The Smell of Money

Edmund Connelly

Time Magazine’s Entry in the “Most Ironic Story of the Year” Category

John Graham’s writing on Jews and financial misbehavior is priceless, beginning with the must-read article he co-wrote with Kevin MacDonald, Is the Madoff Scandal Paradigmatic?. This week Graham brings us Did Schumer Shill for Madoff?, which strongly suggests that New York Senator Charles Schumer was complicit in the massive financial swindle perpetrated by co-ethnic Bernie Madoff.

If Graham is correct, it wouldn’t be surprising if Schumer was not alone among high-level Jews in the American government whose actions benefited the financial sector — an area where it is widely acknowledged that Jews predominate — at the expense of the American economy as a whole.

Here I’m going to use work by trade expert Clyde Prestowitz on Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Prestowitz came to the world’s attention with his 1988 book Trading Places: How We Allowed Japan to Take the Lead. This was followed by other big books such as Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions (2003), Three Billion New Capitalists (2005), and The Betrayal of American Prosperity: Free Market Delusions, America’s Decline, and How We Must Compete in the Post-Dollar Era (2010). I’ll be splicing together information from the three books written after 2000.


Prestowitz was born in 1942 and grew up in Wilmington, Delaware, the son of a chemist. He describes himself as “The product of a middle class, conservative, rock-ribbed Republican, superpatriotic, born again Christian family.”  A former high-level businessman turned trade official in the Reagan Administration, Prestowitz has succeeded in carving out a niche for himself as one of the most insightful commentators on America business and trade. In 1989 he established a Washington, D.C. think tank, the Economic Strategy Institute (ESI).

Prestowitz writes of America that “the vast bulk of working people (who, of course, are also consumers) lost ground. Between 1980 and 2005, U.S. productivity rose 71 percent. Yet real compensation (including benefits of nonsupervisory workers (80 percent of all workers) rose only 4 percent. In the tradable manufacturing sector, productivity rose 131 percent while compensation climbed only 7 percent. This was in stark contrast to the period from 1950 to 1975 when worker compensation rose 88 percent while productivity doubled.”

He locates the reason for this in the fact that the one industry America has promoted over the past thirty years is finance. “It is so striking that I fear we must call it for what it has been — a clear industrial policy to target development of the financial services industry.” He then cites figures for why. In the ten years ending in 2008, “the finance industry spent $1.78 billion on political campaign contributions and another $3.4 billion on lobbying.”

Here Prestowitz, perhaps unwittingly, enters into controversial territory when he begins to construct the outlines of a theory that sounds suspiciously like the old “anti-Semitic canard” that blames Jews for the ills laid onto “real” Americans (or Germans or whatever). As he writes, “We need to understand that the interests of Wall Street, and therefore much of Washington, have not been and will not be those of Main Street.”

The bulk of this argument is made in chapter four of The Betrayal of American Prosperity, “Goldilocks and Bubbles: The Faith of Efficient Markets.” A staunch critic of free-trade theory as practiced by modern America, Prestowitz lays the blame for America’s loss of prosperity at the feet of “The Three Apostles: Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers.” He notes how in 1989 and 1993, financial instruments that would play a major role in the meltdown of 2008–9 were exempted from government oversight. Greenspan in particular was passionate about getting the government out of the way. “In fact, Greenspan largely halted the Fed’s active oversight of the banking industry.” Joined by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and subsequent Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, “the three mounted an aggressive campaign to halt any efforts to regulate trading of new derivative instruments.”

Further crises erupted that involved “the three apostles.” Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund, faced the prospect of losing $1 trillion dollars that it had borrowed from the largest American banks. “It threatened to freeze world money markets and precipitate a 1929-style crash and perhaps another depression.” Awkwardly, Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers “were in the process of halting a measure that would have put some constraints on the very kind of risky derivatives trading that was bringing LTCM to its knees.” Meanwhile, they continued to discourage the oversight of Brooksley Born, Chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Summers had even phoned her and sharply criticized her actions. This was followed by Greenspan, Rubin and Arthur Levitt of the Securities and Exchange Commission pressuring Congress to straightjacket Born.

This persisted into 2000, as Greenspan continued to insist that Wall Street should be trusted and left to its own devices. “With those assurances, Congress went ahead and stripped the CFTC of responsibility for derivatives, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in December 2000.” Meanwhile, Ms. Born quietly left government service.

Prestowitz notes that LTCM faced failure when the Russian government defaulted in October 1998. Interestingly, Summers has been accused of playing a role in the massive defrauding of the Russian people as well. Retired professor James Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Though relegated to an endnote, he names Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs as those involved. Petras shows that Harvard paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with Harvard professors.

Steve Sailer, in The real Larry Summers scandal? wrote that the upshot of the scandal was that the “reform” of the Russian economy “turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in all history, and the Harvard boys weren’t all merely naive theoreticians.” The 45-year-old Shleifer, though Russian, nonetheless vacationed each year with Summers, which may explain why Shleifer has remained on the Harvard faculty.

A more explicit account of the pressure brought to bear on Born can be found in Kevin MacDonald’s blog Self-Deception and Guruism among Jews, where he writes how psychoanalysis was

perhaps the greatest intellectual fraud of the 20th century — a set of beliefs that explained everything but had only the most tenuous connection to reality and an ideology that empirical research was for bean counters. The same thought crossed my mind while reading Thirteen Bankers, by Simon Johnson and James Kwak. Near the heart of the financial meltdown was the towering self-confidence of Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in opposing any regulation on the derivatives market. Summers seems to be pivotal. When Brooksley Born, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, proposed that some thought should be given to regulation, Summers reportedly said “I have thirteen bankers in my office, and they say if you go forward with this you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.” As Johnson and Kwak note (p. 9), we don’t actually know if there were any bankers in Summers’ office; “more likely he came to his own conclusion.” The point is that Summers had an unshakable faith that what he was saying was correct — a faith that was ominously unrelated to empirical reality. Nevertheless, Ms. Born was successfully pushed aside and ultimately a law was enacted  preventing any regulation of the derivatives market.

Prestowitz shows how both Rubin and Summers, upon leaving the government, continued to push reckless paradigms. As vice chairman of CitiGroup, Rubin “emphasized to the bank’s leaders that if they wanted to make more money they needed to take on more risk by dealing more heavily in derivatives.” For his part, Summers worked for the D. E. Shaw hedge fund, while also teaching at Harvard. More broadly, Prestowitz finds the three apostles were joined by others in making what he views as alarmingly poor decisions. One such was the decision to bring China into the World Trade Organization and granting China “permanent most favored nation status in the U.S. market. This will surely come to rank as one of America’s dumbest deals.” For this, he blames President Clinton, but also trade representatives Mickey Kantor and Charlene Barshefsky.

