Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign

Kevin MacDonald

Ted Nugent’s Facebook post blaming Jews for gun control has received a lot of attention. Given that Nugent has been roundly condemned by the likes of the ADL  and National Review, I thought it appropriate to rerun this article, originally posted on January 1, 2013. See also Andrew Joyce’s article, “Jews and gun control: A reprise.” 

In Cooper Sterling’s TOO article (“Guns, profiling and White males“), he notes

The Left’s irrational obsession with gun control goes beyond the latest mass shooting. It is endemic among the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America, to dwell on the risks associated with firearms while disregarding or minimizing the benefits of firearm ownership. …

Anyone monitoring the national scene since Newtown is witnessing an emotional antipathy toward the last trace of political leverage among an identifiable demographic: an overwhelmingly White male gun culture. What the MSM and gun control advocates ultimately detest is the gun culture in America, which is too White, too male, and too conservative. …

The tradition of gun ownership is as old as the Republic. It reflects the pre-1965 demographic of America as an overwhelmingly White—and more civilized—nation. As a native Midwesterner, guns were rampant in our neighborhoods where few homes didn’t have some sort of firearm. We came of age hunting with our fathers, uncles and cousins, acquiring rifles and shotguns in our mid-teens.

An article from The Forward notes that the Jewish community has taken the lead in gun control and that part of it is hostility toward the  gun culture of White America that is especially apparent in rural White America. Jews “instinctively recoil” from this culture (“After Newtown Jews lead renewed push on guns“).

Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.
One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.”
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.”

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Although Jews certainly attacked and eventually overcame the elite WASP culture of pre-1965 America (e.g., by displacing WASPs at elite universities), another critical point of conflict between Jewish organizations and the main Jewish intellectual movements has been with rural America. This conflict can be most clearly seen among the New York Intellectuals, a group that is discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique. 

The New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with

nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)

The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations. (Review of Eric Kaufmann’s  The Rise and Fall of Anglo America“)

The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams  acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas.

And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males.

Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency  Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.

Further, it has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education (see here), notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.”

Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

33 Comments to "Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign"

  1. February 18, 2016 - 3:33 am | Permalink

    The full transcript of DavId Duke’s latest video on the Ted Nugent controversy with him naming the jew as being behind gun control in the US, is now available as a PDF for download.

    David Duke: Ted Nugent vs the ADL – Who is Behind Gun Control? — TRANSCRIPT


  2. stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
    February 16, 2016 - 3:44 am | Permalink

    Jews couldn’t do what they do without the backing of the traitorous white political/social elite. Deal with the elite and the Jews are powerless.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      February 16, 2016 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

      In some Country, such as England and France, they ARE by now the Elite.
      So to deal with them or to deal with the elite, is the one and same thing.

      • Aeneas's Gravatar Aeneas
        February 17, 2016 - 10:44 pm | Permalink

        Jews have alway been allied with the Gentile elites, they cried when Julius Caesar died because he gave special privileges for the Tribe, the expulsion of Jews in the European Middle-Ages happened because the poor serfs became tired of being exploited by the chosenites.

  3. roy albrecht's Gravatar roy albrecht
    February 16, 2016 - 2:25 am | Permalink

    We at TOO, I believe, pretty well mostly agree that Jews DO NOT have higher IQs than Whites and that the widely publicized “high IQs of Jews” is largely a product of yet more of their lies vis-à-vis their lock on the Lame Stream Media.

    What Jews do have is an innate proclivity for in-group cohesiveness, especially when it comes to collusive deception.

    What they also have is an “over-abundant tenacity” with respect to “sticking-to” or “rolling with the punches” and modifying/forgetting-about/passing-the-buck regarding lies or crimes where they have been caught red handed.

    Unlike a White man…,
    who tends to know when he is cheating and if he gets caught doing the same, he will confess and either ask for a chance to make amends or be forgiven…,
    the Jew, like the Oriental, will never admit to anything and tenaciously maintain the claim that he is in the right and the accuser/victim is an Anti-Semitic Racist who is itching for another Holocaust.

