian Auschwitz:

Stoker’s language is very suggestive. His heroes “sterilize” Dracula’s coffins of native soil with communion wafers in order to prevent him from finding refuge during the day. Next, they travel back to Transylvania to destroy Dracula’s castle, the source of the vampire infestation. They do to the Count what Social Darwinists advocated doing to hereditary criminals—sterilization through applied eugenics. All of the evil and danger suggested by fears about alien immigrants, as embodied by Dracula, are chased out of England and destroyed. In the words of one reviewer, Dracula is “exterminated.”

9/11 Was a Straussian Coup

by Laurent Guyénot via unz.com

 

With the Taliban back in charge in Afghanistan, methinks we will hear pretty soon about 9/11, the fabricated pretext for their overthrow twenty years ago. They have never been given a chance to defend themselves. When the time will come for a public statement, we might get a glimpse of Chinese officials in the background. They will point the finger at the U.S., who will react with intensified anti-Chinese propaganda. New developments are to be expected anyway. Here is my contribution for this hopeful twentieth anniversary.

The magic of 9/11

James Hepburn concluded his 1968 book Farewell America with those words: “President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared.”[1]

9/11 was also a stage trick of magicians—the same company, I believe. Not only did they make New York’s tallest skyscrapers vanish into a cloud of smoke with the magic word “Osama bin Laden”. They also made planes appear and then disappear. Not just UA93, swallowed by the earth, or AA77, vaporized into the Pentagon. I mean also UA175, which supposedly crashed into the South Tower (let’s leave aside AA11, whose single ghostly image was supernaturally captured by the twice Emmy-Awarded Naudet brothers).

Can a Boeing 767, essentially a hollow aluminum tube, cut through massive steel columns, wings and all, without even slowing down? If you haven’t seriously thought about it, here is a good place to start: https://911planeshoax.com/ . For my part, I was first convinced that no real plane were involved in 9/11 by Ace Baker’s 2012 film 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera (begin with chapter 6 at 2:27). I made the following 18-minute collation of the most telling extracts:

Richard Hall has studied all the videos of the plane crash into the South Tower, and also concluded that there was no plane crash. However, he has pointed to a shortcoming in Ace Baker’s theory: it cannot explain why, in the fifty-or-so videos showing UA175 crashing into the South Tower, the trajectory of the aircraft conforms to the official data provided by the National Transport Safety Board in its “Radar Data Impact Speed ​​Study” report. Something more than video compositing is involved. In 2012, Hall therefore proposed an alternative theory in this 23-minute video:

Just like the question of the technology used to bring down the towers, the question of the technology used to fake the planes is still not completely answered. Yet I think that, on the basis of what we know, the non-existence of flights AA11 and UA175 (including their passengers, of course) is a far more reasonable hypothesis than their existence.

The issue does matter, because the murder weapon is often the surest clue leading to the murderer. If there were no planes, we don’t need to waste energy searching for what kind of planes they were and who or what flew them. We just need to ask: Who controls what we see on television? And we know the answer to that question, don’t we?

I am not going to argue that 9/11 was essentially a Zionist coup. I assume that most Unz Review readers have already reached that conclusion. I refer those who haven’t to Christopher Bollyn’s work (his latest book is a good introduction) or to my own contribution, “9/11 was an Israeli Job”. What I want to do here is shed some light on the dark soul that plotted that incredibly daring operation.

We all understand that 9/11 was the brainchild of a conspiratorial network that included the crypto-Israelis who called themselves Neoconservatives—deceptively, for there is nothing “conservative” about them. What they wanted is trigger “World War IV” (they count the Cold War as WWIII, because it provided the context for the Six-Day War that doubled Israel’s size). “World War IV” was first proclaimed in November 20, 2001 by Neocon Eliot Cohen in an article for the Wall Street Journal. Then in February 2002 Norman Podhoretz wrote an article for Commentary titled “How to Win World War IV,” later expanded into the book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (2007). In 2004, the subject of a Washington conference by Eliot Cohen attended by Podhoretz and Wolfowitz was: “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight.”[2]

WWIV was definitely the purpose of 9/11. Behind their public image, the Neocons are a Cabal comparable to the “Parushim” that intrigued for WWI, with influential members like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941) and his patron Samuel Untermeyer (1858-1940). Sarah Schmidt, professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, documented that initiates into the Order of the Parushim had to declare themselves “soldiers in the army of Zion,” and swear: “I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation.”[3] After having reaped the Balfour Declaration from the blood and ashes of WWI, the same cabal pushed for WWII, with the same Zionist goal almost transparently announced on the front-page of the British Daily Express, March 24, 1933: “Judea Declares War on Germany” (Judea was one of the names envisioned for their new State). After WWII, they made every effort to blow on the embers of the Cold War in the Middle East, and assassinated Kennedy who wanted to end it.

From “Strauss Truth” to “9/11 Truth”

As Seymour Hersh pointed out in The New Yorker, May 12, 2003, the core members of the Neocons are former students of Leo Strauss or students of his students (the New York Times renamed them “Leo-Cons”). So there is a good chance that knowing about Strauss’s thinking can help us make sense of 9/11. And there is as much deception in what is being said about Strauss as there is about 9/11.

Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a German Jewish scholar who moved to New York in 1937, and taught political science at the University of Chicago from 1949 to 1969. There are diverging interpretations of his political philosophy: in Leo Strauss: Man of Peace (Cambridge UP, 2014), Robert Howse claims that the Neocons are poor students of Strauss, and that they misread their own warlike fantasies between Strauss’s lines. Catherine and Michael Zuckert, two students of Strauss, make him a passionate lover of American Democracy in The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2008). The titles of these two books somehow remind me of Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter’s autobiography, Passion for Truth. There is as much chance to find “the truth about Leo Strauss” in a book written by Chicago Straussians as there is to find “the truth about 9/11” in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Another of Strauss’s apologists, Benjamin Wurgaft, has absolved Strauss from the Neocons’ disastrous legacy by claiming that “the Strauss we know from his writings cautioned against applying political philosophy directly to public policy. . . . Real thinkers, thought Strauss, should avoid that world and its tendency to compromise the quest for philosophical truth.”[4] That is laughable: what kind of political philosopher would discourage his students from engaging in politics? Even if Strauss did, it is obvious that his disciples thought he didn’t, and what concerns us here is what the Straussians learned from Strauss.

If Strauss is not a peace-loving Jew, he must necessarily be a warmongering Nazi. That’s how William Altman, another Jewish author, portrays him in The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism (Lexington, 2012). This is the equivalent of John Hankey’s effort to blame JFK’s assassination on the Nazis in his cartoon film Dark Legacy (2009).

I have read only bits of these books. My understanding of Strauss owes more to Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999) by Shadia Drury, whose arguments are conveniently summarized in her online interview by Danny Postel. I found Drury’s analysis to be a good starting point (I haven’t read her earlier book, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, which seems to have little more to offer), but, with only one entry for “Israel” in her index, it suffers from a huge blind spot, already evident from its title and its cover. I turned to reading some of Strauss’s key works in the hope of learning what Drury conceals. I have, with great difficulty, gone through half a dozen of Strauss’s books. My general conclusion is that Strauss is a super-Machiavellian pan-Zionist, something that no scholar, not even Drury, would dare say, but which goes a long a way towards explaining 9/11. This is what I wish to illustrate here.

Strauss and the Noble Lie

What Drury correctly grasped, I think, it the secretive and elitist nature of Strauss’s teaching. In print, Strauss expressed his most controversial views only cryptically by attributing them to past philosophers—often incorrectly, according to his detractors. He shared openly his true philosophy only orally with his close students, who happened to be exclusively Jewish (as Drury fails to remark). He took model on Moses Maimonides, whose “secrets”, he wrote, “may only be explained in private and only to such individuals as possess both theoretical and political wisdom as well as the capacity of both understanding and using allusive speech.”[5] In What is Political Philosophy? (1959), Strauss explains that philosophy or science seek “knowledge”, and therefore “endangers society,” whose element is “opinion”. “Hence philosophy or science must remain the preserve of a small minority”.

Philosophers or scientists who hold this view about the relationship of philosophy or science and society are driven to employ a peculiar manner of writing which would enable to reveal what they regard as the truth to the few, without endangering the unqualified commitment of the many to the opinions on which society rests. They will distinguish between the true teachings as the esoteric teaching and the socially useful teaching as the exoteric teaching; whereas the exoteric teaching is meant to be easily accessible to every reader, the esoteric teaching discloses itself only to the very careful and well-trained readers after long and concentrated study.[6]

In Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss emphasizes the need for the wise to conceal their views, in order to protect the masses from the ugliness of the truth (yes, Straussian truth is ugly), and to protect themselves from reprisals.

Strauss’s “secret elitism” might arguably be a good thing if the elites he had in mind were really the “wise men”. Strauss probably thought so, but he also thought, obviously, that only Jews need apply, because the circle of his disciples was exclusively Jewish. He probably felt, like Samuel Untermeyer in 1933, that “the Jews are the aristocrats of the world.”

In several books on Plato, Strauss misused Plato’s concept of the “noble lie” (The Republic) to endorse the use of mass deception in politics. “There is no doubt,” Shadia Drury said, “that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers).” Quoting from Strauss’s The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws, Drury says that, “the real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise.[7] As Strauss’s student Abram Shulsky wrote in “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence” (1999), for Strauss, “deception is the norm in political life”[8]—a rule that Shulsky applied as director of the Office of Special Plans, responsible for fabricating false intelligence on Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”.

Strauss’s insistence on the necessity for ruling elites to use lies and myths in order to control the masses is a lesson well learned by the Neocons. It is under Strauss’s inspiration that Philip Zelikow, before being appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, specialized in the art of crafting “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene” (his own words, as quoted in Wikipedia). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already blamed on bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb:

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.[9]

In Drury’s words, “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”[10] This provided the justification for the Neocons’ invention of the “Clash of Civilizations” to replace the Cold War.