Since I’m bolstering John Graham’s suggestion that a highly networked group of Jews at the apex of the American government is working toward unjustly enriching their tribe, I’m going to get nit-picky here. First, former trade rep Mickey Kantor is Jewish. Second, the woman who followed him in the post is also Jewish. I found this in the Jewish Women’s Archives:

The most visible public invocation of Barshefsky’s Jewishness ironically almost seemed to negate it. Before the start of fall classes in 2002, Harvard President Lawrence Summers controversially reflected on what he regarded as the resurgence of antisemitism at his university and around the world. The Jewish Summers — who had himself served as secretary of the Treasury — argued that the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment contrasted with the historically significant lack of concern when Bill Clinton appointed a “very heavily Jewish” lineup of economic policymakers that included not only Barshefsky but also Treasury secretary Robert Rubin and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. In this narrative, the career of Charlene Barshefsky became simply one more sign of the successful assimilation of Jews into the top leadership of the United States.

Despite Prestowitz’s disclaimers to the contrary, I’m suspicious when he writes in the space of a few paragraphs about a group of people making what he feels are bad decisions. In the one paragraph that contains Barshefsky’s name, Prestowitz writes of the following Jews, in this order: Mickey Kantor, Barshefsky, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, NSC China expert Ken Lieberthal, finishing up with Rubin and Summers (Betrayal p.141). A coincidence?

In reading Prestowitz, you’ll see that he writes nothing explicit about ethnicity or undue intrigue when it comes to Jews as Jews. Indeed, he finishes the chapter I just mentioned by writing of the above individuals, “I know all these people. . . I don’t think any of them would do or say something they did not believe was in the best interests of the United States. But they all recommended and made a bad deal that has reduced American influence and power and constrained its future wealth-creating ability.”

How fitting that he writes about them in a book where the word ‘Betrayal’ is part of the title.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

56 Comments to "The Smell of Money"

  1. The lawnmower man's Gravatar The lawnmower man
    January 26, 2011 - 1:58 am | Permalink

    By deception they shall wage war on US.

    Great article ! Keep hitting the Bangster , once there crimes become renowned their credibility will vanish and with that their position & power to deceive .

  2. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    January 21, 2011 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    FTA: ‘As he writes, “We need to understand that the interests of Wall Street, and therefore much of Washington, have not been and will not be those of Main Street.” ‘

    Of course the interests of Wall Street are going to clash with those of Main Street. By their own religious and cultural tradition the Jews are to be “a people set apart” and so will almost always have interests divergent from and even at odds with the host population among which they reside. To have any country’s population at large (but Israel’s) fairly and impartially represented by Jews is as improbable as it would be if Frenchmen were to represent the interests of Italians or Britons those of Indians.

  3. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    January 21, 2011 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    A poem from Robert W. Service

    Because I have ten thousand pounds I sit upon my stern,
    And leave my living tranquilly for other folks to earn.
    For in some procreative way that isn’t very clear,
    Ten thousand pounds will breed, they say, five hundred every year.
    So as I have a healthy hate of economic strife,
    I mean to stand aloof from it the balance of my life.
    And yet with sympathy I see the grimy son of toil,
    And heartily congratulate the tiller of the soil.
    I like the miner in the mine, the sailor on the sea,
    Because up to five hundred pounds they sail and mine for me.
    For me their toil is taxed unto that annual extent,
    According to the holy shibboleth of Five-per-Cent.

    So get ten thousand pounds, my friend, in any way you can.
    And leave your future welfare to the noble Working Man.
    He’ll buy you suits of Harris tweed, an Airedale and a car;
    Your golf clubs and your morning Times, your whisky and cigar.
    He’ll cozily install you in a cottage by a stream,
    With every modern comfort, and a garden that’s a dream>
    Or if your tastes be urban, he’ll provide you with a flat,
    Secluded from the clamour of the proletariat.
    With pictures, music, easy chairs, a table of good cheer,
    A chap can manage nicely on five hundred pounds a year.
    And though around you painful signs of industry you view,
    Why should you work when you can make your money work for you?

    So I’ll get down upon my knees and bless the Working Man,
    Who offers me a life of ease through all my mortal span;
    Whose loins are lean to make me fat, who slaves to keep me free,
    Who dies before his prime to let me round the century;
    Whose wife and children toil in turn until their strength is spent,
    That I may live in idleness upon my five-per-cent.
    And if at times they curse me, why should I feel any blame?
    For in my place I know that they would do the very same.
    Aye, though they hoist a flag that’s red on Sunday afternoon,
    Just offer them ten thousand pounds and see them change their tune.
    So I’ll enjoy my dividends and live my life with zest,
    And bless the mighty men who first – invented Interest.

  4. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 21, 2011 - 12:23 pm | Permalink

    @ Anglo Saxon

    “But as for the former [“Someday”] possibly being a female (??) … ha-ha-ha … don’t get too carried away now with your imagination.

    Well, it’s 50-50, isn’t it? I lean towards thinking “Someday” is female because of a combination of negative character traits which I associate with the female temperament rather than with the male.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a misogynist. In fact, I could be female myself — given that the noun “Gravitas” in Latin is a female noun.

    When I brood on Someday’s spiteful and groveling posts — spiteful towards the best writers on this site but groveling like a fawning spaniel before Kevin MacDonald who is the Boss here — I can’t help recalling Nietzsche’s famous dictum from ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra': “Man is evil, but woman is base.

    What did Nietzsche mean by this? I leave it to you to work this out for yourself.

    I interpret the aphorism thus: However depraved and disgusting a level a man may sink to, there’s always a lower level to which a woman will sink.

  5. Anonyma's Gravatar Anonyma
    January 21, 2011 - 9:57 am | Permalink

    Gravitas @ January 20, 2011 – 6:54 pm | Permalink

    “It must be an embarrassment for you, dear Someday, to discover that our editor Kevin MacDonald should be so enthusiastic over Solzhenitsyn who in turn thinks that the Protocols reveals “the mind of a genius”.

    So where does that leave you, “Someday”, with your sneering dismissal of the Protocols?

    What words of advice would you have for “conspiracy theorists” such as Solzhenitsyn and Orwell [who had words of high praise for the Protocols]?

