The U.S. abstention on the UN resolution on West Bank settlements continues to reverberate. Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech defending the U.S. position that included the following:
The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government — which the prime minister himself just described as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history” — are leading in the opposite direction, toward one state.
Obviously, the U.S., along with the rest of the world, sees through the Israeli lies that it has been pursuing peace and a two-state solution in good faith — after nearly 50 years of occupation. But what I want to focus on is his statement that the current Israeli coalition has “an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” This was too much for British PM Theresa May, whose spokesman responded that “We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”
But of course, it’s quite possible that a government fall into the hands of fanatics, and that may well be a problem for the rest of the world, especially in the age of nuclear weapons. The fact that fanatics are in charge in Israel is particularly a problem for countries like the U.S. where the Israel Lobby commands so much political and media support, with the result that the U.S. has often been in the position of giving diplomatic and military support to a government run by fanatics. This has meant either actively caving into their pressure (e.g., the Iraq war, promoted by Israel, the Israel Lobby, and neocons in the Bush administration) or turning a blind eye to Israeli actions (as with the decades-0ld official U.S. condemnation of West Bank settlements while doing absolutely nothing to curtail their diplomatic and financial support of Israel).
In the case of Israel, I think that the fact that the government has taken over by extremists is entirely comprehensible in terms of an understanding of the internal dynamics of Judaism. The following are excerpts from an article I wrote for The Occidental Quarterly in 2003, “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism.”
Zionism is an example of an important principle in Jewish history: At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day.3 As recounted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews who returned to Israel after the Babylonian captivity energetically rid the community of those who had intermarried with the racially impure remnant left behind. Later, during the period of Greek dominance, there was a struggle between the pro-Greek assimilationists and the more committed Jews, who came to be known as Maccabeans.
At that time there appeared in Israel a group of renegade Jews, who incited the people. “Let us enter into a covenant with the Gentiles round about,” they said, “because disaster upon disaster has overtaken us since we segregated ourselves from them.” The people thought this a good argument, and some of them in their enthusiasm went to the king and received authority to introduce non-Jewish laws and customs. They built a sports stadium in the gentile style in Jerusalem. They removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant. They intermarried with Gentiles, and abandoned themselves to evil ways.4
The victory of the Maccabeans reestablished Jewish law and put an end to assimilation. The Book of Jubilees, written during this period, represents the epitome of ancient Jewish nationalism, in which God represents the national interests of the Jewish people in dominating all other peoples of the world:
I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply you exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it forever.5
A corollary of this is that throughout history in times of trouble there has been an upsurge in religious fundamentalism, mysticism, and messianism.6 For example, during the 1930s in Germany liberal Reform Jews became more conscious of their Jewish identity, increased their attendance at synagogue, and returned to more traditional observance (including a reintroduction of Hebrew). Many of them became Zionists.7 As I will discuss in the following, every crisis in Israel has resulted in an increase in Jewish identity and intense mobilization of support for Israel. Today the people who are being rooted out of the Jewish community are Jews living in the Diaspora who do not support the aims of the Likud Party in Israel. The overall argument here is that Zionism is an example of the trajectory of Jewish radicalism. The radical movement begins among the more committed segments of the Jewish community, then spreads and eventually becomes mainstream within the Jewish community; then the most extreme continue to push the envelope (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank), and other Jews eventually follow because the more extreme positions come to define the essence of Jewish identity. An important part of the dynamic is that Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews, with the result that Jews feel threatened, become more group-oriented, and close ranks against the enemy—an enemy seen as irrationally and incomprehensibly anti-Jewish. Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.
TABLE 1: JEWISH RADICALS EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH WITHIN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY: THE CASE OF ZIONISM
- 1. Zionism began among the more ethnocentric, committed segments of the Jewish community (1880s).
- 2. Then it spread and became mainstream within the Jewish community despite its riskiness (1940s). Supporting Zionism comes to define what being Jewish is.