Strauss viewed nations as shaped entirely by their “regimes”, and is at the origin of the Neocons’ obsession with “regime change,” seen as a way to transform a nation into a totally different one—peoples being little more than shapeless lumps of clay. According to the Straussians Catherine and Michael Zuckert (read here), “the greatest threat comes from states that do not share American democratic values. Changing these regimes and causing the progress of democratic values constitutes [in the words of Irving Kristol] ‘the best method of reinforcing security (of the United States) and peace’ Thus, it is alleged, Straussians endorse a Wilsonian agenda of an active, even militant foreign policy aimed at ‘regime change’ and, in principle, universal implantation of liberal democracies throughout the world.” That is, of course, the exoteric Straussian sermon for American mass consumption. Even the Zuckerts have to concede: “One of the very difficult questions thrown up by the composite view of Strauss we have just summarized concerns the relation between the Wilsonian idealist side and the Machiavellian realist side. There is, to say the least, a tension between the two.”[11]

Strauss marveled at the power of television and cinema for shaping mass public opinion and emotion. He was an amateur critic of “Western” movies, a genre he regarded as a successful case of national mythic construction based on a clear-cut distinction between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (them). According to his pupil Stanley Rosen (speaking in Adam Curtis’s BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, first episode at 8:49), Strauss’s favorite television show was the long-running Western Gunsmoke. This show “had a salutary effect on the American public, because it showed the conflict between good and evil in a way that would be immediately intelligible to everyone.” It is no coincidence that in 1980, the Neoconservatives bet all their chips on Hollywood Western actor Ronald Reagan, a man who once summarized his political vision in these terms: “The difference between right and wrong seems as clear as the white hats that the cowboys in Hollywood Western always wore so you’d know right from the beginning who was the good guy.”[12]

Strauss was well aware, like Neal Gabler, that Hollywood culture in general was the creation of Jewish émigrés from Eastern Europe[13]. In the documentary Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream (1998), Gabler says that, “the grand irony of all of Hollywood is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America that was created by Eastern European Jewish immigrants.”

The Double-Decker Lie to Jerusalem

Strauss’s attachment to Judaism is probably the most esoteric part of his teaching, in the sense that it is the least public. Even Drury remains very elusive about it: she sticks to the fiction that the Neocons are American right-wing imperialists. She takes Irving Kristol’s self-professed American “nationalism” at face value, and she ignores that some of the redactors or close associates of the Project for a New American Century also wrote secret reports to Benjamin Netanyahu recommending an aggressive policy of territorial expansion.[14]

Drury quotes Harry Jaffa, one of Strauss’s first Ph.D. students, as saying that “America is the Zion that will light up all the world.”[15] She definitely misses the irony and the cryptic meaning: America will set the world on fire for Zion. That is what the Neocons have really been up to.

Here we have an illustration of the two-storied lie, a technique familiar to those that Schopenhauer called “the Great Masters of the Lie” (as quoted by his most famous Austrian disciple). Having lifted the veil of the Straussians’ “exoteric” lie (the myth of America versus Evil), Drury is convinced that she sees their “esoteric” truth (America needs the myth), when in fact it is just a more sophisticated lie. The truth is still one level under.

With his BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis is another example of an intellectual who barely scratches the thin surface of Neocon propaganda, and believes the thick layer of lies under it. Curtis believes that, during the Cold War, Strauss and the Straussians wanted to provide Americans with a mythic evil enemy, as a way “to rescue the country from moral decay, . . . to re-engage the public in a grand vision of America’s destiny, that would give meaning and purpose to their lives.” Of course, Curtis then has to explain why, under this lofty patriotic rationale, the Neocons drew the United States into illegitimate wars causing irremediable damage to the nation. Curtis couldn’t convince himself that the Neocons start world wars just to lift up Americans’ spirit. So he speculates instead that the Neocons are so stupid that they fell for their own lies: “what had started out as the kind of myth that Leo Strauss had said was necessary for the American people increasingly came to be seen as the truth by the neoconservatives. They began to believe their own fiction” (episode 1). And again in episode 2: “in the 1970s . . . Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives had set out to reassert the myth of America as a unique country, whose destiny was to struggle against evil throughout the world. Now in power, they had come to believe this myth. They saw themselves as revolutionaries who were going to transform the world, starting with the defeat of the Evil Empire.”[16]

The Neocons are so self-delusional, according to Curtis, that they were deceived by their own lie a second time, ending up believing in the phony “War on Terror” that they had made up initially for the sole purpose of keeping the American morale high after the fall of the USSR. They had decided to create the fantasy of “a powerful network of evil, controlled from the center by bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan . . . because it fitted with their vision of America’s unique destiny to fight an epic battle against the forces of evil throughout the world.” But again, according to Curtis, the Neocons started believing their own lie, which led them to innocently destroy the Middle East and American democracy in the process: “the neoconservatives were now increasingly locked into this fantasy, and next they set out to uncover the network in America itself.”

I wonder if Curtis himself believes what he is saying, or just pretends to. Whatever the case, it shows the efficiency of the two-storied lie. It is a dialectical strategy: the first-level liars must be able to count on the second-level liars and their useful idiots—the controlled opposition—to cover them while pretending to expose them. For example, Israel-firsters need a Chomsky to shield them from the accusation of treason and tell Americans with half-a-brain that, whatever bad Israel does, she does it because America makes her do it (“The Fateful Triangle” theory).

In the case of 9/11, Israel is hiding behind two false flags: under the first-level lie—“Al-Qaeda did it”—was planted the second-level lie (or half-lie)—“America did it”—, as the late and blessed Victor Thorn explained in 2011:

In essence, the “9-11 truth movement” was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, “truthers” began appearing at rallies holding placards that read “9-11 was an inside job.” Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan “9-11 was an inside job” was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised.”

The basic rule of all those tricks can be formulated like this: lie big to the masses, but have a smaller lie ready for the thinking few. The reason the big lie works best for the masses, by the way, was explained in 1925 by a famous Austrian anti-Semite:

In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they [the great masses] will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick. This is a fact that all the great liars and liars’ societies in this world know only too well and use regularly.

Strauss’s Jewish Supremacism

The Straussian deception must be understood as two-storied. Whoever thinks the Straussians’ exoteric fantasies are motivated by some form of concern for America (her values, her empire, etc.) is victim of their esoteric lies. The key for understanding the essence of Straussianism is the word that Curtis never pronounces in his three-hour documentary on the Straussians: Israel.

To get some insight into Strauss’s Zionism, we must turn to a primary source (that Drury, to her credit, mentions): his 1962 lecture at the Hillel Foundation, “Why We Remain Jews”, one of his recorded oral communications made accessible to the public in the 1990s.[17] Strauss begins his lecture by stating that, for once, “I will not beat around the bush in any respect.” Then he reveals that, “since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish question,’” which will come as a surprise to many. His main message to his American Jewish audience is: “return to the Jewish faith, return to the faith of our ancestors.”

Drury considers Strauss’s defense of the “Jewish faith” as a form of deception or hypocrisy, since Strauss is an avowed atheist and openly calls Judaism a “heroic delusion” and “a dream” (such as “no nobler dream was ever dreamt”). But the accusation is unfair, I think, because it neglects Strauss’s qualifications of “faith” and “dream”. First, Strauss clarifies that, by “faith”, he means not necessarily “belief”, but “fidelity, loyalty, piety in the old Latin sense of the word pietas.” Secondly, immediately after calling Judaism a “dream”, Strauss adds that, “dream is akin to aspiration. And aspiration is a kind of divination of an enigmatic vision.” Although he doesn’t elaborate, it is clear enough: to Strauss, Jewishness is not God-chosenness, but self-chosenness. This is a very common view among Jewish intellectuals, akin to the Kabbalistic notion that Yahweh is like the collective soul of the Jewish people. In an “Essay on the Jewish Soul” (1929), for instance, Isaac Kadmi-Cohen writes that, “divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[18] That is why Jews can be non-believers in God yet believers in Yahweh’s promise. When Drury criticizes Strauss for being “interested only in the political advantages of religion,”[19] she should know that it is not necessarily a betrayal of Jewish tradition. The notion that prophecy has a “political mission” (Strauss, Philosophy and Law) is self-evident to many secular Zionists.

The central passage in Strauss’s lecture “Why we remain Jews” is a long quotation of Nietzsche’s Dawn of Day aphorism 205, in which Nietzsche predicts that the Jews will become “the lords of Europe”. After eighteen centuries of training in Europe, says Nietzsche, “the psychic and spiritual resources of today’s Jews are extraordinary.” Among other strengths, “they have understood how to create a feeling of power and eternal vengeance out of the very trades that were left to them.” Because of this, says Nietzsche (as quoted by Strauss):

at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes. Then they will be called the inventors and guides of the Europeans.

Strauss notes that “Europe” should now be replaced by “the West” in Nietzsche’s aphorism, and comments that it is “the most profound and radical statement on assimilation that I have read.” It may well be, in fact, the key to the Straussian agenda. Assimilation as dissimulation and as a long-term strategy for Jewish supremacism is the only assimilation that Strauss approves of.

In this same lecture, Strauss criticizes political Zionism as belonging to the wrong kind of assimilation, since it sought to create a nation like others. If Israel became a nation like others, Jewish identity would perish, because Jewish identity is based on the persecution inherent in the dispersion. Strauss calls for a “religious Zionism” that transcends the national project. He believes that Jews must continue to be a nation dispersed among other nations. Yet Strauss commends the State Israel for setting an example with its prohibition of mixed marriages, fulfilling “an act of national cleansing or purification”, “a reassertion of the difference between Jews and non-Jews.” Strauss also defended Israel’s State racism in the National Review: political Zionism, he wrote, “fulfilled a conservative function” by stemming the “tide of ‘progressive’ leveling of venerable ancestral differences.”[20]

Strauss’s emphasis on endogamy goes to the very heart of the Torah, which insists on the strict equality between monotheism and racial purity; committing idolatry (“serving other gods”) and marrying non-Jews are one and the same thing (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and Numbers 25:1-2). All Jewish laws are essentially walls built around the sacred duty: keep the blood! “All is race—there is no other truth,” wrote another “assimilated” Jew.[21]

What Strauss says of other nations in relation to the Jewish nation also proves Strauss’s penetrating understanding and approval of biblical ideology: referring to “the anti-Judaism of late classical antiquity, when we . . . were accused by the pagan Romans of standing convicted of hatred of the human race,” he adds:

I contend that it was a very high compliment. And I will try to prove it. This accusation reflects an undeniable fact. For the human race consists of many nations or tribes or, in Hebrew, goyim. A nation is a nation by virtue of what it looks up to. In antiquity, a nation was a nation by virtue of its looking up to its gods. They did not have ideologies at that time; they did not have even ideas at that time. At the top, there were the gods. And now, our ancestors asserted a priori—that is to say, without looking at any of these gods—that these gods were nothings and abominations, that the highest things of any nation were nothings and abominations.