    I await your answer with bated breath.

    * * *

    Don’t hold your breath, Gravitas. You won’t get an answer from this hit-and-run troll. Certainly not a satisfactory one!

    His sole function on this site is:

    (a) to defame and launch ad hominem attacks on the best writers on this site by alleging that their articles are “substandard” in some way; or that they are “conspiracy theory weirdos” (Darkmoon, Rob Lonaker, John Graham), or “Nazi sympathisers” (Dr Tom Sunic).

    (b) to discourage dissidence of any kind and encourage political correctness, particularly in regard to Jewish interests. Nothing must be said on this website that is damaging to Jewish interests. No way. Hence, Someday’s knee-jerk reaction to the Protocols: “This is a forgery ! So shut up! Don’t criticize the Jews!”


    I wish KMD could do something to curtail the excesses of these all-too-obvious trolls.

    I guess we need to toughen up and cultivate an immunity to viruses.

    • January 23, 2011 - 8:07 pm | Permalink

      No more nonsense about the Protocols. According to the Basle Trial, they were fabricated by a Czarist Okhrana officer….one deeply acquainted with various forms of Jewish subversion. In short, they are a True Lie.

    • Anonyma's Gravatar Anonyma
      January 25, 2011 - 7:49 am | Permalink

      @ CompassionateFascist

      “No more nonsense about the Protocols. According to the Basle Trial, they were fabricated….In short, they are a True Lie.”

      And why should we trust the dubious findings of the “Basle Trial?” Or other Zionist outfits like Wikipedia who have come to identical conclusions about the Protocols — that they are a “forgery”?

      Have you never heard of a “smear job”? That trial was fixed!

      The Basle Trial was a stitch-up if ever there was one — a legal farce. If the Protocols are good enough for Orwell and Solzhenitsyn, they’re good enough for me. I don’t take instructions on this matter from Wikipedia — or, for that matter, from the likes of our resident Zionist troll Madam Someday.

  6. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 21, 2011 - 8:52 am | Permalink

    @ Anglo Saxon

    “Every time I post a comment that includes an outlink (URL) to YouTube, or to some other Blog page, etc., the TOO website posts a warning that states it is holding my comment for MODERATION.”

    Fair enough, Anglo Saxon. But why is the innocuous post I JUST made being moderated RIGHT NOW? There was no outlink (URL) to YouTube or to any other blog page.

    There has to be another explanation (doubtless technical) for this totally unnecessary moderation of posts.

    • January 21, 2011 - 9:38 am | Permalink

      It is not the case that people are said to have tacit as well as explicit (i.e stated as well as unrecognised/unacknowledged) ‘ideologies’ and/or ‘motives’?

      People are not 100% aware of their behaviours (e.g. how their bodies work). They are not at all omniscient (although some would like to think otherwise, or enocurage others to think otherwise about them). People can’t even claim originality for their own thoughts most of the time, they just don’t know where they came from so tend to think they are ‘their own’ or someone else’s if they read/hear them (think Obama reading an autocue, speech written by a speech writer, why do people attribute whta he says to him?). This is the nature of intensional opacity, and it’s radical. It’s why Radical/Evidential Behaviourists state that one has to look to behaviour and its consequences/outcomes to see what is really going on, and do so independently of what people tell themselves and others that they are doing. What people assert should just be thrown (as verbal behaviour) into the empirical mix of available data, and then pragmatically decide what is the best fit to what’s observed.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 21, 2011 - 11:21 am | Permalink

      @ Gravitas …
      I am guessing, truly I am, but it might conceivably have something to do with your IP address. Alternatively, your computer may have been compromised with a virus or spyware. If you don’t yet have adequate protection installed, then take a close look at this excellent product:

      As regards the TOO moderation process. Chill out. You are with friends here. We ARE reading you, and that is what you are posting for.


    • January 23, 2011 - 8:04 pm | Permalink

      Be grateful for “moderation”: means at least one person is reading what you wrote.

  7. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 21, 2011 - 8:35 am | Permalink

    Anglo Saxon @ January 21, 2011 – 4:05 am | Permalink

    “Gravitas: Based on all the Comments I have seen you post thus far … I would say your viewpoints are very welcome as far as I and many others are concerned. You need more online experience … then you will be able to better identify the nuances the shysters keep attempting to hide behind. Toughen up my man!

    Thanks, Anglo Saxon. You are quite correct in saying I need more online experience. I certainly wasn’t accusing our dear Editor of picking on me personally for “moderating” my posts. Though I guess there was a touch of paranoia in my tone. Sigh. There are so many obvious trolls on this site — Zionist to the core and ever zealous of “Jewish interests” while masquerading as White Nationalists — that it’s enough to induce paranoia in anyone!

    “Someday”, as far as I’m concerned, is a Zionist troll. There’s no doubt about it. There’s also a strong touch of literary envy here— the rage and frustration of the failed writer who can’t get his own crap accepted for publication.

    I say “his” when I refer to “Someday”. But I have a strong instinctual suspicion that “Someday” is actually female. An ugly Jewess probably…or maybe even a sexy one. Heaven forbid! :)

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 21, 2011 - 11:13 am | Permalink

      @ Gravitas …
      Yes … “Someday” and “Jason Speaks” are currently the two most obvious candidates for Hasbara membership.

      But as for the former possibly being a female (??) … ha-ha-ha … don’t get too carried away now with your imagination. Remember that the political incompetent, homosexual, deviant, alcoholic, and bankrupt Winston Churchill was the spawn of a Jewess. That’s more than enough for one century don’t you think?

  8. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    January 21, 2011 - 6:41 am | Permalink

    Summers the genius cost Harvard’s endowment $1.8 billion dollars.

    An interesting aspect of the story:

    That story is just rich with irony about what happens when someone literally goes off the plantation. What happened to all the outrage evident when Summers spoke about women and the sciences when Ms. Mack was fired?

  9. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    January 20, 2011 - 11:54 pm | Permalink

    the states with the highest rate of growth are national capitalist/national socialist states. The libertarians may flap and gobble, but statism is here whether we like it or not. The question then is what kind of a state? Clearly Finance Capitalism is dangerous, largely Jewish, and not congruent with the welfare of Europe or N. America. That it is even more deadly for WN should be apparent. Joe

    • January 21, 2011 - 6:54 am | Permalink

      Yes. Here’s something else to think about (it’s a field which has been vilified as much as intelligence research – I suggest, because it so loudly blows the whistle on Libertarianism (not that Charles Murray may have seen this?).