- 3. Then the most extreme among the Zionists continued to push the envelop (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank; constant pressure on border areas in Israel).
- 4. Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews (e.g., the settlement movement); violence (e.g., Intifadas) and other expressions of antiJewish sentiment increase.
- 5. [As a result of these conflicts,] Jews in general feel threatened and close ranks against what they see as yet another violent, incomprehensible manifestation of the eternally violent hatred of Jews. This reaction is the result of psychological mechanisms of ethnocentrism: Moral particularism, self-deception, and social identity.
- 6. In the U.S., this effect is accentuated because committed, more intensely ethnocentric Jews dominate Jewish activist groups.
- 7. Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.
The origins of Zionism and other manifestations of the intense Jewish dynamism of the twentieth century lie in the Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe in the early nineteenth century. Originally invited in by nobles as estate managers, toll farmers, bankers, and moneylenders, Jews in Poland expanded into commerce and then into artisanry, so that there came to be competition between Jews and non-Jewish butchers, bakers, blacksmiths, shoemakers, and tailors. This produced the typical resource-based anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior so common throughout Jewish history.8 Despite periodic restrictions and outbursts of hostility, Jews came to dominate the entire economy apart from agricultural labor and the nobility. Jews had an advantage in the competition in trade and artisanry because they were able to control the trade in raw materials and sell at lower prices to coethnics.9
This increasing economic domination went along with a great increase in the population of Jews. Jews not only made up large percentages of urban populations, they increasingly migrated to small towns and rural areas. In short, Jews had overshot their economic niche: The economy was unable to support this burgeoning Jewish population in the sorts of positions that Jews had traditionally filled, with the result that a large percentage of the Jewish population became mired in poverty. The result was a cauldron of ethnic hostility, with the government placing various restrictions on Jewish economic activity; rampant anti-Jewish attitudes; and increasing Jewish desperation.
The main Jewish response to this situation was an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems. Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century, with a natural increase of 120,000 per year in the 1880s and an overall increase within the Russian Empire from one to six million in the course of the nineteenth century.10 Anti-Semitism and the exploding Jewish population, combined with economic adversity, were of critical importance for producing the sheer numbers of disaffected Jews who dreamed of deliverance in various messianic movements—the ethnocentric mysticism of the Kabbala, Zionism, or the dream of a Marxist political revolution.
Religious fanaticism and messianic expectations have been a typical Jewish response to hard times throughout history.11 For example, in the eighteenthcentury Ottoman Empire there was “an unmistakable picture of grinding poverty, ignorance, and insecurity”12 among Jews that, in the context of high levels of anti-Semitism, effectively prevented Jewish upward mobility. These phenomena were accompanied by the prevalence of mysticism and a high fertility rate among Jews, which doubtlessly exacerbated the problems.
The Jewish population explosion in Eastern Europe in the context of poverty and politically imposed restrictions on Jews was responsible for the generally destabilizing effects of Jewish radicalism in Eastern Europe and Russia up to the revolution. These conditions also had spillover effects in Germany, where the negative attitudes toward the immigrant Ostjuden (Eastern Jews) and their foreign, clannish ways contributed to the anti-Semitism of the period.13 In the United States, radical political beliefs held by a great many Jewish immigrants and their descendants persisted even in the absence of difficult economic and political conditions and have had a decisive influence on U.S. political and cultural history into the present. The persistence of these beliefs influenced the general political sensibility of the Jewish community and has had a destabilizing effect on American society, ranging from the paranoia of the McCarthy era to the triumph of the 1960s countercultural revolution.14 In the contemporary world, the descendants of these religious fundamentalists constitute the core of the settler movement and other manifestations of Zionist extremism in Israel.