Strauss’s Radical Machiavellianism

Strauss’s adherence to the biblical program of Jewish world domination is the least mentioned, but arguably the most important feature of Strauss’s esoteric teaching. The second most important feature is his Machiavellianism.

Strauss greatly admired Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century political philosopher who rejected the classical notion that virtue should be the foundation of power, and asserted that only the appearance of virtue counts, and that the successful prince must be a “great simulator” who “manipulates and cons people’s minds.” In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss distances himself from the trend of trying to downplay the immorality of the author of The Prince, and instead agrees with the “simple opinion” that regards his political theory as immoral. Relativizing Machiavelli’s immorality, said Strauss, “prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli; the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.” Machiavelli’s thought is so revolutionary, Strauss believed, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “Machiavelli does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the writer.” For this, Strauss is the guide, for “to discover from [Machiavelli’s] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossible.” Machiavelli’s truth is not a blinding light, but rather a bottomless abyss that only the accomplished philosopher can contemplate without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good nor evil, and therefore the ruling elite need not be inhibited by morality. Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is a patriot of a superior kind because “he is more concerned with the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul.” For Strauss, only nations can be eternal, since men have no individual soul; therefore, there are no moral limits to what a (Zionist) patriot can do for his nation.[22]

Zionism and Machiavellianism are such twin concepts in the Straussian outlook that Strauss’s disciple Michael Ledeen, a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), hypothesized that Machiavelli was as secret Jew. “Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music,” wrote Ledeen, citing Machiavelli’s contempt for the nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of Moses, who was able to kill thousands from his own tribe in order to establish his authority.[23]

The Biblical Truth About Leo Strauss

Machiavelli’s crypto-Jewishness is plausible: his name could originate from the Hebrew Mashiah bé El, “Messiah of God.” In any case, his insight that fear is the most efficient means of governing is exactly what you would expect from a Levite. The threat of destruction in case of non-compliance to the Mosaic Law is a leitmotiv of the Torah:

And if, in spite of this, you will not listen to me but go against me, I shall go against you in fury and punish you seven times over for your sins. You will eat the flesh of your own sons, you will eat the flesh of your own daughters. I shall destroy your high places and smash your incense-altars; I shall pile your corpses on the corpses of your foul idols and shall reject you. I shall reduce your cities to ruins, etc. (Leviticus 26:27-31).

Fear of Yahweh’s wrath has been deeply internalized by the Jewish people, because it has always been the means by which the Jewish elites control their flock. The Holocaust religion is a secular version of Yahwism.

If a nation’s spirit results from the threat—real or imaginary—of its enemy, as Strauss believes, then Israel has the strongest spirit, because she sees the rest of the world as her enemies. The Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred,” as proto-Zionist Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882).[24] There is a dialectical complementarity between the perceived threat of extermination and the struggle for world domination, for the latter is the only way to overcome the former. This is the essence of the Jewish paranoia inoculated by the Bible.

In conclusion, Strauss has a very clear vision of Israel as a unique nation destined—by the most noble dream—to rule over other nations, and even destroy them spiritually, by all immoral means possible. We may call his vision Machiavellian pan-Zionism, or simply Jewish supremacism. Whatever the name, it is thoroughly biblical, as biblical as the political philosophy of David Ben-Gurion, the “father of the Jewish nation.” In 1962, the same year as Strauss’s lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” Ben-Gurion was whining to President Kennedy about the imminent destruction of his newborn nation by the Egyptian Nazis, but at the same time he was predicting in the magazine Look that, within 25 years, Jerusalem “will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[25] Indeed, Isaiah prophesied: “For the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. Then he will judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples” (2:3-4). In other words, Israel will rule the world.

Isaiah, the Zionists’ favorite prophet, also said: “the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and . . . will be utterly destroyed” (60:12); “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16); “You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:6). This is the biblical blueprint of the Zionist World Order, also promised by Israel’s jealous devil in Deuteronomy: “devour all the peoples whom Yahweh your god puts at your mercy, show them no pity” (7:16); “he will raise you higher than every other nation he has made” (28:1); “You will make many nations your subjects, yet you will be subject to none” (28:12).

If we don’t dig into the biblical roots of Zionism, we cannot understand Zionism. Ben-Gurion often said that, “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible.”[26] That statement should be taken seriously. If it is true for the Israeli leadership — and Benjamin Netanyahu would certainly not object —, then it is also true for all serious analysts: there can be no real understanding of Israel and its longtime goal, without knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist conspiracy for world supremacy is written there in plain language.

Yahweh is a sociopathic god, and Yahweh is the god of Israel, therefore Israel is a sociopathic nation. This is the simple truth of Zionism, the equation from which 9/11 ultimately derives.

Power = Money + Mind Control

Priss Factor says:
@Bardon Kaldian

Jews?

American elites are more than 80% Gentile whites. Be it among moneyed classes, the military, politicians, business people, media personalities, public intellectuals, intelligence agencies, bankers etc.

That’s not how power works. When British ruled India and Hong Kong, they had many local managers, businessmen, and bureaucrats working for them. But the Brits held the power.

Most people in halls of power don’t make the policy. They just carry them out. When US invaded Iraq, did most generals have a choice? No, it was decided on war, and the generals just carried it out. Few make the big decisions, and the rest exist to execute them.

Most people in the FBI and CIA just follow orders. They are no different from men who worked in the Soviet or Nazi system. They do as told. Sure, they make recommendations, and some of them do leak to the press on occasion, but then, what’s the point when the press is also controlled by Jewish oligarchs who are in cahoots with the Deep State. Elite folks are mostly company men. People like James Comey have no sense of individual conscience or agency. They look over their shoulders and follow orders.

Indeed, the system is geared to find and favor the flunkies for promotion. Mavericks and individualists are weeded out. Same in the media. Whatever one thinks of Chris Hedges, he sometimes spoke out against the real power. So, he was exiled from MSM and got a gig with RT.
Jews are at the top and they pick and choose the kind of people who make the best dogs and flunkies.

It’s like Hollywood. There are these stars and famous people, but they are really flunkies of the moguls with the real power. Stars come and go, but Jewish moguls always control Hollywood.

But Jews don’t merely have money power but ‘spiritual’ power. They control the gods or whatever is deemed holy and sacred in society. Jews used power of media, academia, and entertainment to elevate themselves as holy holocaust Jews, blacks as noble negroes, and homos as rainbow angels. Jews use their immense money power to buy politicians and to coerce businessmen. Jews use their media power to blackmail and destroy reputations. And as Jews control the gods, they decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. Elon Musk and Warren Buffett are super-rich but they don’t control the gods. Now, what would happen if either stuck up for white pride and white identity? They would be non-personed, their business partners would abandon them, their finances would be shut down, the media would hound them, and etc. It’s like what the newspaper tycoon learns in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. He got the money, but Toohey gained control of the gods that can sway both elite and mass opinion. Even in a depraved society, people like to believe in values higher than money, and so, those who control the gods control the hearts and minds.

You seem think position and money = power. Sure, to an extent, that’s true. But there is power even beyond that. In traditional Europe, even the richest man risked losing everything if he badmouthed God and Jesus. Today, the new gods are Jews, blacks, and homos. Even the richest man risks losing everything if he blasphemes against Jews and their black and homo allies. Jews rigged it this way.

Also, not everyone in position of power has the vision thing or sense of direction/destiny. Why did Hitler dominate others? He had the force of personality, the vision thing. Jews have the force of personality but most groups in the upper echelons don’t. They are mainly into money and privilege without any powerful sense of the future. In the coming years, there will be more Asian in elite circles, but they are colorless and weak of personality. Asian way is to serve the boss, not be the boss. Whites used to like being the boss but that was under glorious race-ism. But whites lost race-ism and are without direction and, as a result, look to Jews to lead the way.

How did the US military bend over to tranny nuttery and anti-white lunacy? It’s been traditionally dominated by white conservative men? Because military men got guns but no brains. They don’t control the policy or the gods. They are positions of power but to take orders than to formulate destiny.

Trump was kicked in the ass, gouged in the eyes, pounded in the face, bitten in the ears, cut up in the nose, punched in the gut, mouse-trapped in his dick, and had a poker shoved up his ass by the Jews, but what were his words to Jews after all that? “Can I kiss your ass?”

What does that tell you?

Review of Charles Murray new Book:

Priss Factor review of Charles Murray’s new book: d Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America

Charles Murray is a a real turd. Instead of asking why the elites don’t believe the truth, he should ask why the elites are spreading the lie. The ELITES know the truth. Sure, there are plenty of educated dammies, the dogma-driven dogs who have the intelligence but no sense of agency. But many of the elites do know the truth but lie anyway.

But first, who are the ruling elites? Are they colorless and merely based on meritocracy and commitment to ‘liberal values’? No, the current elites have a very powerful identity seething with arrogance and contempt. To understand why the LIE is favored by these elites, we need to ask WHO these elites are. Are they merely about riches, privilege, credentials, and power? Or are they about concentrating wealth, power, and influence within a certain group? And that group is what? Take a wild guess. The Eskimos or the Jews?

If all races and groups were equal, meritocracy would produce a colorless ruling class as each group would be proportionately represented at the top. But precisely because of IQ differences among races and groups, even colorless meritocracy leads to domination by a certain group. It’s like pure meritocracy in sports has led to black domination and black pride/arrogance in athletics. The end-result has been relative racial homogeneity than diversity in outfits like the NFL and especially the NBA.