    So the question must be asked;

    If a Jew,
    with an innate genetic propensity to lie, thieve and mass-murder non-Jews (especially Whites),
    refuses not only to admit to the same when caught red handed
    (or when he does admit his crime has already made back-room deals with he “Jew-diciary” who then conspire to re-distribute the bulk of the proceeds of the crime against the White victim amongst other Jews in exchange for a wrist slap)
    but tries to inflict the blame for his crime upon his victims…, in a most tenacious and blatant manner…,
    what would a good patriotic American have done to such a Jew two hundred years ago?

    White men must look back into their past to find solutions to present day problems.

    • February 16, 2016 - 11:56 pm | Permalink

      Hear, hear! I’ve been saying this for years, they’re not smarter, they’re just more cunning and cohesive. The Jew’s hive minded culture is what is truly responsible for their wealth and success. If they were half as brilliant as they paint themselves to be, why do they have to steal western technology?

      Look at Israeli military weapons like the Lavi fighter and Merkavah tank, both of which relied heavily on US, British and foreign funding and technology. The Jews merely have their slave states working in their interest. Their western slave states supply them with weapons technology, developed at the slave state’s expense of course, and then Jews tailor these weapons to fit their specific needs. What’s brilliant about this contrived manipulation based on bald-faced lies?

      The Jew’s military prowess cannot be attributed to any brilliant designs or technological advances on their part, but on the stupidity of their proxy states to supply them with what they demand.

      What about the German submarines that have been largely gifted to Israel by the guilt ridden Germans for a myth that never happened? These subs are equipped with US supplied Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads. I remember how American authorities climbed all over themselves in their denial of nuclear warheads supplied with the missiles. Like the Israelis didn’t have enough of their own nukes to arm these missiles?

      “Before obtaining the Dolphins, the Israeli Navy depended upon three Gal-class submarines, designed by Germany for Israel, and constructed at the Vickers Shipyard in the United Kingdom between 1973 and 1977. The Gal-class is a modified Type 206A coastal submarine. The Gals were decommissioned when the Dolphins were commissioned into the Israeli Navy, and Israel planned to sell the vessels. However, no buyer was found and one of the boats was returned to Israel, where it is currently exhibited at the Haifa Naval Museum.”

      “The German government has stated that it does not have information on whether Israel installed different equipment on the submarines after delivery, but former German officials have acknowledged that they assumed that Israel intended to equip the submarines with nuclear weapons.”

      Great! A nation of bloodthirsty, spoiled rotten psychopaths arming themselves to the teeth with nuclear weapons without any adult oversight. Feel safe yet? Amazingly, legions of Judaeo-Christians have the utter stupidity to chant in unison “I never heard of Israel ever threatening anyone. Israel has a right to defend itself”.

      So riddle me this Jesus freaks: What “threat” justifies Israel maintaining a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines? What other nearby neighbors in the Near East sports a “defense” consisting of advanced technology vessels like these German U-boats? Syria? Egypt? Before answering, take a look at the map and see how many of them have sufficient coastline to even consider maintaining a naval power.

      I think I found another clue:

      “(IAP News) — An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

      “Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

      “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

      Might the Jew’s new German submarines be used for this purpose? Would this statement constitute a threat against Europe?

      Now let’s see, what was the purpose of America’s nuclear submarines? I remember, these vessels were part of the nuclear “triad” that ostensibly protected America from the evil, nuclear-armed, communist empire that was said to be “the avowed enemy of capitalism.” So what avowed enemy of Israel justifies these submarines? Palestine? Lebanon? Syria? Iraq? How many of them have nukes?

      Now that the “evil empire” is gone, what purpose do these massively expensive weapons systems have for the US, outside presenting an ever-present threat to any country that might not want to play ball with US policies? This used to be called “gunboat diplomacy”, but what it really was, and is, is imperialistic terrorism. So what excuse does Israel have for copying America’s former Mutual Assured Destruction stance against the Soviet Union? Wait, let me guess – “Never again”. That pretty much covers all the goyim doesn’t it?

      White men are the brains that design, develop and produce the technology; Jews are the controllers who manipulate their malleable brains.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 17, 2016 - 11:36 am | Permalink

      “. . .the Jew, like the Oriental, will never admit to anything. . .”