The hypothesis pursued here is that Jewish population dynamics beginning in the nineteenth century resulted in a feed-forward dynamic: Increasing success in economic competition led to increased population. This in turn led to anti-Jewish reactions and eventually to Jewish overpopulation, poverty, anti-Jewish hostility, and religious fanaticism as a response to external threat. In this regard, Jewish populations are quite the opposite of European populations, in which there is a long history of curtailing reproduction in the face of perceived scarcity of resources.15 This may be analyzed in terms of the individualism/collectivism dimension, which provides a general contrast between Jewish and European culture:16 Individualists curtail reproduction in response to adversity in order to better their own lives, whereas a group-oriented culture such as Judaism responds to adversity by strengthening group ties; forming groups with charismatic leaders and a strong sense of ingroup and outgroup; adopting mystical, messianic ideologies; and increasing their fertility—all of which lead to greater conflict.
There is an association between religious or ethnic fanaticism and fertility, and it is quite common for competing ethnic groups to increase their fertility in response to perceived external threats.17 Ethnic activists respond to the perceived need to increase the numbers of their group in several ways, including exhorting coethnics to reproduce early and often, banning birth control and abortions, curtailing female employment in order to free women for the task of reproducing, and providing financial incentives. In the contemporary world, Jewish activists both within Israel and in the Diaspora have been strong advocates of increasing Jewish fertility, motivated by the threat of intermarriage in the Diaspora, the threat of wars with Israel’s neighbors, and as a reaction to Jewish population losses stemming from the Holocaust. Pro-natalism has deep religious significance for Jews as a religious commandment.18 Within Israel, there is “a nationwide obsession with fertility,” as indicated by the highest rate of in-vitro fertilization clinics in the world—one for every 28,000 citizens. This is more than matched by the Palestinians. Originating in the same group-oriented, collectivist culture area as the Jews, the Palestinians have the highest birth rate in the world and have been strongly attracted to charismatic leaders, messianic religious ideology, and desperate, suicidal solutions for their political problems.19
For the Jews, the religious fundamentalism characteristic of Eastern Europe from around 1800–1940 has been a demographic wellspring for Judaism. Jewish populations in the West have tended to have low fertility. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Western Jewish populations would have stagnated or declined in the absence of “the unending stream of immigrants from Jewish communities in the East.”20 But the point here is that this demographic wellspring created the stresses and strains within this very talented and energetic population that continue to reverberate in the modern world.
Cowboy Kali Yuga: A Review of "Hell or High Water"
European or Ethnic Identity?
Sully, the Movie
The Wisdom of the Ancients, Part 3: Nature and Nurture; Socrates as Moral Exemplar for the Alt Right
The Wisdom of the Ancients, Part 2: Piety, Aristocratic Values and Necessary Inequality
The Wisdom of the Ancients, Part 1: Greek City-States as Ethnostates
“In the contemporary world, Jewish activists both within Israel and in the Diaspora have been strong advocates of increasing Jewish fertility, motivated by the threat of intermarriage in the Diaspora, the threat of wars with Israel’s neighbors, and as a reaction to Jewish population losses stemming from the Holocaust. ”
This statement really needs to be fleshed out more or at least sourced for context. As I’m sure most here will already know the so-called Shoah is one of the most wildly exaggerated, misrepresented events in history. Study of the event has been thoroughly exhausted and the concept of “massive, systemic annihilation” have been widely debunked. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, as I do admire your work, Dr. MacDonald, but I can’t help but notice a somewhat, shall we say, capitulating tone from articles on TOO recently whether it’s having Jewish authors published who flaunt their Judeism in a mockery of Alt-Right institutions like Daily Stormer to the seemingly innocuous comment above.
I know that you have, in the past, suggested that white nationalists should work with Jewish nationalists for mutual ends (ie. separation), a point of contention in and of itself that should be debated at some point, however I can’t help but hear alarm bells begin to go off in my head when I read lines like the one above. If it was meant as vicarious conceptual cause among the subjects of the essay that’s fine, but say so. If not, can you please explain your reasoning for the wording and perhaps elaborate a bit further?
who are the Jewish authors you are talking about that have published on TOO?