Because Jews are smarter, many of them rose to the top and gained more wealth and power. So, there is a concentration of Jews among the elites. But the current elites aren’t merely about pride in Jewish achievement. After all, a people could be proud of their disproportionate achievement but still be committed to the principle of colorless meritocracy. Jews don’t play that way. Though many Jews did make it to the top by ability, they use their power to rig the system in their favor. Insider knowledge goes a long way to explain why Jews in finance reap such profits. And guess why BDS is suppressed across the nation. And of course, the Tribal control of the legal system ensures that many Jewish crooks get off easy(or get huge bailouts). And even if they’re convicted, they are favored for pardons under total shits like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and etc. Just ask Jonathan Pollard.
There’s also the matter of chutzpahistic personality among Jews. (Personality matters. The reason why generic, mild-mannered, golden-retriever-type goyim suck up to Jews is that blandness always loses to salt. Murray is a mild-mannered fuddy-dud, and he gets thrills up his leg by sucking up to Jews with strong personality.) Such personality makes Jews more pushy and arrogant with their power. Anglo Episcopalians are equally smart as Jews, but their blander personality prefers to walk away than get dirty in a fight. (Yellows are also well-represented among higher IQ folks but are even blander than the whites. Thus, they study and follow than think and lead, which is why most of them are cuck-dogs of Jews.) In the past, Anglos had awesome race-ism on their side and used it to great effect. But as ‘racism’ is now deemed the worst of all possible sins, whites daren’t do anything for identity sake or group interest. Not only are Jews stronger in personality but they get pass-over privilege when it comes to ‘racism’. What is ‘racist’ and wrong for whites is noble and wise among Jews. Jews demand that we all support Israel and praise Jews, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, even if it has led to the victimization of countless Arabs and Muslims, as well as countless whites. It goes to show ideology loses to idolatry. Even though Jews push ‘equity’ on the ideological level, it never applies to them because of their idolatrous status as a holy people(and also because they control the media and shape the narrative and its heroes & villains). So, even as whites are to be bashed for not being equitable enough, we must never say Jews are the richest and most privileged people on the planet. Why, that would be ‘anti-semitic’, insufficiently reverential to the great, super-duper, sacred Jews who not only deserve all that power and wealth but out total devotion(even when they kick out teeth out). The relation between Jews and whites is like a Jew trying to push a white guy off a cliff while the white guy goes out of his way to prevent the Jew from falling.

Privately, Jews know the truth about race and racial differences. True, there are still some idealistic Jews committed to the dogma of ‘race is just a social construct’, but the really powerful and/or consequential Jews at the top know the truth. They know they are smarter. They know blacks are tougher and more aggressive. They know all about racial and ethnic differences. So, why do they push the LIE? It is not out of some do-goody naive dream for social justice or equality but out of their commitment to Jewish Supremacism.
Paradoxically, Jews need to push ‘equality’ or ‘equity'(or whatever it’s called in the Current Year) to maintain Jewish supremacy. As Jews control the dogma and narrative, the issue of ‘equality’ or ‘equity’ comes down to blacks and whites(than about Jews and goyim). The Main Gripe is ‘why do whites have more than blacks?’ It’s never about ‘why do Jews have more than goyim?’ or ‘how come 70% of the Biden administration is Jewish?’ or ‘Why are Hollywood, Wall Street, Big Tech, and etc. controlled by Jews?’ Indeed, Murray himself speaks of whites, blacks, Asians, and ‘Latins’ but doesn’t mention Jews. (Why is ‘latin’ still used for brown people from South America and Mexico when they aren’t Latin in race or heritage?) Because Murray won’t mention Jews, he creates the false impression that naive white people are behind the ‘woke’ lunacy about race relations, i.e. hopefully Political Correctness will end IF white elites come to their senses. But, that’s just wishful thinking.
In truth, Jews control America and planted those lunatic ideas in the minds of deracinated soulless/rootless whites who are now so gullible because they no longer have a real heritage, history, religion, culture, and/or noble race-ism. Hungry for meaning, they readily absorb whatever BS is pushed by prestigious Jews from the top.
‘Woke’ lunacy and Political Correctness are not the product of do-goody zealotry and misguided naivete though propped up by them. They are the product of willfully malicious agendas of Jewish Supremacists. Of course, many who believe in the nonsense are sincere in their beliefs. No doubt many white idiots who weep to GREEN MILE or prostrate themselves before George Floyd murals are earnestly dumb or honestly stupid. But these are powerless boobs, the suckers. They are like useful idiots during the Cold War, the anti-war types who were unwittingly used as stooges by Moscow. If not for Jewish concentration of power, the current PC idiocy would not exist, at least not to the extent it does.

Besides, the powerful gets to decide the targets of any ideological ire. Thus, ‘equity’ fixates on whites having more than blacks but not on Jews having more than whites. It fixates on rare instances of blacks being mistreated by white cops but says nothing about countless whites brutalized by tougher and stronger blacks. It says nothing about the lack of equal protection for many individuals(of all races) who were attacked by BLM and Antifa mobs. It’s like in the Cultural Revolution, the slogan ‘To Rebel is Justified’ didn’t mean one could rebel against Mao and the Gang of Four. No, you could rebel only against targets approved by Mao and the Gang of Four. It’s no different today in the current West. ‘Equity’ means kvetching about blacks having less than whites, not blacks or goyim having less than Jews. Even though Jews have the most by far, they hog moral credit by berating whites for having more than blacks. This way, Jews get to own more and morality at the same time. Even though they have more than whites, as spokesmen for the blacks they hog the limelight as champions of ‘equity’ by bashing ‘white privilege’. Rather pathetically, rich white-cuck elites ape the Jews and play the same game. Bidens and Clintons raking it in and living like new royalty but always berating far less fortunate whites for ‘exclusion’ and ‘social injustice’.

But Murray won’t mention any of this because he has a giant kosher dildo up his pitiful arse. He is truly one of the most despicable turds that ever lived. In some ways, he’s worse than full-blown cucks who are at least consistent in their cravenness; they never deviate from the official line and are rewarded accordingly. In contrast, Murray has taken lots of lumps from Jews in the media and academia, but he sucks up to them all the same. But then, Jared Taylor is even more despicable. At the very least, Murray is somewhat tolerated by the Establishment(because he rarely mentions Jews in a critical way) and promotes libertarianism while denigrating any notion of white identity or consciousness.
Indeed, Murray is sometimes useful to Jews because he will say what’s on their minds in a genteel watered-down way. This way, Jews can outsource it to Murray and don’t have to dirty their own hands. After all, even as Jews push the nuttery of PC and blackness, they are anxious it may get out of hand, as indeed it did in 2020 with Antifa and BLM getting overzealous and hurting some Jews in the bargain as well. It is then that Jews pull out Murray and publish his views. This way, Jews get to temper the extremism of PC by using Murray as proxy, all the while feigning moral outrage that someone could hold such views. A sneaky way of playing both sides. This means Murray has some value to the Jews. They keep him around as mild and moderate Mr. Crime-Think when things get too out of control(and a bit of counter-narrative is necessary), and on some level, Murray seems to know of and value his little niche in the system. So, if Murray were to speak the total truth, he would have something to lose. His shtick is walking the fine line between the Correct-Think and Crime-Think. In contrast, Taylor is utterly vilified and hated by Jews and has nothing more to lose but carries on with a ridiculous fantasy of smart Jews finally seeing the light and joining with the likes of him.

The current lunacy is the result of Jewish Power. Jews push ‘equity-wokery’ to blame and shame whites into moral obeisance in order to secure Jewish Supremacism. Critical Race Theory is essentially Jewish reworking of antisemitism whereby Jews-as-villains are replaced with whites-as-villains. There is an element of revenge in all this, but even that isn’t the main driving force, which is Jewish Supremacism. Jews are no dummies, and they know they got numeracy but not the numbers. Whites got the numbers. So, if Jews are to maintain their supreme position, they need white cuckery, white submission, white obedience, and etc. before the Jewish Master. Jews use tons of bribes/carrots, but that only goes so far. Japan spread money around in the 1980s, but loyalty based on cash only goes so far. Also, allegiance based purely on money can easily be reviled(as China is finding out these days, especially with Australia). China spent a lot of money to buy influence and ended up being accused of corrupting the world, and people who took the money are shamefacedly cutting ties.
If Jewish Power was solely based on money, it would be vulnerable to exposure and condemnation, much like the money power of Chinese and the Saudis. Jewish Money Power exceeds that of any other in the world, but how come so little is talked about it, especially among whites, the key demographics for Jewish supremacist power? In the past, Jews spent a lot of money and bought a lot of ‘friends’, but they also faced the danger of being called out for their nefarious influence.
Jews know this and decided to control whites not only through gold but guilt. Give some pieces of gold to the ‘good whites’ who do as Jews tell them but also instill white hearts with massive ‘guilt’ so that whites won’t dare Name the Jew. So, Jews endlessly bring up the Holocaust and say whites are responsible for all eternity and must atone and make amends. Or any white criticism of Jewish Power is deemed ‘antisemitic’, thus related to ‘nazism’.
But emphasizing Jewish tragedy isn’t sufficient to control white hearts forever. After all, Holocaust is receding into history. Whatever might have happened in World War II, the fact is Jews have become the richest and most powerful people in the world, which is becoming impossible not to notice. Also, Jewish Power has become Nazi-like and murderous, which is why criticism of Zionism is growing on the Left. If it were merely between whites and Jews, ‘white guilt’ may well grow weaker because whites would realize that the Jews who are always berating whites are the richest and most privileged people on Earth. Whatever Jews may have suffered in history, it’s not a good look for a rich and powerful people to always play victim.
Unlike Jews however, many blacks will always remain on the bottom. Therefore, they are good material with which to bait long-term ‘white guilt’. Unlike Jews who made it out of the ghetto and live in penthouses, many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. So, while it’d be absurd for Jews to complain about their socio-economic conditions and blame it on whites, this can be done indefinitely with blacks. Jews can always point to blacks and say, “They are mired in poverty because of YOU WHITES”, and enough whites will fall sucker for this. And even those whites who see through the LIE will pretend to go along because they won’t be hired or promoted unless they are ostensibly with the program. This way, Jewish control of whites isn’t just through money/gold but through soul and guilt. Thus browbeaten and sullen with shame, whites seek redemption for their ‘racism’, and Jews suggest the way: Endless sucking and cucking up to Jews and their two favored allies, blacks and homos. Notice there is nothing about how whites should care more about Palestinians, investigate Jewish power/privilege, or condemn supremacist Wars for Israel that killed countless Arabs/Muslims. If anything, Jews use BLM to whitewash their own racial supremacism in the Middle East. With blacks as bought-off allies, Jews strut around as champions of ‘anti-racism’ — after all, they are allied with Noble Negroes — , which gives moral cover for what they do to Palestinians. As long as Jews paint the bombs ‘gay’ or ‘BLM’, so many educated whites(the key support-demographics for Jewish Supremacism) will turn a blind eye to the evils of US foreign policy. How can the US military be bad when it spreads the gospel of BLM and globo-homo around the world? Jews favor ni**ers to get a free pass for killing san-ni**ers. And US military’s globo-homo policy means it has the moral right to fuc* the world in the ass. For many brainwashed woke-cucks or wucks, just about ANYTHING is justified if wrapped in the symbol of BLM or Globo-Homo, in a manner similar to the dumb mantra of ‘Support the Troops’ justifying wars for idiot conzos.