      Narcissism. Opposite is objectivity.

      Will not, or cannot? Maybe their brains are too primitive to allow for the objectivity required for self-reflection.

      Whites understand them better than they understand themselves.

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey's Gravatar Laguna Beach Fogey
    February 15, 2016 - 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Gun control = Goy control

  5. Rick's Gravatar Rick
    February 15, 2016 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:

    “Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One.

    There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘ Macbeth ‘.

    The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”

    Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
    Los Angeles Times

    Dianne Feinstein,
    “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

  6. Rick's Gravatar Rick
    February 15, 2016 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    how’s this for a great quote,

    Dianne Feinstein:
    “All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms.”

    Scalia was murdered to make way for a cultural marxist to
    replace him.

    I’m sure Zero will pick someone who is also appropriately
    anti-2nd Amendment as part of his ‘legacy’.

  7. John's Gravatar John
    February 15, 2016 - 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I was so wrong on the issue of gun control. Even just a couple of years ago, I thought it was nonsense when Americans said they wanted their guns in case the government gets out of control and now I see Merkel terrorize and destroy Europe and there’s very little standing in her way.

  8. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    February 15, 2016 - 6:36 am | Permalink

    This is a two-way street. One has to wonder what kind of weapons are in the hands of Jewish communities in the United States?

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 15, 2016 - 5:35 pm | Permalink

  9. February 15, 2016 - 5:35 am | Permalink

    Here’s the transcript of DavId Duke’s latest video on the Ted Nugent controversy with him naming the jew as being behind gun control in the US.

    Of course Organized Jewry is the power behind all gun control throughout the Western world, as a disarmed population then lacks a real physical means of resisting jewish tyranny.

    David Duke: Ted Nugent vs the ADL – Who is Behind Gun Control? — TRANSCRIPT


  10. February 15, 2016 - 12:31 am | Permalink

    Years ago, when the NRA started going down the primrose path of American’s “right to hunt”, I called foul. I have been saying for years, it’s not about self defense, it’s not about hunting or sport shooting and it never has been. It’s about keeping tyranny in check.

    Anybody who has studied the history of the American revolution knows this was at the forefront of the founder’s reasoning in authoring the second amendment. What few seem to know is that the idea of the militia was to replace the standing armies common to the European monarchies. These monarchies kept Europe in a constant state of war with their military adventurism.

    The argument is that the national guard is the equivalent of the modern militia. In a pig’s eye! The national guard is nothing more than an adjunct to America’s massive standing Army. Read the founder’s definition of the militia and you will find reference to all men between certain ages. Women are not mentioned.

    This as opposed to the actual Talmudic legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:

    Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” in its entirety:

    “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are —

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

    Show me where the founders refer to a “national guard.”

    “The title “National Guard” was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. “National Guard” became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933.”

    Obviously the founders had no idea of a “national guard”, especially like those federal/state supervised military agencies presently claimed as comprising the modern “militia.” The founder’s idea of a militia was farmers with muskets over the mantel place and their sons who could be called up in the event of an invasion, most likely by a European monarchy. Today’s national guard is part of the military adventurism of America’s massive standing army. This is the very antithesis of what the founders wanted for America. Today America’s standing military supports far worse military adventurism than any European king ever dreamt.

    In the late 1700’s, King George tried confiscating the colonist’s weapons, the second amendment was to make sure that never happened under future rule.

    As it has been thoughtfully posited in the past, there is a reason for the second amendment being second. Without the second amendment there will not be a first.

    Perhaps a deal can be struck: America gives up ALL its guns the day Israel gives up ALL its weapons – including its nukes. “Disarm Israel first!” should be the rallying cry of American firearm owners.

    I’ll say it again – the day the Jews finally succeed in confiscating America’s private firearms is the day they begin opening the doors to their FEMA death camps.

    Why am I certain of this? I read history and this is exactly the process the Jewish Bolshevist went through in the Soviet Union before murdering some 66 million Russians both in and out of their gulag system. Show me any evidence as to why it might be any different here.