      “Rational choice theory lies at the heart of not only modern microeconomic theory but also political doctrines that advocate minimal government–libertarianism and anarchism, for example. The idea is that, insofar as people behave rationally, they should be left to their own devices, except when collective behavior undermines individual interest, as when maximizing fishers overfish the waters or each individual decides that someone else should do a particular job, like serve in the army or build a road.

      But suppose people fundamentally and individually misbehave, as the evidence indicates they do. Then we would expect government to take account, not just of the defects of collective action, but of individual action as well, as David Hume (1777/1826) said more than 200 hundred years ago. As old as it is, the idea remains unexplored and revolutionary, and it defines a conceptual frontier that students of the experimental analysis of behavior are uniquely well qualified to cross.”

      (My emphasis)
      Richard Herrnstein (1990)
      Rational Choice: Necessary But Not Sufficient

  10. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 20, 2011 - 10:40 pm | Permalink


    Is it really necessary to “moderate” all my posts? Can’t you let them through automatically as you are letting through the posts of almost everyone else here — including the posts of people who are definitely far more dangerous than myself.

    I am referring to Zionist trolls.

    If I am saying something that is of particular concern to you, to the extent that that you feel the need to check out everything I say in advance, please let me know and I will depart voluntarily.

    I have no wish to post on a site where my views are unwelcome.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 21, 2011 - 4:05 am | Permalink

      @ Gravitas …
      Every time I post a comment that includes an outlink (URL) to YouTube, or to some other Blog page, etc., the TOO website posts a warning that states it is holding my comment for MODERATION.

      This is quite normal and Professor MacDonald and his team are NOT picking on you; you can be sure of that! It is simply a normal blogger precaution.

      Based on all the Comments I have seen you post thus far … I would say your viewpoints are very welcome as far as I and many others are concerned. You need more online experience … then you will be able to better identify the nuances the shysters keep attempting to hide behind. Toughen up my man!

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 27, 2011 - 6:33 am | Permalink

      You might want to moderate your own language to get maximum readers. Many people’s computers limit access to pages on this site because of your comments.

  11. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 20, 2011 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

    @ Svend

    For writing about anti-Semitism coolly and objectively, Orwell, like Kevin MacDonald today, was denounced as “anti-Semitic”. Unlike MacDonald, however, Orwell was never vilified as an “exterminationist” — possibly because no was too concerned about the Holocaust in the late forties and fifties. (Surprising, when you come to think of it, since it had just “happened”.)


    Here is Orwell writing about anti-Semitism in 1945:

    “It is generally admitted that anti-Semitism is on the increase, that it has been greatly exacerbated by the war, and that humane and enlightened people are not immune to it. It does not take violent forms…English people are almost invariably gentle and law-abiding.

    After 1934 the Jew joke disappeared as though by magic from postcards, periodicals and the music-hall stage, and to put an unsympathetic Jewish character into a novel or short story came to be regarded as anti-Semitism.

    On the Palestine issue, too, it was de rigueur among enlightened people to accept the Jewish case as proved and avoid examining the claims of the Arabs — a decision which might be correct on its own merits, but which was adopted primarily because the Jews were in trouble and it was felt that one must not criticise them.

    Thanks to Hitler, therefore, you had a situation in which the press was in effect censored in favour of the Jews while in private anti-Semitism was on the up-grade, even, to some extent, among sensitive and intelligent people.

    Wealthy Jews tended to disguise themselves under aristocratic English or Scottish names, and to the average person it seemed quite natural that they should do this, just as it seems natural for a criminal to change his identity if possible.”

    That last sentence is priceless.

    See here:

    • Svend's Gravatar Svend
      January 21, 2011 - 12:16 am | Permalink


    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      January 21, 2011 - 12:42 am | Permalink

      Orwell was attacking anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish feelings in that essay. He also strongly condemned nationalism, going so far as to call it a disease. Anyone can look it up in the full essay. Is this a dishonest post?

  12. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 20, 2011 - 10:13 pm | Permalink

    @ Svend

    I’m sorry I can’t be of more use to you right now because of computer difficulties, but here is an interesting quote from Orwell on the Jews which you might find instructive:

    “…Recently I happened to review some books dealing with the persecution of the Jews in medieval and modern Europe. The review brought me the usual wad of antisemitic letters….The disquieting thing about these letters is that they do not all come from lunatics.

    I don’t greatly mind the person who believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion….But in addition to these types there is the small business or professional man who is firmly convinced that the Jews bring all their troubles upon themselves by underhand business methods and complete lack of public spirit.

    These people [who criticize Jews] write reasonable, well-balanced letters, disclaiming any belief in racialism, and back up everything they say with copious instances.

    They admit the existence of ‘good Jews’, and usually declare (Hitler says just the same in Mein Kampf) that they did not start out with any anti-Jewish feeling but have been forced into it simply by observing how Jews behave….”

    See here:

  13. Tom Brown's Gravatar Tom Brown
    January 20, 2011 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

    And here we all sit, shocked that these sharpies did what they did. This is why the dumb goyim deserve what they get…they are so naive and trusting like little children. They don’t have the ugliness necessary to rid their land of the avaricious nasty vermin. So stick out your hands for the manacles you wimps.

  14. Gravitas's Gravatar Gravitas
    January 20, 2011 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Concerning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    Someday (January 20, 2011 – 1:07 pm) says:

    Kevin MacDonald’s books and articles can’t be bettered, no time spent reading them is wasted. The same can’t be said of the Protocols. Of course Jews will get very ‘worried’ if we discuss the Protocols. But then, Br’er Rabbit got very ‘worried’ about the Briar Patch.”

    Well, I don’t disagree with your first sentence, “Someday”, though I don’t think I would wish to use such fawning words of flattery and grovel quite so low as you do before our esteemed Editor.

    However, I take issue with you on the rest of the passage which is an attempt to shut down all discourse and sneer at Anglo-Saxon’s excellent post providing apt quotes from the Protocols of Zion.

    It has been commonly acknowledged by the best minds, Orwell and Solzhenitsyn among them, that the Protocols rank among the four greatest political treatises ever written — the other three being Plato’s ‘Republic’, Aristotle’s ‘Politics’, and Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’.

    For Orwell, the Protocols was bedside reading. He read the book twenty-six times. This revolutionary handbook had an enormous influence on him, especially when he came to write his classic novel “1984”.