That’s what this is really about. And Jews have gotten even more extreme in pushing PC lunacy because of the internet and Trumpian populism. Jews are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. They know that White Liberation may well mean the end of Jewish Supremacism.

Now, Murray knows all this. He knows it but pretends otherwise because, all said and done, he is a worthless bald-headed cuck maggot whose First Emotion is mindless reverence for Jews whom he deems the Chosen Race due to their higher IQ. If some white women got jungle fever for black dongs, some white men(not least in HBD circles) have Juggle Fever for acrobatic Jewish brains. Murray is so awed by Jewish Genius, the summit of ‘human achievement’, that he grovels before it as the greatest thing in the universe. It’s like master and dog. No matter how much Jews kick him like a dog, his sappy dream is, “I hope they realize I’m a good dog with everlasting loyalty, because my main duty as a goy is to serve the superior race, the one with Jewish Genius.” So, just like a dog is loyal even when its master does wrong, Murray is loyal to Jews on a similar basis. While Murray knows full well that Jews sometimes act badly, he has internalized their superiority vis-a-vis goyim, and that means, all said and done, Jews must rule and goyim must serve. The main meaning of his life comes not from libertarian ideology but an idolatrous devotion to Jews as the Superior Race(just like some whites have similar feelings about blacks as the superior race of song-dong-strong.) What a worthless cuck. This lowlife even changed his view on ‘gay marriage’ because some of his RICH FRIENDS happen to be homo. You see, the status-minded Murray won’t dare offend the ‘better kind of people’, especially Jews. And if Jews say ‘homo is holy too’, Murray bends over to the homos and gladly takes it up the arse.

He pretends in the latest book that these ‘better kind of people’ are just misguided and misinformed when, in fact, they know the truth but maliciously spread the lie to guilt-bait whites into obeisance. Imagine there’s a master and a dog. But suppose the master, a nasty son-of-a-bitch, gets another dog, a bigger and tougher one, and uses it to attack and humiliate the original dog. The master knows full well what he is doing and sadistically enjoys the cruelty, but suppose the original dog prefers the fantasy that the master is acting this way out of ignorance and in total innocence of the fact that the new dog is bigger and more vicious. Stupid dog.

Israel Shamir on Gaza Bombing

by Israel Shamir via Unz.com

As a teenage girl, kidnapped and locked in a cellar by a paedophile maniac, scratches his horrible leering face with her sharp nails, Gaza sends her homemade rockets to Tel Aviv. They can’t cause much damage; they are just bits of rusty iron, dangerous in the unlikely event of a direct hit, but they woke up the beast in the monster. He carefully took away every sharp object from her reach, he starved her for years to make her placid and compliant, he made sure she’d have no chance to see or gain freedom, and all of a sudden such terrible pain, such deep scratches! I have the right of self-defence, he shouts while unleashing his F-16 jets to bomb her into the stone age; and his sidekick, the senile US President, repeats after him: he has the right of self-defence! As long as she scratches, he may and should smack her! No cease-fire until she is beaten into obedience; and the US vetoed the Security Council resolution supported by 15 out of 16 members. To be on the safe side, the White House approved the sale of precise weaponry to Israel for the sum of $735 million, so they would be able to do a 9/11 to any high-rise of their choice, not only in New York. And they used the weapons to great effect.

The vetoed resolution said what should be done right away. Israel should cease bombing Gaza, refrain from interfering with holy sites, stop grabbing Palestinian homes and lands. The US refused to approve that. This is far from enough: the violated girl should be let out of the cellar. That is, Palestinians should be allowed to move freely in their own land. The Israeli army should get out of Palestinian land. The blockade of Gaza should be removed. A goy and a Jew should have equal rights, as in the US. All apartheid laws should be made null and void. Human dignity respected. And then the girl should also be allowed to live in peace. Stolen lands and homes restored to rightful owners; refugees returned, free elections taking place. But we are very far from this point.

My friends and colleagues thought the Palestinians of Gaza could inflict defeat on Israel, or at least cause considerable pain to the maniac. Alas, not yet. The Palestinians are improving their response ability. During the First Intifada (1987), they used stones against the army; in the Second Intifada (2001), they used guns; at this Third Intifada (2021) they use rockets. But they are defeated each time, and their life becomes worse with each defeat. Before the First Intifada, Palestinians could move freely; before the Second Intifada, they had their autonomy in the West Bank; now they have none worth its salt; and what will be taken away from them after the present round of struggle we shall see. That’s why, though the Palestinian position is quite awful, the ordinary Palestinians of the West Bank are not all that keen to enter an armed struggle against the formidable enemy. Desperate young people, who see no future worth living, enter such a struggle. And Gaza, this prisoner’s managed open-air-jail administration, stepped into the breach. For Gazans, there is little difference between a life that is a living hell and death that may be better. They are being severely punished for their bold action.

Jews of Israel didn’t suffer much, though more than they expected. Their famed intelligence failed them again. The Shabak, the internal intelligence service, predicted Gaza wouldn’t respond by actions beyond protests at the land grab in Jerusalem and the invasion of the al-Aqsa Mosque. They were wrong. The Shabak was certain Gaza had no rockets able to reach Tel Aviv, or just a few, in the worst case scenario. They were wrong again. The Shabak didn’t expect the thoroughly tamed Palestinians of Israel, the second-class citizens of the Jewish state, would rise in revolt. But it happened.

The centre of this rising is Lydda (Lod), the city of St George; the saint is buried here, in the beautiful old Orthodox church. By the UN partition resolution of 1947, this Palestinian town was supposed to become a part of the Palestinian state, but Jews occupied it, massacred its inhabitants, expelled survivors and repopulated it with freshly imported North African Jews. Still, a sizable Palestinian minority survived and clung to their homes. After years of terrible discrimination, they rose against their Jewish masters in revolt, for the first time since 1948. The same happened in Jaffa and Acre, cities with a similar history.

The bands of armed militant Jews, assisted by police, ran a classic anti-Arab pogrom, as supposedly Cossacks did against Jews in the beginning of the twentieth century.

They broke windows, burned shops, firebombed Arab apartments; mobbed Arabs on the street. Such pogroms took place all over Israel, even in Jewish Bat Yam, where an Arab had had an ice cream parlour for years. It was utterly destroyed. An Arab child has been burned (not fatally) by a Molotov cocktail thrown by a Jewish militant. Pogroms did happen over a hundred years ago in the Ukraine (incidentally, never in Russia proper), but then Russian writers lamented and expressed their solidarity with suffering Jews. Now, almost no Jewish writers have expressed their sorrow or stood with the Arabs. The Israeli Arabs, that is Palestinians with Israeli citizenship went out today (Tuesday) on national strike in support of their disenfranchised brethren. And the West Bank is also waking up.

Hundreds of martyred Palestinians created a huge wave of empathy for the suffering people. There were massive demonstrations in New York, in Paris, in London and elsewhere. The Arabs in the Arab countries also demonstrated wherever they were allowed to. To be sure, Israel does not give a dam.

[ . . . ]

And this war has at last awakened the empathy of the world: this was a paramount reason for Gaza’s daring attack. Now, a fast rewind is needed. Ostensibly, the current events started over a week ago, when the Israeli court (probably the most immoral of Jewish institutions) ruled to expel some Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem and give the buildings to the Jewish Ku Klux Klan. Protesters were beaten by the police and gendarmerie; among the beaten, there was an MP (Member of Parliament/Knesset) from the Communist Party, a Jew by origin, who supported the Palestinians.

Then during the last days of Ramadan, the Israeli police and army infested al-Aqsa Mosque. They dropped hundreds of shock grenades upon the worshippers; these grenades produced a rain of sparks. Some trees in the mosque compound caught fire. At that time, thousands of Jewish militants gathered at the Wailing Wall at the bottom of al-Aqsa. As they saw fire and smoke rise from the yard, they presumed the mosque was on fire, and they broke into triumphal cheering and singing, calling their god’s vengeance upon the goyim.

[Video Aqsa fire]

That was the moment the government of Gaza (Israelis prefer to call it “Hamas”, by the name of the biggest party; likewise we could call the Israeli government “the Likud regime”) issued its ultimatum: end your assault on the mosque, or we shall send our missiles upon your heads. Israelis laughed, Gaza responded, and the mini-war began. You could say that Gaza was too rash to take on the monster: they have no air defence, and the Israeli air force could and did kill the people in their hundreds and destroy their homes.

But this is the outline of micro-events; however, let us zoom out and consider the bigger picture. Trump and Kushner forced Arab states to “normalise” their relations with Israel, creating a full disconnect between Palestinian problems and the Arab states. The Palestinians had to fight to get back on the agenda. Otherwise, they would have been forgotten. The Jewish attack on al-Aqsa provided them with a good opening to go to war and put their cause on the agenda. This was a decision taken so that the Palestinians would not be forgotten. Yes, people would whisper “You know, this maniac keeps a teenage girl locked up in his cellar as a sex slave?” and they would be answered: “Old hat! Everybody knows that but it was long ago, and probably she is used to it and does not want to get out!” The girl had to scratch the bastard even at the cost of being beaten, just to remind you of her terrible fate.