    And who designed the Soviet Gulag death camp system? I’m glad you asked – Matvei Berman and Naftaly Frenkel. Berman and Frenkel; sounds more like a Jewish comedy team than a team of mass murderers doesn’t it? Grim comedy indeed. So who might have been the designers of America’s FEMA camp system? Naw it couldn’t be – could it?

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 15, 2016 - 6:06 pm | Permalink

      I’m sure you’re right, and shudder at the thought. The Bolsheviks did, however, have to win the civil war before proceeding with their genocide. Their victory in this ultimate round is far from certain.

  11. Mark's Gravatar Mark
    February 14, 2016 - 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Jewish Supremacists Emanuel Celler’s spent 41-years fighting the long held national origin restrictions on immigration into the United States.

    The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 abolished the national origins quota system that kept the United States 90% European which protected our European population by excluding Asians, and Africans, in favor of northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.

    Jewish Supremacists Emanuel Celler’s also introduced The ‘US Gun Control Act of 1968’ Celler’s Bill H.R. 17735; in whole or part, H.R. 17735 is still in use today.

    We need to protect our people and stop importing, Asians, and Africans into our Nations.

    We need to reinstate the national origins quota system that once kept the United States 90% European which protected our population.

    Anti-White haters are becoming a real problem in our Nations.

    Europeans need to confront this hostility before it’s too late.

    Imagine how bad the violence will be when our European Nations reach a critical mass of 50, 60 or even 70 percent anti-white anti-European haters.

    If we allow the Jews take our weapons, it will be hell on Earth for Europeans.

    • February 15, 2016 - 12:34 pm | Permalink

      “If we allow the Jews take our weapons, it will be hell on Earth for Europeans.”

      That’s the plan – The love of bloodshed, torture and horror, excites the Jew; just watch their movies.

      It’s already too late. Hell has already arrived on western civilization’s doorstep in the form of unrestricted immigration.

      “The number of Mexican construction workers in the United States was 1.32 million in 2014. – Source: National Association of Home Builders. – Financial Times (London), February 9, 2016. p. 7.”

      A few years back I had an acquaintance who was a specialty tiler. He left his home state of Florida because he “couldn’t compete with the Mexicans; they work too cheap.”

      It’z the old Bible story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob the scheming tranny and his domineering mother plot and connive the manly, forthright Esau out of, not only his birthright blessing, but his inheritance as well. The birthright blessing transferred the father’s leadership of the tribe. This power was signified by a ring. The inheritance was of course what we know today.

      This is what homosexual Jews have done to America. They have stolen the white man’s birthright to America’s leadership and the inheritance to their land. Like a demented Circe, Jews have turned men into greedy pigs and whining drag queens. White America is now nothing more than obsequious, emasculated, slaves to their parasitical masters.

      But for Jews, it is not enough they killed off the best and brightest of the white males in two fratricidal wars, now they want to kill off the white women as well.

      “Top Army and Marine Corps generals have said woman should have to register for the draft and that it could take up to three years to fully integrate them into all combat jobs.” Read more at


      And why not, considering what they do to their own women:

      “Last week a female Israeli soldier, Hadar (meaning, roughly, “Splendor,” or “Glory,”) Cohen, was killed in the course of duty. Two months into the Israel Defense Force, just two days after she had completed her basic training and taken the military oath of allegiance, she found herself standing guard at Old Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate. With her were another female soldier and some male comrades. Three terrorists (some would call them Palestinian freedom fighters) armed with knives, submachine guns which they concealed under their coats emerged. One terrorist stabbed and was able to wound the other female soldier before Hadar gunned him down, probably saving her comrade’s life. Thereupon a second terrorist turned on her and stabbed her to death before he and the third terrorist present were “wasted”—this is standard language—by her fellow soldiers. She was nineteen years old.” –

      Sound familiar? This is the future Jews have laid out for American women – Thanks Jews.


      This is the feminized world of the egalitarian Jew who call their parasitism, “Tikkun Olam”. Strict constructionalists of Orthodox Judaism understand this as wiping out all forms of idolatry, i.e. non-Jewish religious beliefs. All non-Jews can therefore be defined as idolaters.