    Like Henry Ford and Lindbergh, Orwell was to be accused of anti-Semitism (by the usual suspects) because of the things he had said about Jews over the years. He talked about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion enthusiastically and was perfectly happy with the idea that was the book was true — i.e., that it was not a “forgery”.

    In “1984”, Orwell describes a version of a Jewish plan for world domination in “The Book” — a treatise supposedly penned by the significantly named Emmanuel Goldstein.



    As for Solzhenitsyn — a man, as you know, held in the highest esteem by Kevin MacDonald and everyone else here on this site — this is what he says about the Protocols, dear “Someday”, a book you dismiss with contempt in the way a Zionist troll — zealous of Jewish interests — can be expected to do:

    I quote verbatim from a well-known online essay:

    Many people have been led to believe that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is anti Semitic “hate literature” and a fraud. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the book exhibits “the mind of a genius.” This is pretty unusual for a fraud. He said the book exhibited “great strength of thought and insight. Its design is well above the abilities of an ordinary mind. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb.”

    It must be an embarrassment for you, dear Someday, to discover that our editor Kevin MacDonald should be so enthusiastic over Solzhenitsyn who in turn thinks that the Protocols reveals “the mind of a genius”.

    So where does that leave you, “Someday”, with your sneering dismissal of the Protocols?

    What words of advice would you have for “conspiracy theorists” such as Solzhenitsyn and Orwell?

    I await your answer with bated breath.

    • Svend's Gravatar Svend
      January 20, 2011 - 9:24 pm | Permalink

      That’s really interesting. I did not know Orwell read that book or that it influenced 1984.

      I believe you, but could you point me in the direction of some further reading on the subject? Google isn’t helping me much.

  15. January 20, 2011 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Great Articles and Comments!

    However, did I miss historical facts?

    [1] The first greatest theft and plunder of Russia, was the Jew Wall Street backed Bolshevik 1917 Revolution.

    [2] Bernankie operates a Ponzi. The ‘Buttonwood Agreement’ of 1792 Pyramid Scam supersedes Mr. Carlo Ponzi by 200 years.

    [3] China was taken over on day #1 ‘Nixon-Kissinger-Detente.’ A pyramid scam that effectuated the daylight robbery and theft of China’s labor property and assets in exchange for worthless US Treasury fiat paper contracts IOU’s.

    Is there a correlation to the three apostles in your article?
    Yes Absolutely!

  16. January 20, 2011 - 10:55 am | Permalink

    Have you looked at the demographics of NYC as advised (and with that, the mean IQs of each ethnic group there)? Are all of the above not Libertarians, living and selling ‘The American Dream’?

  17. Burrhus's Gravatar Burrhus
    January 20, 2011 - 10:45 am | Permalink

    Is it not as obvious as a bullet through your eyeball that the current global economic disaster is being created by the jews?

    1) The president of the European Central Bank is a jew — Jean-Claude Trichet.

    2) The Chairman of US Fed is a jew — Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.

    3) The previous Chairman of the US Fed is a jew — Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is currently an adviser for Paulson (a jew) and Co., the hedge fund involved in the current Goldman Sachs (a jew firm) fraud case. He is also an adviser for the British Treasury.

    4) The current Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a jew — Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

    5) The current president of the World Bank is…not a jew — Robert Zoellick. But he was previously a managing director of.. yes, you guessed it…Goldman Sachs.

    The two previous presidents of the World Bank were jews — Paul “The Warmonger” Wolfowitz and James Wolfensohn.

    6) The US Treasury Secretary who pushed trough the $700 billion 2008 bank bailout bill was not a jew — Henry Paulson (no relation to the Paulson hedge fund). But, once again, he WAS previously Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of…Goldman Sachs.

    7) The treasury Secretary during Clinton’s administration was a jew — Robert Rubin. He had previously worked for 26 years at…it gets a bit repetitive…Goldman Sachs. He is currently one of Obama’s top economic advisers along with Lawrence Summers who is oddly enough…a jew.

    The ECB, the US Fed, the IMF and the World Bank are the four most powerful economic institutions in the world. Three currently have jew heads and the other has a shabbas goy head who followed two jews.

    If that’s not the rhetorical equivalent of a two-by-four upside the head, I don’t know what could possibly get the attention of a philo-semite.

    Maybe finding themselves in the future feeding their children with grubs dug out of the tree in the backyard? Is that what it’s going to take to wake up those who are not jew-wise?

    Ring, ring…time to wake up…NOW.

    • Svend's Gravatar Svend
      January 20, 2011 - 10:56 am | Permalink

      Volcker is a Jew too. Hank Paulson may have come from a Jewish family but embraced “Christian Science”. I’ve seen Jewish sites make this claim.
      Members of the Board
      Ben S. Bernanke
      Janet L. Yellen
      Kevin M. Warsh
      Elizabeth A. Duke
      Daniel K. Tarullo
      Sarah Bloom Raskin

      Bernanke, Raskin, Warsh, Yellen are Jewish. Duke and Tarullo? Don’t know.

      The heads of FINRA, the AICPA, SEC and CFTC are Jews too. Do not underestimate how important these agencies are.

      Obama’s economic recovery team

      In fact, all “important” economists are Jews. I remember reading something somewhere about a plan to place “their” economists around “our kings”.

  18. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 20, 2011 - 8:21 am | Permalink

    @ David Longley …
    Yes, I see your point, which is well put.
    I am not American by the way, so I voted for no Representative. You and I may in fact share the same nationality.

    Sadly, your otherwise cogent argument comes undone when the Law Makers are manipulated or coerced into changing laws or creating new legislation in order to render that which was once considered highly illegal, legal.

    In other words, America’s Representatives have been ‘recruited’ by the predominantly ‘Jewish’ Mob controlling Manhattan to facilitate white-collar crime on a global scale. Washington is no longer a legislative capitol, but rather a clearing house for enacting into law whatever the South Manhattan mobsters need.

    Law Makers in Washington (and elsewhere in the Western World) have been manipulated and/or coerced by bribes, awards, prostitutes, threats, and both physical and mental intimidation. Therefore, placing a reliance upon changing the outcomes of a Libertarian political system would result in us orbiting great circles of jabberwocky for the next millennia.

    I can assure you … there is no “democratic” or peaceful pathway out of this multi-headed hydra … other than forming posses to chase down scum, secession, self-reliance, and in the case of the USA, the unilateral imposition of State’s Rights.