Let is consider an even bigger picture. The only force able to influence the events radically is Iran. It is the only remaining strong state of Resistance. Iraq was broken by the US invasion of 2003, Syria was destroyed by the Arab Spring in 2011, Hezbollah is not strong enough to make Israel pay for her sins. Iran is the only one; and Iran is governed by a pro-Western neo-Liberal administration. Presently Iran is negotiating with the US in Vienna for a return the nuclear deal for the removal of sanctions. In June, Iran is having an election. Despite many limitations, Iran is a democracy, and people’s votes matter and they are counted, as opposed to, say, in Arizona. If the Vienna negotiations succeed, Iran will leave the resistance front, and the liberals will win the elections, returning Pax Americana to the Middle East.

However, the Gaza war revealed the Iranian moderates as weak foreign agents who can’t/won’t defend al Aqsa. It will cost them the election. If the moderates lose, hard-liners will gain. Ahmadinejad or his like will come to power. Iran will take again the central place in the Resistance. Americans will lose the Middle East. In the next confrontation, Iran will enter the fray.

Now let us move the frame and consider the internal Palestinian arena. The last Palestinian elections took place in 2006; Hamas won fair and square, but the ruling Fatah refused to relinquish power. Only Gaza, being separated from the rest of Palestine, succeeded in a change of guard. Now the old president Mahmud Abbas promised to run elections in May 2021, but he postponed it again. His reason: Israel does not allow 300.000 Palestinians of Jerusalem to participate in the elections. If this reason evaporates, if Israel will allow the Palestinians of Jerusalem to vote, there is a good chance Hamas will win. It is not a sure thing either way: the Palestinians would have a choice between Fatah which collaborates with Israel, and Hamas which fights Israel. Life under collaborating Fatah is better and easier than under belligerent Hamas. But it is not good enough to give up hope of gaining dignity and freedom. The opinion polls are extremely unreliable; however, Fatah and Mahmud Abbas are worried they would lose the elections. In any cease-fire agreement between Gaza and Tel Aviv, the question of elections will be a deal breaker. Gaza will insist on allowing elections in East Jerusalem. If Israel allows that, there is a good chance of installing the less-prone-to-surrender Hamas in the West Bank. If Israel will let Marwan Barghouti out of jail (he is imprisoned for years for his participation in the Second Intifada) he stands a good chance of winning the elections as a Palestinian Mandela.

Did Hamas have electoral considerations in mind when it entered the battle? For sure; this is good and normal. Hamas has a record of standing for Palestinian rights, even for armed struggle. Fatah had it, too, but they lost it. So the Palestinians will have a real choice, that is, if the elections will ever happen.

Now let’s shift to the Israeli scene. For Netanyahu, this war is good. It broke out exactly on time to torpedo the creation of an alternative government, where he would be out of power and probably on his way to jail. However, an alternative Israeli government won’t be better for Palestinians. Naftali Bennett, a political leader certain to play a prominent role in the alternative government, is even more bloodthirsty than Netanyahu, and he called upon Bibi “keep fighting until Gaza is destroyed”.

By the way, Covid is dead in Israel. For the first time in a year, Covid news disappeared from the top of Israeli events. People do not care much about the damn virus when there are real problems.

And now for the even bigger picture. Russia expressed its support for the Palestinian cause. Putin said that Palestine is not a far, remote land for Russians; Russia demands Israel cease fire and observe the agreements and resolutions, including the safety of holy sites (read: al Aqsa). Putin’s adversaries in Russia are strong supporters of Israel. Liberal pro-Western anti-Putinists are Jewish or partly Jewish, and they are for Israel. Ethnic-nationalist anti-Putinist Russians (sometimes described as naziks, “little Nazis”) also support Israel and her “right” to deal with the hated darkies. For them, it does not matter that Palestinians are not darker nor lighter than Israeli Jews, it does not matter that Christian Palestinians fully support the Palestinian struggle, and that the top leader of Palestinian Christians Archbishop Theodosius Atallah Hanna (full disclosure: he baptized me and my family) said that the fight for al-Aqsa is the fight for the Holy Sepulchre, and the Christians and Muslims are fighting the same war as members of one family and one nation. Naziks are stupid.

What is worse for Putin, his allies in the media, Jews-for-Putin, (Dugin calls them the Sixth Column) like the popular broadcaster Soloviev, are all out for Israel. They could be relied upon to trash Ukrainians, or to point out European duplicity, but when it comes to Israel, they dig their heels in the sand. Russian state TV is a proxy for Tel Aviv. On Russian social networks, the pro-Israel crowd is by far the biggest and most aggressive; it also gets the support of Facebook management. You won’t be surprised to learn that I was banned on Facebook right away.

A good word for Erdogan. The Turkish president, and Turkish people are all out in support of Palestine. And their huge demos called upon Erdogan to send Turkish soldiers to liberate Palestine. Somebody should do it: the Palestinians can’t do it by themselves. Whoever liberates Palestine, will get renown beyond measure. But meanwhile, the Palestinians have to survive.

So apparently this war is not Armageddon yet. It is just another sordid campaign of Jews against disobedient natives. They got their portion of blood, they destroyed Gaza’s supply of water and electricity, they ruined its houses, and now they can placidly wait for the Gazans to be devastated by disease, hunger and occasional bombing raids. And then they will continue with their assaults. That is unless we stop them.

Brother Nathanael

Facts presented by Brother Nathanael in How The Jews Prompted A German Backlash:

JEWS WERE KEY ADVISORS of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 which carved Germany into pieces just after WWI.

Rabbi Stephen Wise advised President Wilson about the impending treaty before Wilson left America for the Versailles peace conference. The Jew Bernard Baruch advised Wilson at the conference. British Prime Minister Lloyd George was advised by the Jew Phil Sassoon. French leader Georges Clemenceau was advised by his Jewish Interior Minister Georges Mandel aka Louis Rothschild.

Representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother, Max Warburg, the head of the German banking firm of Warburg and Company, was there as a representative of Germany.

By the Treaty of Versailles the German people were thoroughly humiliated. The old Austrian Empire was balkanized and divided up into allotments satisfying the political intrigues of the architects of the Treaty. The Weimar government was forced upon the German nation and the communist Jewish leaders Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Leibknecht were agitating for revolution.

The German people were not unaware that the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution threatened their own national life. The historian Ernst Nolte and several other notable historians have argued that the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution was an important cause in Germany’s backlash against the Jews.

The Weimar government was comprised of many Jews. From the outset, the Weimer government was criticized by ordinary Germans who were of the opinion that the Weimer government was allied with international Jewish bankers in signing the hated Versailles Treaty.

The famous stab-in-the-back legend soon began to circulate which rightly asserted that Germany had won the war in 1914, but had been betrayed by Jews who struck a deal with Britain to bring America into the war in exchange for the deed to Palestine.

Middle class voters soon became disillusioned with the Weimar government. Weimar’s constitution was written by the Jew, Hugo Preuss. The Jews under the Weimer Republic formed leftist institutions such as the Frankfurt School. Jews were theater producers, newspaper owners, poets, artists, and writers in the Weimar Republic.

SOCIAL MORES BEGAN TO DECLINE owing to Jewish dominance of the media and the arts, promoting sexual perversity and pornography. A leading artist of the time was the Jew and Spartacist communist, George Grosz, known for his pornographic paintings.

The middle class thus turned their voting habits towards Germany’s National Socialist Party whose platform was to bolster Germany against the moral decline caused by influential Jews. By 1932 there were twenty times as many Jewish government officials in Germany’s Weimer Republic as had existed before 1919. Zionists of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine.

In September of 1933, Dr. Manfred Reifer, a well-known leader of the German Jews wrote in the Jewish magazine Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung:

—— “Whilst large sections of the German nation are struggling for the preservation of their race, we Jews fill Germany with our vociferations. We supply the press with articles on the subject of its Christmas and Easter. We ridicule the highest ideals of the German nation and profane the matters which it holds sacred.” ——

On January 30 1933 Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the German Reich and the corrupt Weimar Republic ceased to exist. The German government began removing seditionist Jews from influential positions and transferring power back to the German people.

JEWS START A WORLD WIDE BOYCOTT OF GERMAN GOODS

ON MARCH 24 1933 on the front page of the London Daily Express, appeared the headline: Judea Declares War On Germany: Jews Of All The World Unite. The headline followed with:

“The Israelite people of the world declare an economic war on Germany. It is not sufficient that we should buy no goods made in Germany. We must refuse to deal with any shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods. What we are proposing is to bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends” Here & Here.

Hitler’s boycott order on March 28, 1933 was in direct response to the Declaration of War on Germany. Today, Hitler’s boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the circumstances leading up to the order are left out of even the most detailed histories of The Holocaust.

THE MUNICH AGREEMENT

ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1938, an agreement was signed between Hitler and Great Britain’s Neville Chamberlain which called for a peaceful revision of the wrongs committed by the Treaty of Versailles. A four-power conference was planned which would preserve the peace. The four powers were Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy.

An ambassador for the Munich Agreement, a Mr. Oswald Pirow, was sent to Germany to ease the tension on the Jewish issue. Neville Chamberlain told Pirow that pressure of International Jewry was one of the principal obstacles to the Munich Agreement and that it would greatly help him resist that pressure if Hitler could be induced to moderate his policy towards the Jews.

Pirow stated that Hitler viewed this idea with favour and an Anglo-German agreement was in sight. However, the Jews purposely put an end to this.

On November 7, 1938, the Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, murdered the German Secretary of State, Ernst von Rath, in Paris. The five bullets fired were the logical result of the Jews’ Declaration Of War On Germany and put an end to the peaceful resolution of the European conflict envisioned by the Munich Agreement.

The assassination provoked an anti-Jewish backlash in Germany which in turn incited public opinion in Great Britain and the USA against Chamberlain’s efforts to relieve Anglo-German tension. In the United States Germans were assaulted and persecuted. The Jewish-controlled press and movie industry intensified its efforts in lobbying for an unpopular American role in pursuing a war against Germany.

JEWISH PUNISHMENT ON THE GERMAN NATION

IN 1941, LONG BEFORE there were any concentration camps, a prominent Jewish Zionist, Theodore N. Kaufman, wrote Germany Must Perish. The book enjoyed brisk sales, having been promoted by the New York Times and the Washington Post , both Jewish owned newspapers.

Kaufman set out a plan for the total destruction of the German population by a very simple method: the mass sterilization of all German men and women between the age of puberty and sixty years. He described the plan thus:

—— “TODAY’S WAR is not a war against Adolph Hitler. It is a war against uncivilized, barbarian Germans who cherish darkness. The German people may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which drives them to kill. And no amount of conditioning or civilizing will ever be able to change this basic nature.