      Theirs is an upside down world, like the inverted pyramid of their Star of David that represents the upside down world their patriarch Moses created within ancient Egyptian culture. This is the process of “normative inversion” that eventually led to Egypt’s dissolution and destruction. That is the only thing the Jew’s “normative inversion” of a culture will ever accomplish – utter chaos and destruction.

      The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.) had these thoughts on the origins of the Hebrews. This is in the context of Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea (70 A.D.)

      Tacitus: History Book 5

      As I am about to relate the last days of a famous city, it seems appropriate to throw some light on its origin. Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.

      Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.” – This city would be called “Jerusalem”.


      Here is what 1st century historian Josephus wrote about the Hyksos:

      “”These people, whom we have called kings before, and shepherds too, and their descendants,” as he says, “held Egypt for five hundred and eleven years. Then,” he says, “the kings of Thebes and the other parts of Egypt rose against the shepherds, and a long and terrible war was fought between them.” He says further, “By a king, named Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued, and were driven out of the most parts of Egypt and shut up in a place named Avaris, measuring ten thousand acres.” Manetho says, “The shepherds had built a wall surrounding this city, which was large and strong, in order to keep all their possessions and plunder in a place of strength.

      Tethmosis, son of Alisphragmuthosis, attempted to take the city by force and by siege with four hundred and eighty thousand men surrounding it. But he despaired of taking the place by siege, and concluded a treaty with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any harm coming to them, wherever they wished. After the conclusion of the treaty they left with their families and chattels, not fewer than two hundred and forty thousand people, and crossed the desert into Syria. Fearing the Assyrians, who dominated over Asia at that time, they built a city in the country which we now call Judea. It was large enough to contain this great number of men and was called Jerusalem.”


      Avaris? The name of that city is the English homonym of “Avarice,” literally meaning an excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain. How historically poetic, Jews provided a name for their ancient city in Egypt that, thousands of years later, describes perfectly the most fundamental proclivity of their race.

      Thus, Jews have been inverting various cultures for over three thousand years. Why would anyone think they are going to change their ways now, or at any point in the future?

  12. Ryu's Gravatar Ryu
    February 14, 2016 - 8:57 pm | Permalink
    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      February 14, 2016 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

      …everyone else who defers to Jewish power or is swayed by their propaganda,

  13. Celt Darnell's Gravatar Celt Darnell
    February 14, 2016 - 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Yes, but I’ve always tended to agree with Steve Sailer who once noted that the gun control debate was really between two groups of whites: white urbanites and rural whites.

    The reason white urbanites want gun control is because they live (increasingly) in close proximity to certain minorities who use guns for the express purpose of committing violent crimes. They also have less need for guns, especially for home defense, as the police are usually not far away.

    Rural whites, by contrast, use their guns for recreational purposes (including, obviously, hunting) and, given the nearest police officer may be miles away, have a good reasons for keeping firearms for home defense. They are also rarely concerned about armed minorities as these are usually far away (and the rural folks are fully capable of dealing with them should the need arise).

    Needless to say, the white urbanites can’t actually come out and say that the reason they support gun control is to disarm blacks and Hispanics, so they come up with endless, obviously bogus, reasons why all Americans should be disarmed.

    I rarely disagree with Professor MacDonald, but in this case, I suspect the Jewish involvement is only part of the story.

    • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
      February 15, 2016 - 2:25 am | Permalink

      Your assertion that urban whites (presumably meaning non-jews) might favor gun control because they live in close proximity to violence-prone individuals and groups doesn’t explain why major cities with virtually no gun control (Phoenix, Arizona being a good example, since all of Arizona allows concealed carry without a permit) have substantially lower crime rates, especially the violent kind, than cities with heavy gun control, such as Chicongo and Jew York.

      • Celt Darnell's Gravatar Celt Darnell
        February 17, 2016 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Well, it’s Steve Sailer’s assertion rather than mine.

        There probably are exceptions — especially urban areas with few minorities (what’s Phoenix’s black population size?).

        Also, urban whites (non-Jewish) do, in fact, hold more liberal positions than rural whites. No-one disputes that.