    You may (or may not) be aware that all senior personnel connected with Goldman Sachs were issued with gun licenses (and indeed, handguns + ammunition) sometime during late 2009 or early 2010. Furthermore, every vehicle entering Manhattan is tracked continuously by cameras, sensors, and databases. Clearly, someone fears being found out as they have already prepared certain defenses to deal with the most likely consequences. I might also add this same fear is the primary reason why X-Ray scanners have been installed at major airports.

  19. January 20, 2011 - 7:40 am | Permalink

    “Anglo Saxon January 20, 2011 – 7:11 am The more of these insane criminals are publicly executed, the more the right kind of message is sent out to all the others hiding behind various aliases, trusts, and front companies. “

    The problem, as I’ve pointed out before, is that as Irwin Stelzer has remarked elsewhere (on our BBC Newsnight in fact during a discussion of the Credit Crunch), said behaviours may be venal, but they’re demonstrably legal, hence the dearth of prosecutions aside from Madoff. In your elections you voted for Representatives, and these are the people who legislate on your behalf. That is your Libertarian political system (contrast this with the Democratic Centralism of the PRC, which is also a form of bottom up democracy). One can’t legally then go gunning for people who seemingly played by the rules, just because you don’t like how it turned out. If one can have people charged for breaking the laws of your land, all well and good, you should endeavour to do so via your Congressman/woman or other state officials. Surely you should be focusing on that, i.e the law and Liberal-Democratic process, not inciting others to play vigilante, given that the latter is not only illegal, but ironically, it’s non Liberal-Democratic too. This is why I am (unpopularly?) saying that to change any of this, one has to look critically at the current political system, namely Libertarianism, if one wants anything to change.

  20. January 20, 2011 - 5:20 am | Permalink

    october 2009. Once again, a difficult question: is it ‘Jews’ or is it Libertarianism? Will the USA change its economic system by criticising/replacing/holding responsible ‘Jews’ or must it change its political-economic system? Isn’t this the substantive issue? If those running the economy in Wall Street and Washington were all gentiles, would anything have been any different given that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was democratically voted for by representatives of the entire US people?

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 20, 2011 - 7:11 am | Permalink

      @ David …
      I shall begin with a rhetorical question. If you had evil intentions and you wanted, for some reason, to poison a river; where would you add the poison? Would you add it downstream (e.g., the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) or upstream (when the Masonic-Jewish influence first got a stranglehold on America)?

      You ask … Will the USA change its economic system by criticising/replacing/holding responsible ‘Jews’ or must it change its political-economic system?

      My humble answer is simply this. Your financial system IS THE MASONIC-JEWISH FINANCIAL SYSTEM!!! It is one and the same thing. Ergo, you will never change America’s financial system, or that of any other country, without first dealing directly with those Jews who were at some point appointed to act as gate keepers on behalf of the Spider that sits at the center of the financial (International Banking) web and who is charged with following the ancient script we know as the Protocols of the Elders.

      When identified, such as those three incompetent clowns introduced by Time Magazine as the “Committee To Save The World”, non-Jews and Jews alike must be charged with every possible misdemeanor and to the fullest extent of the law. The Prosecution should press, whenever appropriate, for the Death Penalty in as many cases as possible. Why? Well, simply because the felonies committed are so serious, far-reaching, and damaging to millions (if not billions) of people, that a life sentence in gaol simply would not suffice. Indeed, the Gulf of Mexico disaster orchestrated by BP and Washington Insiders shows that these psychopaths are not only ruining peoples’ lives, they are also prepared to seriously damage the world’s environment and eco-systems if it helps them move their long-term plans forward.

      The more of these insane criminals are publicly executed, the more the right kind of message is sent out to all the others hiding behind various aliases, trusts, and front companies. Eventually, one fine day, we shall have to hunt many of these people (if indeed I can call them “human”) down to the ends of the Earth. To Patagonia or even the Antarctic if necessary!

  21. John's Gravatar John
    January 19, 2011 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

    You can really see the programming of Americans in effect when they disregard every shred of evidence that Jews are actively seeking domination through the monetary system. Does it not give Americans the slightest bit of suspicion that Jews represent such a small fraction of the population and yet control virtually all the major banks and economic institutions within government?

    The Fed, controlled by another Jewish economist, Bernanke, is embarking on asset inflation right now through his ponzi-scheme economic policies. There are a number of ways to theoretically stimulate the economy, but he chose QE1. Alan Greenspan said before Bernanke embarked on QE2 that the no. 1 way America’s economy could benefit would be through asset inflation. Since Jewish individuals own a disproportionate share of stock-related wealth in this country, not only would asset inflation provide a free handout to the Jewish elite on Wall Street, but it would solidify the Jewish monetary hold on the political policy. It was the simplest way of providing a crack-high for the economy while also benefitting “the tribe.” If you watch the daily POMO activity, you will see an active theft of hundreds of millions in taxpayer money handed over to banking institutions, buying up treasuries one week and literally selling them back to the Fed the next week for millions in profit. This outright theft occurs like clockwork and not a peep from the American public about it.

    As we all know, political power in this country is bought; votes mean diddly. A strong stock market ensures a strong Jewish influence on government.

    Guess who was Bernanke’s thesis advisor was? None other than the Central Banker for Israel, Stanley Fischer. I mean, Jesus Christ, can we get anymore blatant? These individuals are looking out for their tribe first and foremost and they operate out in the open because they know that they can perpetuate this fraud without fear of being labeled a Jewish conspiracy because no matter what, that is crazy talk.

    And sure, some gentiles can benefit from a rising stock market but more importantly Jews will benefit even more. The Jews want a stable economy and a thriving global marketplace but they want to be at the top of that marketplace, calling the shots, and ensuring their supremacy.

  22. Al Ross's Gravatar Al Ross
    January 19, 2011 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Edmund, with regard to Japan’s “lost decade” – here is a piece debunking the Jewish academic Paul Krugman’s view of that subject :

  23. olivares's Gravatar olivares
    January 19, 2011 - 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating! I am simply flabergasted.

  24. Svend's Gravatar Svend
    January 19, 2011 - 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Connelly, this is not on topic. You’ve written about 9/11 yeah? You will find this very useful. Mind the names:

  25. Svend's Gravatar Svend
    January 19, 2011 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

    I was recently in Japan. If that is what a multi-decade depression is like, can we have one here?