Pat L: You did not direct your question to me, which, nevertheless, still allows me to be annoyed. ” The seemingly innocuous comment above ” can easily be discerned by even a precursory study of that region, its peoples and beyond, and in time; dare I say even by watching and listening, with both ears simultaneously, to CNN during one of their rare, more lucent and/or improvidently guarded moments.
The facts, causality and interrelationships as described are dead on. Volleyball is not a suitable major.
Pat L.,
In Mr. MacDonald’s paragraph his point is very clear – answer and question. (1) He offers the most important reason as to why the Jewish community has been successful. (2) He wonders why the European male has failed so miserably to reproduce.
May would seem to have adopted the royal “we.”
Perhaps she fancies herself the (real) Queen.
If memory serves, the real Queen has never dumped on Parliament, as where May has and will continue to do so, along the lines, “that nothing succeeds like success “. May’s {{{handlers}}} will never oblige her to re-read the several renditions of Magna Carta, with its hopefully unalterable central tenet.
You must have missed the memo, Charles:
In other words, Magna Carta is doing just fine, thanks, because it has been thoroughly Gramsci’d!
Recall, too, Sean Gabb’s VDARE article of five years ago, wherein he described the Macpherson Report’s effective elimination in Britain of the prohibition against double jeopardy in the interest of “social justice.”
Pierre, your insert from the “memo” corroborates my several points. I merely added, that I hope that MC will continue to remain unaltered. Or do you think these basics are inviolable. Look at the Constitution on whose house Hansel and Gretel are actively nibbling. Outright abrogation, while unacceptable, is nevertheless achieved through
“unnoticeable” miniscule, incremental acts. Hope you didn’t misread one of my previous comments, in which I paid forthright tribute to your erudition. I would surrender the remainder of my eggnog to find out what is meant by “Gramsci’d”.
No criticism of anything you wrote was meant, Charles. I was writing in sadness after having read the page I linked to, which made me think of Gramsci’s notion of transference of hegemony, which has occurred here in the States and throughout the West by means of “revolution within the form”: that is, the terms and totems remain the same, but they have been emptied of their original content and either left hollow or, worse, filled with new content that contradicts the original. Clearly Magna Carta has at least been hollowed out, and the US Constitution has been a false god, a golden idol, for more than a century.
I recall saying to a friend a long time ago that the one political area where I beat Joe Sobran to the wire (though only by a year or two) concerned abandoning the delusion that the Constitution was a standard to be repaired to. Of course, it was Joe, not I, who coined the dazzling epitomization of the situation: “the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
A follow-up. There was a certain amount about Gramsci in this recent TOO article. The comment from Armor about the author’s discussion of Gramsci was also memorable, however, and to my mind, rather more on target.
——-
(Mod. Note: Pierre, your linked article is a “404” bad link. Can you find the correct link and resubmit?)
Dear Moderator:
Here’s a second try at getting a live link to part 1 of Robert Griffin’s recent article From a Chat to Metapolitics: A Journey in Thought.
My apologies for what must have been an error in the cut-and-paste process.
I try to thumb through the TOO archives once a month or so. What a treasure trove!
Kevin MacDonald: “In this regard, Jewish populations are quite the opposite of European populations, in which there is a long history of curtailing reproduction in the face of perceived scarcity of resources.15 This may be analyzed in terms of the individualism/collectivism dimension, which provides a general contrast between Jewish and European culture:16 Individualists curtail reproduction in response to adversity in order to better their own lives, whereas a group-oriented culture such as Judaism responds to adversity by strengthening group ties; forming groups with charismatic leaders and a strong sense of ingroup and outgroup; adopting mystical, messianic ideologies; and increasing their fertility—all of which lead to greater conflict.”
In other words, Jewish “family values” lead to messianic fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and despotic one-rabbi rule. It’s no surprise that they are most strongly supported among goyim by the evangelicals.
This dynamic has to be noted to understand the democracy/totalitarian poles of Aryan cultures, else we have internet fanatics quoting to a line from some random author to show that “our Aryan people hate homos.” During times of crisis or to consolidate totalitarian rule, despots like Augustus, Justinian or the elderly Plato will promote family values, whereas in normal times the Athenians raised statues of the tyrannocides Harmodius and Aristogeiton as the symbol of democracy.