        FYI — I support gun ownership.

    • bannister's Gravatar bannister
      February 15, 2016 - 7:36 am | Permalink

      No need to disagree with McDonald on this one either. As you said yourself, the Jewish involvement IS part of the story and it’s a part that needs to be told.

      Sailor’s point about “urban whites vs rural whites” may well be valid – in fact, I see this conflict rear it’s head in other political/cultural areas as well. But in most cases, it’s the Jews who are leading the charge and egging on the “urban whites” to clash (and make fun of) their rural white brothers. This dynamic was clearly apparent in “The Daily Show” with John “Leibowitz” Stewart ridiculing Christians, conservatives and rural whites while his audience of urbanite gentile roared with laughter and approval.

      • Celt Darnell's Gravatar Celt Darnell
        February 17, 2016 - 4:18 pm | Permalink

        Oh, I agree with your wider points.

        I just find it ironic that urban whites in favor of gun control know damned well which segments of the population ought not to have guns and yet pretend otherwise.

        I often wonder how liberals’ heads don’t explode….

  14. Strichplatte's Gravatar Strichplatte
    February 14, 2016 - 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Personally I get a little uneasy and frightened when I see a photo of Leon Trotsky screaming orders to “KILL” at a bunch of assault weapon armed cone hatted red army soldiers attacking women and children. I get uncomfortable if a jew collage professor armed with a brief case approaches me when I am not carrying a weapon. It really scares the hell out of me when I see a picture of Bloomberg swinging a toy AR-15 around a microphone in front of a group of low IQ journalist during a “press” conference. It is so bizarre, unreal and upsetting, it makes me feel like a jew and then I get sick and want to puke. It really is worst than a holocaust. Damm jews are OK with slaughtering gentiles and I hope Ted Nugent writes a few new songs for the semites to screech about.

  15. WunderHund's Gravatar WunderHund
    February 14, 2016 - 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Thouhh an army war veteran from a big city I never gave much thought one way or the other to gun control until I studiied the Constitution in law school. It was after a Constitution law class that I asked the liberal con law professor If my interpretation of the second amendment as guaranteeing the right and means of the people to overthrow the federal government was in fact correct. He agreed that the original intent was that but claimed that”nobody thinks that anymore ” Its interesting that even the NRA doesn’t use the original intended purpose of the second amendment to support their opposition to gun control but has allowed the weaker argument of self defense (in light of police forces) to encapsulate the whole of their position. Considering that most people will never have the need or opportunity to use a gun in self defense , but ALL governments become despotic and are overthrown at some point, it is a foolish to shy away from the head on confrontation which will result in reminding people of the fact that history is an ongoing affair and either we….. or our descendants will one day need semiautomatic rifles for what is frankly inevitable and was forseen by our country’s founders..Jews of course know what side they’ll be on .

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 14, 2016 - 11:46 pm | Permalink

      A State-dominated society has a [standing] army.

      A free society has a militia- the people armed.

      The army is for the elite establishment [with its cartels] and against the people.

      Somehow, the people came to believe that the permanent army was on their side. Big and tragic mistake. They learned this in the government schools, which are also for the elite and against the people.

      • AnotherAmalekite's Gravatar AnotherAmalekite
        February 15, 2016 - 10:44 am | Permalink

        While I don’t in principle disagree with what various commenters have said about Militias, National Guards and standing Armies, the fact is that the world since the 20th century is not as simple, or large, as it was 250 years ago.

        At the time of the revolution, there were no ICBM’s, nuclear-armed submarines and nuclear-armed bombers that could strike countries on the far side of the globe within minutes or hours. These are real threats that countries have to defend themselves against, and this unfortunately requires some type of “standing” military with the capacity to act decisively within those same short minutes or hours.

        Granted, the MIC (Military-Industrial Complex) needs to be kept to a minimum, as I doubt the US really needs all of those 150 or so (an oft-cited number) military facilities, large and small, that it maintains worldwide.
        There may be an answer to all this somewhere, but I somehow doubt it’s an easy one in today’s world.

        I obviously do agree that the US population needs to stay armed.

Comments are closed.