“There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism – and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method is known as Eugenic Sterilization.” —— Here.

This book was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan of 1944 which strategized death by starvation of ten million Germans in the first two years after the war. Henry Morgenthau, who authored the Plan, was born to Jewish parents in New York City.

CONCLUSION

ON SEPTEMBER 11 1941, the American hero, Charles Lindbergh, gave his famous Speech which urged Americans to remain against American intervention of the European war:

“The Jews are one of the principal forces attempting to lead the U.S. into the war. The Jews’ greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our Government. I am saying that the leaders of the Jewish race wish to involve us in the war for reasons that are not American.” Here.

I GREW UP AS A JEW. Now at the age of 57 and an Orthodox Christian, no one is more qualified to expose the motivations and agenda of the Jews. The Jews present themselves as “innocent victims” of enemy #1 – Gentile Anti-Semitism! But the Gentiles are not buying this fraud any longer.

What the Gentile enemies of the Jews need to do is to reclaim their Christian heritage and culture that the Jews are hell-bent on eradicating. The Jews began this “sterilization” of Christian culture with the French Revolution, as brought to the light by Nesta Webster in her 1922 book, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization.

Today we see this “sterilization” of Christian culture with the efforts of the Jewish-led and funded American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU) and the Anti-Defamation League, (ADL), which litigates against all forms of Christian expression in America’s & Europe’s public life. As a result, Jewish ideological expression, rather than Christian expression, now permeates all of Western Civilization.

Gentiles of the Western World! The Jews and their lies and their Anti-Christian crusade must be stopped! Reclaim your Christian heritage before it’s too late! There will be either a Christian America And Europe or a Jewish America And Europe. There is no in between!

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=40

The Thirty Tyrants: The deal that the American Elite Chose to Make with China

by LEE SMITH

In Chapter 5 of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli describes three options for how a conquering power might best treat those it has defeated in war. The first is to ruin them; the second is to rule directly; the third is to create “therein a state of the few which might keep it friendly to you.”

The example Machiavelli gives of the last is the friendly government Sparta established in Athens upon defeating it after 27 years of war in 404 BCE. For the upper caste of an Athenian elite already contemptuous of democracy, the city’s defeat in the Peloponnesian War confirmed that Sparta’s system was preferable. It was a high-spirited military aristocracy ruling over a permanent servant class, the helots, who were periodically slaughtered to condition them to accept their subhuman status. Athenian democracy by contrast gave too much power to the low-born. The pro-Sparta oligarchy used their patrons’ victory to undo the rights of citizens, and settle scores with their domestic rivals, exiling and executing them and confiscating their wealth.

The Athenian government disloyal to Athens’ laws and contemptuous of its traditions was known as the Thirty Tyrants, and understanding its role and function helps explain what is happening in America today.

For my last column I spoke with The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman about an article he wrote more than a decade ago, during the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. His important piece documents the exact moment when the American elite decided that democracy wasn’t working for them. Blaming the Republican Party for preventing them from running roughshod over the American public, they migrated to the Democratic Party in the hopes of strengthening the relationships that were making them rich.

A trade consultant told Friedman: “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the Eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

In the more than 10 years since Friedman’s column was published, the disenchanted elite that the Times columnist identified has further impoverished American workers while enriching themselves. The one-word motto they came to live by was globalism—that is, the freedom to structure commercial relationships and social enterprises without reference to the well-being of the particular society in which they happened to make their livings and raise their children.

Undergirding the globalist enterprise was China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. For decades, American policymakers and the corporate class said they saw China as a rival, but the elite that Friedman described saw enlightened Chinese autocracy as a friend and even as a model—which was not surprising, given that the Chinese Communist Party became their source of power, wealth, and prestige. Why did they trade with an authoritarian regime and by sending millions of American manufacturing jobs off to China thereby impoverish working Americans? Because it made them rich. They salved their consciences by telling themselves they had no choice but to deal with China: It was big, productive, and efficient and its rise was inevitable. And besides, the American workers hurt by the deal deserved to be punished—who could defend a class of reactionary and racist ideological naysayers standing in the way of what was best for progress?

Returning those jobs to America, along with ending foreign wars and illegal immigration, was the core policy promise of Donald Trump’s presidency, and the source of his surprise victory in 2016. Trump was hardly the first to make the case that the corporate and political establishment’s trade relationship with China had sold out ordinary Americans. Former Democratic congressman and 1988 presidential candidate Richard Gephardt was the leading voice in an important but finally not very influential group of elected Democratic Party officials and policy experts who warned that trading with a state that employed slave labor would cost American jobs and sacrifice American honor. The only people who took Trump seriously were the more than 60 million American voters who believed him when he said he’d fight the elites to get those jobs back.

What he called “The Swamp” appeared at first just to be a random assortment of industries, institutions, and personalities that seemed to have nothing in common, outside of the fact they were excoriated by the newly elected president. But Trump’s incessant attacks on that elite gave them collective self-awareness as well as a powerful motive for solidarity. Together, they saw that they represented a nexus of public and private sector interests that shared not only the same prejudices and hatreds, cultural tastes and consumer habits but also the same center of gravity—the U.S.-China relationship. And so, the China Class was born.

Connections that might have once seemed tenuous or nonexistent now became lucid under the light of Trump’s scorn, and the reciprocal scorn of the elite that loathed him.

A decade ago, no one would’ve put NBA superstar LeBron James and Apple CEO Tim Cook in the same family album, but here they are now, linked by their fantastic wealth owing to cheap Chinese manufacturing (Nike sneakers, iPhones, etc.) and a growing Chinese consumer market. The NBA’s $1.5 billion contract with digital service provider Tencent made the Chinese firm the league’s biggest partner outside America. In gratitude, these two-way ambassadors shared the wisdom of the Chinese Communist Party with their ignorant countrymen. After an NBA executive tweeted in defense of Hong Kong dissidents, social justice activist King LeBron told Americans to watch their tongues. “Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech,” said James, “it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”

Because of Trump’s pressure on the Americans who benefited extravagantly from the U.S.-China relationship, these strange bedfellows acquired what Marxists call class consciousness—and joined together to fight back, further cementing their relationships with their Chinese patrons. United now, these disparate American institutions lost any sense of circumspection or shame about cashing checks from the Chinese Communist Party, no matter what horrors the CCP visited on the prisoners of its slave labor camps and no matter what threat China’s spy services and the People’s Liberation Army might pose to national security. Think tanks and research institutions like the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the EastWest Institute, the Carter Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and others gorged themselves on Chinese money. The world-famous Brookings Institution had no scruples about publishing a report funded by Chinese telecom company Huawei that praised Huawei technology.

The billions that China gave to major American research universities, like $58 million to Stanford, alarmed U.S. law enforcement, which warned of Chinese counterintelligence efforts to steal sensitive research. But the schools and their name faculty were in fact in the business of selling that research, much of it paid for directly by the U.S. government—which is why Harvard and Yale among other big-name schools appear to have systematically underreported the large amounts that China had gifted them.

Indeed, many of academia’s pay-for-play deals with the CCP were not particularly subtle. In June 2020, a Harvard professor who received a research grant of $15 million in taxpayer money was indicted for lying about his $50,000 per month work on behalf of a CCP institution to “recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security.”

But if Donald Trump saw decoupling the United States from China as a way to dismantle the oligarchy that hated him and sent American jobs abroad, he couldn’t follow through on the vision. After correctly identifying the sources of corruption in our elite, the reasons for the impoverishment of the middle classes, and the threats foreign and domestic to our peace, he failed to staff and prepare to win the war he asked Americans to elect him to fight.

And because it was true that China was the source of the China Class’ power, the novel coronavirus coming out of Wuhan became the platform for its coup de grace. So Americans became prey to an anti-democratic elite that used the coronavirus to demoralize them; lay waste to small businesses; leave them vulnerable to rioters who are free to steal, burn, and kill; keep their children from school and the dying from the last embrace of their loved ones; and desecrate American history, culture, and society; and defame the country as systemically racist in order to furnish the predicate for why ordinary Americans in fact deserved the hell that the elite’s private and public sector proxies had already prepared for them.

For nearly a year, American officials have purposefully laid waste to our economy and society for the sole purpose of arrogating more power to themselves while the Chinese economy has gained on America’s. China’s lockdowns had nothing to do with the difference in outcomes. Lockdowns are not public health measures to reduce the spread of a virus. They are political instruments, which is why Democratic Party officials who put their constituents under repeated lengthy lockdowns, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, are signaling publicly that it is imperative they be allowed to reopen immediately now that Trump is safely gone.

That Democratic officials intentionally destroyed lives and ended thousands of them by sending the ill to infect the elderly in nursing homes is irrelevant to America’s version of the Thirty Tyrants. The job was to boost coronavirus casualties in order to defeat Trump and they succeeded. As with Athens’ anti-democratic faction, America’s best and brightest long ago lost its way. At the head of the Thirty Tyrants was Critias, one of Socrates’ best students, a poet and dramatist. He may have helped save Socrates from the regime’s wrath, and yet the philosopher appears to have regretted that his method, to question everything, fed Critias’ sweeping disdain for tradition. Once in power, Critias turned his nihilism on Athens and destroyed the city.

Riding the media tsunami of Trump hatred, the China Class cemented its power within state institutions and security bureaucracies that have long been Democratic preserves.

The poisoned embrace between American elites and China began nearly 50 years ago when Henry Kissinger saw that opening relations between the two then-enemies would expose the growing rift between China and the more threatening Soviet Union. At the heart of the fallout between the two communist giants was the Soviet leadership’s rejection of Stalin, which the Chinese would see as the beginning of the end of the Soviet communist system—and thus it was a mistake they wouldn’t make.

Meanwhile, Kissinger’s geopolitical maneuver became the cornerstone of his historical legacy. It also made him a wealthy man selling access to Chinese officials. In turn, Kissinger pioneered the way for other former high-ranking policymakers to engage in their own foreign influence-peddling operations, like William Cohen, defense secretary in the administration of Bill Clinton, who greased the way for China to gain permanent most favored nation trade status in 2000 and become a cornerstone of the World Trade Organization. The Cohen Group has two of its four overseas offices in China, and includes a number of former top officials, including Trump’s former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who recently failed to disclose his work for the Cohen Group when he criticized the Trump administration’s “with us or against us” approach to China in an editorial. “The economic prosperity of U.S. allies and partners hinges on strong trade and investment relationships with Beijing,” wrote Mattis, who was literally being paid by China for taking exactly that position.