According to Andrew Stuart, the statue “not only placed the homoerotic bond at the core of Athenian political freedom, but asserted that it and the manly virtues (aretai) of courage, boldness and self-sacrifice that it generated were the only guarantors of that freedom’s continued existence.” And not only democracy, but science and intellectual freedom.
@ James J OMeara
Healthy and intelligent white people need to reproduce like kind and raise their children optimally in a mother-father household. Look at the white birth-rate in Germany alone today.
To whatever extent that the abortion of healthy sentient unborns, the promotion of pansexuality and LGBTI&c cults, STDs, and what Hitler called the “mammonization of the human sexual instinct”, frustrate that objective, we are entitled to oppose such trends, whether promoted by Jews or anyone else.
It is interesting to reflect what e.g. George Steiner thought about “gays” and Gore Vidal thought about Jews, before PC totalitarianism was enforced (on everyone other than Muslims).
Mr. Ashton: I admire your reply to James O’Meara; it underscores the preferability of evidence to insult and, at least at this site, of the poniard to the mace. His glibness has deceived many, I believe, into mistaking him for a notable thinker. In particular, few things gall me more than references to science by people who don’t know or can’t explain such a rudimentary matter as the difference between wiring in parallel and wiring in series.
I’d add only that the chain of “reasoning” in O’Meara’s second paragraph would have earned him the grade of F– from a fondly remembered college philosophy professor of mine (a man, incidentally, who is still alive and nearing 100). This grade, not institutionally sanctioned, was for what the prof called “ignorance compounded with deceit.” His instruction to students was the same year after year: “If you are asked a question whose answer you don’t know but should know, just say ‘I don’t know’; do not flatter yourself that you can successfully mislead me.”
—-
(Mod. Note: Pierre, one of the reasons I do this job is so I can read things like the story about your college philosophy professor. Thank you!)
@ Pierre de Craon
Thank you too – for the pleasant comment on this, and several previous posts, from me.
Mr. Ashton: It’s become clear that whatever differences we may have about one thing or another, we needlessly got off on the wrong foot in 2016, and to the extent (large, I think) that I’m responsible for the situation, I apologize. Happy New Year.
David Ashton. You correctly refer to Germany’s declining, indeed nationally suicidal birth rate. There is another, though quantitatively less determinative part to this equation, not easily measured. Germany, as a bulwark against communism was booming after the war, which would suggest a burgeoning birth rate. Yet, my two sisters and I never had children. I don’t think it was so much a conscious decision as a given, that it was unacceptable to bring children into this world, who might or would likely experience the same trauma as we had. Of course the generational multiplier effect also plays a role, and we were far from alone in those failures.
On the other hand a Duesseldorf police friend had an East German colleague assigned to him, to coach him in western methods and the kid-glove side of the law. Together, they responded to a ‘ domestic ‘, only to find two entire upper floors of a large apartment building, occupied by one “refugee” male with a dozen wives and a commensurate number of offspring.
May I gloss your comment, Charles, from a Catholic perspective? (I have raised this matter several times previously, but I think it’s worth repeating.) In the fifties and early sixties, when I was growing up (b. 1945), I frequently heard Sunday Mass homilies directed toward young marrieds reminding them of the injunction to be fruitful—in plain English, to have many children rather than just a few. (I most often heard these sermons during the summer recess, when the special Mass for us kids was also in recess.)
I entered college in 1962, a month before the seating of the first session of Vatican II. From that day to the day in 2004 when I abandoned the postconciliar church for the Traditional Catholic community, I never once heard a fruitfulness sermon. This is yet another piece of evidence that, as Léon de Poncins wrote in several of his books from the sixties (one of which has four separate postings dedicated to it here at TOO), the Vatican Council was a tool of Jews and high-degree Freemasons to subvert the Catholic Church and the European civilization to which it (and Christianity more generally) had been integral for seventeen hundred years.