  26. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    January 19, 2011 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

    the vast bulk of working people lost ground / U.S. productivity rose 71 percent / real compensation rose only 4 percent / Prestowitz locates the reason for this in the fact that the one industry America has promoted over the past thirty years is finance

    Some of the increase in productivity is obtained by increasing automation, employing fewer unqualified workers, and sending some jobs abroad. It isn’t good for everyone. Still, it is surprising that the living standards did not improve following the overall increase in productivity. I think that much of the money earned thanks to increased productivity has been spent on the army and the war in Iraq, on increased health costs and pension benefits, on increased bureaucracy and increased litigation, and maybe on useless financial activity. But I think it has mostly been used to finance the disastrous immigration policy. I wish an economist would confirm my suspicion, but it is a taboo subject.

    • January 23, 2011 - 7:43 pm | Permalink

      Ahhhh…more bad news. “Productivity” of companies HQ’d in US, but with jobs increasingly outsourced. The liars in gov’t statland index China’s “efficiency”, not ours. Of a piece with gov’t unemployment #’s, inflation #’s, etc. It would be a good idea for all of us to cease believing anything put out by our current Z.O.G.

  27. Edmund Connelly's Gravatar Edmund Connelly
    January 19, 2011 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to thank readers for responding so promptly. In no particular order, here are some of my replies:

    Anglo Saxon, I think your use of The Protocols is warranted here. My feeling is that whether they are “fake” or not somewhat misses the point; that they provide such insight into what is actually happening out there in the real world makes them useful, if only as a tool. Again, very insightful. Thanks.

    Tom, I appreciate the link to “The Harvard Boys Do Russia”. Added to some of the links in my article, as well as what other commentors have added, we have some good background material. And the American press barely covered the story. Imagine that!

    Montecristo, I had totally forgotten about Lasha Darkmoon’s great post on Jews in Russia and Georgia. I need to read that again. BTW, here’s the oligarch story I often use:

    “Yale Law School professor Amy Chua has written about an unnamed Jewish professor who, in the spring of 2000, described to her the meltdown of the attempt to implement free markets in Russia. ‘Instead of dispersing ownership and creating functioning markets, these reforms had allowed a small group of greedy industrialists and bankers to plunder Russia, turning themselves almost overnight into the billionaire-owners of Russia’s crown jewels while the country spiraled into chaos and lawlessness.’ Though the unnamed academic refused to admit it, Chua correctly noted that ‘six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest’ oligarchs were Jewish. (As her Jewish husband later quipped to her, ‘Just six? So who’s the seventh guy?’)”

    I’d like to finish by thanking “Someday” for his thoughts on China. Yes, China is a concern, but I’ve got a contact who is obsessed with the idea that Japan is hardly on the ropes. My contact insists Japan has deliberately created the (false) impression that it experienced a “lost decade” in the 90s, etc. I plan to write an article about all that soon, maybe even this winter. Stay tuned.

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 20, 2011 - 9:30 am | Permalink

      John Mearsheimer says China’s rise is

      “likely to lead to an intense security competition between China and the United States, with considerable potential for war. Moreover, most of China’s neighbors, to include India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and yes Australia, will join with the United States to contain China’s power. To put it bluntly: China cannot rise peacefully.”

      Importantly he thinks that the realities force states to behave in that way irrespective of their political system. So maybe Wall St.’s influence will not be enough to keep things quite much longer

  28. Montecristo's Gravatar Montecristo
    January 19, 2011 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Philip @ January 19, 2011 – 4:12 pm | Permalink

    On the subject of Russia, I was struck at the anger generated in the United States –- including accusations of anti-Semitism — when Russia started reclaiming some of the wealth that politically-connected Russian Jews walked off with during privatization. Talk about chutzpah!

    Our own Lasha Darkmoon treats of this subject very eloquently in her first essay for the internet, Don’t Mention the Jew.

    Here is how she begins:

    A few years ago a friend of mine, “C”, an expert on Eastern Europe, wrote an article for the New Statesman on the Russian oligarchs. Knowing little of these matters at the time, I was not particularly excited to learn that Putin had systematically dismantled the oligarchs’ political power, that he had taken over Berezovsky’s and Guzinsky’s media empire in 2000, and that he had ordered the arrest of Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2003 on charges of fraud.

    However, a light suddenly went on in my mind and all the pieces of the jigsaw suddenly fell into place, when I read a SINGLE SENTENCE which “ought not to have been written!” — a sentence which was to cause a veritable furor in the British press — including shrill complaints of “anti-Semitism” from the likes of Jewess Melanie Philipps, author of the anti-Islamic tract “Londonistan: how Britain is creating a Terror State Within” (2006).

    What crime had my friend “C” committed? What faux pas had his editor condoned? It was this. In a moment of madness, “C” had let the cat out of the bag. He had revealed the hitherto carefully concealed fact that SIX of the seven oligarchs who had stolen the Russian family silver were JEWS!

    This was clearly unforgivable. To mention the word “Jew” in this context, raged the frenzied Ms Phillips, was tantamount to encouraging a second Holocaust.

    Why do I bring this up now? For this reason. We have recently had an armed conflict in Georgia. TV, radio, and the press have reported these events in wearisome detail. Only ONE thing they consistently fail to mention: that Georgia is overrun with Jews, that it is a hotbed of Jews, and that Israeli advisers and arms are to be found everywhere in Georgia ad nauseam.

    They have omitted to mention — for of course it would be anti-Semitic to do so! — that Georgian Prime Minister Vladimir Gurgenidze is Jewish! — that his Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili is a Jew who enjoys Israeli citizenship! — that the former Georgian ambassador to Israel is Jewish and that half his family are domiciled in Israel! — and, finally, that tens of thousands of Israelis flock to Georgia every year where they own second homes! (See Dr Hesham Tillawi, ‘Georgia: Israel’s Home Sweet Home’.)

    These facts, it seems, must on no account be revealed to the public at large. Too much knowledge is anti-Semitism. A blissful ignorance of these matters is apparently a passport to philosemitism.

    See here:

    • Svend's Gravatar Svend
      January 19, 2011 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

      In a perfect world Darkmoon would post a new, looonnnggg article every hour.

    • giovanni's Gravatar giovanni
      January 19, 2011 - 6:20 pm | Permalink

      Read the excellet cover story of the Atlantic this month:
      The Rise of the New Global Elite
      …. But today’s super-rich are also different from yesterday’s: …t less connected to the nations that granted them opportunity—and the countrymen they are leaving ever further behind.