Yet it’s unlikely that Kissinger foresaw China as a cash cow for former American officials when he and President Richard M. Nixon traveled to the Chinese capital that Westerners then called Peking in 1972. “The Chinese felt that Mao had to die before they could open up,” says a former Trump administration official. “Mao was still alive when Nixon and Kissinger were there, so it’s unlikely they could’ve envisioned the sorts of reforms that began in 1979 under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership. But even in the 1980s China wasn’t competitive with the United States. It was only in the 1990s with the debates every year about granting China most favored nation status in trade that China became a commercial rival”—and a lucrative partner.

The chief publicist of the post-Cold War order was Francis Fukuyama, who in his 1992 book The End of History argued that with the fall of the Berlin Wall Western liberal democracy represented the final form of government. What Fukuyama got wrong after the fall of the Berlin Wall wasn’t his assessment of the strength of political forms; rather it was the depth of his philosophical model. He believed that with the end of the nearly half-century-long superpower standoff, the historical dialectic pitting conflicting political models against each other had been resolved. In fact, the dialectic just took another turn.

Just after defeating communism in the Soviet Union, America breathed new life into the communist party that survived. And instead of Western democratic principles transforming the CCP, the American establishment acquired a taste for Eastern techno-autocracy. Tech became the anchor of the U.S.-China relationship, with CCP funding driving Silicon Valley startups, thanks largely to the efforts of Dianne Feinstein, who, after Kissinger, became the second-most influential official driving the U.S.-CCP relationship for the next 20 years.

In 1978, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein befriended Jiang Zemin, then the mayor of Shanghai and eventually president of China. As mayor of America’s tech epicenter, her ties to China helped the growing sector attract Chinese investment and made the state the world’s third-largest economy. Her alliance with Jiang also helped make her investor husband, Richard Blum, a wealthy man. As senator, she pushed for permanent MFN trade status for China by rationalizing China’s human rights violations, while her friend Jiang consolidated his power and became the Communist Party’s general secretary by sending tanks into Tiananmen Square. Feinstein defended him. “China had no local police,” Feinstein said that Jiang had told her. “Hence the tanks,” the senator from California reassuringly explained. “But that’s the past. One learns from the past. You don’t repeat it. I think China has learned a lesson.”

Yet the past actually should have told Feinstein’s audience in Washington a different story. The United States didn’t trade with Moscow or allow Russians to make large campaign donations or enter into business partnerships with their spouses. Cold War American leadership understood that such practices would have opened the door to Moscow and allowed it to directly influence American politics and society in dangerous ways. Manufacturing our goods in their factories or allowing them to buy ours and ship them overseas would’ve made technology and intellectual property vulnerable.

But it wasn’t just about jeopardizing national security; it was also about exposing America to a system contradictory to American values. Throughout the period, America defined itself in opposition to how we conceived of the Soviets. Ronald Reagan was thought crass for referring to the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire,” but trade and foreign policy from the end of WWII to 1990 reflected that this was a consensus position—Cold War American leadership didn’t want the country coupled to a one-party authoritarian state.

The industrialist Armand Hammer was famous because he was the American doing business with Moscow. His perspective was useful not because of his unique insights into Soviet society, politics, and business culture that he often shared with the American media, but because it was understood that he was presenting the views that the politburo wanted disseminated to an American audience. Today, America has thousands of Armand Hammers, all making the case for the source of their wealth, prestige, and power.

It started with Bill Clinton’s 1994 decision to decouple human rights from trade status. He’d entered the White House promising to focus on human rights, in contrast to the George H.W. Bush administration, and after two years in office made an about face. “We need to place our relationship into a larger and more productive framework,” Clinton said. American human rights groups and labor unions were appalled. Clinton’s decision sent a clear message, said then AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, “no matter what America says about democracy and human rights, in the final analysis profits, not people, matter most.” Some Democrats, like then Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, were opposed, while Republicans like John McCain supported Clinton’s move. The head of Clinton’s National Economic Council, Robert E. Rubin, predicted that China “will become an ever larger and more important trading partner.”

More than two decades later, the number of American industries and companies that lobbied against Trump administration measures attempting to decouple Chinese technology from its American counterparts is a staggering measure of how closely two rival systems that claim to stand for opposing sets of values and practices have been integrated. Companies like Ford, FedEx, and Honeywell, as well as Qualcommand other semiconductor manufacturers that fought to continue selling chips to Huawei, all exist with one leg in America and the other leg planted firmly in America’s chief geopolitical rival. To protect both halves of their business, they soft-sell the issue by calling China a competitor in order to obscure their role in boosting a dangerous rival.

Nearly every major American industry has a stake in China. From Wall Street—Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley— to hospitality. A Marriott Hotel employee was fired when Chinese officials objected to his liking a tweet about Tibet. They all learned to play by CCP rules.

“It’s so pervasive, it’s better to ask who’s not tied into China,” says former Trump administration official Gen. (Ret.) Robert Spalding.

Unsurprisingly, the once-reliably Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce was in the forefront of opposition to Trump’s China policies—against not only proposed tariffs but also his call for American companies to start moving critical supply chains elsewhere, even in the wake of a pandemic. The National Defense Industrial Association recently complained of a law forbidding defense contractors from using certain Chinese technologies. “Just about all contractors doing work with the federal government,” said a spokesman for the trade group, “would have to stop.”

Even the Trump administration was split between hawks and accommodationists, caustically referred to by the former as “Panda Huggers.” The majority of Trump officials were in the latter camp, most notably Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former Hollywood producer. While the film industry was the first and loudest to complain that China was stealing its intellectual property, it eventually came to partner with, and appease, Beijing. Studios are not able to tap into China’s enormous market without observing CCP redlines. For example, in the upcoming sequel to Top Gun, Paramount offered to blur the Taiwan and Japan patches on Tom Cruise’s “Maverick” jacket for the Chinese release of the film, but CCP censors insisted the patches not be shown in any version anywhere in the world.

In the Trump administration, says former Trump adviser Spalding, “there was a very large push to continue unquestioned cooperation with China. On the other side was a smaller number of those who wanted to push back.”

Apple, Nike, and Coca Cola even lobbied against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. On Trump’s penultimate day in office, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States has “determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups.” That makes a number of major American brands that use forced Uyghur labor—including, according to a 2020 Australian study, Nike, Adidas, Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and General Motors—complicit in genocide.

The idea that countries that scorn basic human and democratic rights should not be directly funded by American industry and given privileged access to the fruits of U.S. government-funded research and technology that properly belongs to the American people is hardly a partisan idea—and has, or should have, little to do with Donald Trump. But the historical record will show that the melding of the American and Chinese elites reached its apogee during Trump’s administration, as the president made himself a focal point for the China Class, which had adopted the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle. That’s not to say establishment Republicans are cut out of the pro-China oligarchy—Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s shipbuilder billionaire father-in-law James Chao has benefited greatly from his relationship with the CCP, including college classmate Jiang Zemin. Gifts from the Chao family have catapulted McConnell to only a few slots below Feinstein in the list of wealthiest senators.

Riding the media tsunami of Trump hatred, the China Class cemented its power within state institutions and security bureaucracies that have long been Democratic preserves—and whose salary-class inhabitants were eager not to be labeled as “collaborators” with the president they ostensibly served. Accommodation with even the worst and most threatening aspects of the Chinese communist regime, ongoing since the late 1990s, was put on fast-forward. Talk about how Nike made its sneakers in Chinese slave labor camps was no longer fashionable. News that China was stealing American scientific and military secrets, running large spy rings in Silicon Valley and compromising congressmen like Eric Swalwell, paying large retainers to top Ivy League professors in a well-organized program of intellectual theft, or in any way posed a danger to its own people or to its neighbors, let alone to the American way of life, were muted and dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.

The Central Intelligence Agency openly protected Chinese efforts to undermine American institutions. CIA management bullied intelligence analysts to alter their assessment of Chinese influence and interference in our political process so it wouldn’t be used to support policies they disagreed with—Trump’s policies. It’s no wonder that protecting America is not CIA management’s most urgent equity—the technology that stores the agency’s information is run by Amazon Web Services, owned by China’s No. 1 American distributor, Jeff Bezos.

For those who actually understood what the Chinese were doing, partisanship was a distinctly secondary concern. Chinese behavior was authentically alarming—as was the seeming inability of core American security institutions to take it seriously. “Through the 1980s, people who advanced the interests of foreign powers whose ideas were inimical to republican form of government were ostracized,” says a former Obama administration intelligence official. “But with the advent of globalism, they made excuses for China, even bending the intelligence to fit their preferences. During the Bush and Obama years, the standard assessment was that the Chinese have no desire to build a blue-water navy. It was inconvenient to their view. China now has a third aircraft carrier in production.”

Loathing Trump provided their political excuse, but the American security and defense establishment had their own interest in turning a blind eye to China. Twenty years of squandering men, money, and prestige on military engagements that began in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” have proved to be of little strategic value to the United States. However, deploying Americans to provide security in Middle East killing fields has vastly benefited Beijing. Last month Chinese energy giant Zen Hua took advantage of a weak Iraqi economy when it paid $2 billion for a five-year oil supply of 130,000 barrels a day. Should prices go up, the deal permits China to resell the oil.

In Afghanistan, the large copper, metal, and minerals mines whose security American troops still ostensibly ensure are owned by Chinese companies. And because Afghanistan borders Xinjiang, Xi Jinping is worried that “after the United States pulls troops out of Afghanistan, terrorist organizations positioned on the frontiers of Afghanistan and Pakistan may quickly infiltrate into Central Asia.” In other words, American troops are deployed abroad in places like Afghanistan less to protect American interests than to provide security for China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

“There’s a belief that we are not in the same type of conflict with them as we were with the USSR,” says the former Obama official. “But we are.” The problem is that virtually all of the American establishment—which is centered in the Democratic Party—is firmly on the other side.