      It describes perfectly the new cosmpolitan, globalist, financial elite that despises the nation were is based and enriches itself through globalizations, offshoring, delocalization and financial manipulation

      The Atlantic piece leaves unexplained how all of a sudden the rich elite in the US and UK is so different from the previous one….

    • Felix's Gravatar Felix
      January 21, 2011 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Plus also remember just how little Russian the “Russian” mafia really is. The vast majority of them do not celebrate Easter.

    • Floda's Gravatar Floda
      June 11, 2011 - 12:44 am | Permalink

      Georgia is likely to be the place the Khazar Tribe fled to after the Russians kicked them out of the Ukrainian territories about 1250 Ad. No wonder the present day Israelis feel at home there, it’s where they came from!

      Think of how much better the World would be if these foul, child murdering, swindlers were all FORCED to get out of their stolen bolt hole Israel and moved back to Georgia.

  29. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    January 19, 2011 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    I still think back in anger from time to time at that foolish Time magazine cover. If financial markets were self-regulating, then why did Long-Term Capital Management need a bailout? Remember, that bailout was well before the recent, globally-ruinous Great Recession (and well after the Great Depression of the 1930s). It is interesting that a paleoconservative such as Clyde Prestowitz and a Marxist academic such as James Petras come to some of the same conclusions: that Big Finance is a racket and that deindustrializing the United States is the road to decay.

    On the subject of Russia, I was struck at the anger generated in the United States –- including accusations of anti-Semitism — when Russia started reclaiming some of the wealth that politically-connected Russian Jews walked off with during privatization. Talk about chutzpah!

    • Felix's Gravatar Felix
      January 21, 2011 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

      FTA: “It is interesting that a paleoconservative such as Clyde Prestowitz and a Marxist academic such as James Petras come to some of the same conclusions: that Big Finance is a racket and that deindustrializing the United States is the road to decay.”

      The hand-in-glove relationship our government now practices with big business and communism take divergent paths but both ultimately arrive at the same destination: Wealth and economic power in the hands of very few and poverty and loss of freedom for the vast majority.

      How ironic.

  30. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    January 19, 2011 - 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Take a few minutes, and read, “The Harvard Boys Do Russia”.

    How the same group of Ivy League Jews raped Russia.

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 19, 2011 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

      Nice link Tom.
      The Moscow branch were also busy, they favored the direct approach Putin says YUKOS owners ordered murders

    • Tom's Gravatar Tom
      January 19, 2011 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

      I got a hunch that the estimable Bill Grieder knows where the bodies are buried too.

      I’ve met Greider, and I don’t think Grieder is a Jew even though he operates in many of the same political cesspools that they do. As I recall it, I made a couple of critical comments about the Jews discussed above, as Jews. He wasn’t the least bit ruffled, and seemed to agree. These were pointed comments made in front of a high level federal politician who had introduced us.

  31. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 19, 2011 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Protocol 20:3
    Our rule, in which the king will enjoy the legal fiction that everything in his State belongs to him (which may easily be translated into fact), will be enabled to resort to the lawful confiscation of all sums of every kind for the regulation of their circulation in the State. From this follows that taxation will best be covered by a progressive tax on property. In this manner the dues will be paid without straitening or ruining anybody in the form of a percentage of the amount of property. The rich must be aware that it is their duty to place a part of their superfluities at the disposal of the State since the State guarantees them security of possession of the rest of their property and the right of honest gains, I say honest, for the control over property will do away with robbery on a legal basis.

    Protocol 20:29
    Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palm to our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off of themselves or the State flings them off. But the GOY States do not tear them off; they go on in persisting in putting more on to themselves so that they must inevitably perish, drained by voluntary blood-letting.

    Protocol 20:42
    You know to what they have been brought by this carelessness, to what pitch of financial disorder they have arrived, notwithstanding the astonishing industry of their peoples ….

    Protocol 3:20
    The word “freedom” brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts.


    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 20, 2011 - 1:07 pm | Permalink

      Kevin MacDonald’s books and articles can’t be bettered, no time spent reading them is wasted. The same can’t be said of thethe Protocols. Of course Jews will get very ‘worried’ if we discuss the Protocols. But then, Br’er Rabbit got very ‘worried’ about the Briar Patch .

      If you want a primary source which lays out the Jewish strategy may I suggest one of unquestionable authenticity: the Torah.
      John Hartung

      (Genesis 47:18-21):
      They said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent; and the herds of cattle are my lord’s; there is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be slaves to Pharaoh” . . . So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe upon them. The land became Pharaoh’s; and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other

  32. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    January 19, 2011 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    It is clear globalization serves the interests of Wall St. at the expense of Main Street. Western workers are being placed in direct competition with Asians. Wall St. makes huge profits but US manufacturers can’t compete or sell their products. Greenspan plugged the gap between the cost of the American Way of Life and declining wages with credit. Now that is coming to an end, obviously there is only one way the standard of living in the West can go – down. Hopefully that will work to concentrate the minds of Whites on the things that matter.

    Gabor Steingaart on Asian ‘attacker states’

    In a termite state, it is the collective rather than the individual which sets the agenda. […] It is a state that encourages as much collective behavior as possible but only as much freedom as necessary. We don’t know what they feel, we don’t know what they think and we have no way of guessing what they are planning. There are signs of a similar indifference to Western values all across Asia. But it is precisely that unspoken that separates the two worlds. Free labor unions are neither vilified nor permitted. Lip service is paid to the environment as something that should be protected, but at the same time it is torn apart like a car in a wrecking yard. Child labor is condemned even as it is actively tolerated. And a whole range of laws exist to protect Western intellectual property, but those rules are seldom applied.
    The Asian elite politely brush off everything that matters to us — the social framework surrounding daily working life, the idea of individual achievement and state-guaranteed fair competition.

    THE credit-financed way of life is typical of the US these days. Many people resort to credit to plug the gap between the lifestyle they have become accustomed to and their declining wages. The borrowed cash is like an anaesthetic against the painful impact of globalisation. Private household debt has been growing by $4 billion each business day for years

    China has a plan, America doesn’t

    China is talking down the dollar to serve its own interests. When the dollar depreciates against the euro and the yen, the yuan declines as well, because the Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar. And the declining yuan helps boost Chinese exports to Europe and elsewhere in Asia.[…] . Rarely has a government used the instruments of state monetary policy in such a calculated way. Obama is complaining, China keeps on growing and we’re all confused.
    The economics textbooks never imagined a planned economy that was also run so cleverly.

Comments are closed.