The at- or below-replacement birthrates among whites in North America and Europe, which was encouraged by Christian silence, has helped our enemies create “welfare” societies where most whites have become too economically crippled even to support one or two children, let alone half a dozen, without both parents working outside the home.
Happily for us all, this need has been addressed by those wonderful people who ceaselessly remind us all that “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” [NB: sarcasm alert!]
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/01/504423/US-Israel-Trump-Netanyahu-Kevin-Barrett
@ Ger Tzedek
See also e.g. Steven Bertoni, “How Jared Kushner won Trump the White House”, Forbes, November 22/The Jewish Chronicle, December 30, 2016, online.
Watch this space – i.e. the West Bank.
“Paris vaut bien une Messe.”
@ David Ashton:
Thanks for the article. Kushner’s Manhattan office: 666 Fifth avenue, no less!
“Paris vaut bien une messe” – if it’s Trump to whom you’re referring, I don’t think his aligment with Likud policy has ever been in doubt.
@ Trenchant
Jerusalem (as undivided capital) in the Mid-East is well worth a “Populist” Campaign in America.
As I have said many times, “In the US Democracy seems to be Government of the people by the people chosen for the Chosen People.” I trust this does not make me (as once suggested here) a “Jewish patsy” or Mossad Troll, but I have never been an “antisemitic” psychopath either.
David Ashton. How can one not expect betrayal from a man like Jared, who flew from Harvard to Alabama every week-end to visit his father in jail and who maintains to this day that his father was innocent, [ in a sort of Orthodox variant of rationality and justice ] After all, his Orthodox father had spent $ 10,000 dollars of rent from his tenants on a prostitute to lure the man who was partly responsible for his conviction into a motel room and had them filmed. He then mailed this film to said man’s wife, who promptly but unexpectedly took it to the police, which added the extra federal charge of witness tampering. In addition to FEC charges for making law-exceeding political contributions using other people’s names without their knowledge; and tax evasion. Not to mention his millions spent on buying influence. This demonstrates the correctness of Dr. MacDonald’s thesis. All three generations, including Jared’s grand-father, are unmitigated, hereditary scum from that certain named region.
@ Ger Tzedek:
More on Resorts International (to which Barrett is referring):
https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/the-donald-deception/
Very good information and reading. Thank for your hard work. can you tell me where I can find parts 2-5? I would love to read the rest.
I will be posting them in the next few days.
Great! I will be watching for them my friend…God Bless and have a very Happy New Year…
I think the natural self-defense response for Europeans in their current racial malaise would be to increase their fertility and to socially and culturally exclude whoever does not share the value and tradition of European racial purity. I feel one does have to think in this way. Furthermore, it seems to me that religion is as strong as drugs – if not stronger. Religion is a force in human history that has proved vital for ethnic/racial sutvival. It may be a racially necessary drug, so to speak.
Chinese Nationalist Maiden: Are you familiar with Christian Identity, and if so, what do you think of it? If you’re not familiar with it, CI advocates contend, based upon Biblical, historical, archaeological and linguistic grounds, that the white western / northern Europeans are the biological descendants of the Biblical Hebrews, and not the Jews. This gives them a strong racial identity and sense of Divine mission. The best extant website on it is christogenea.org. I should warn you though: it’s a VERY strong brew. Prof. MacDonald has been interviewed by them a few times, presumably out of his outreach to various white groups.
What is the goal of those that want to stop Jewish control of the US and the world? This may seem silly but having a clear cut goal is important. The Jews have a goal. All the wealth of the world will be theirs and everyone will be their slaves. Although I’ll never see it happen in my lifetime here’s mine. I want to help them fulfill their Prophecy’s. I want all Jews to be returned to Israel. I’m a Zionist. I want the United Nations to build a wall around them and declare none of them can leave Israel for 4000 years. I want the United Nations to declare that the Jews in Israel own everything on the planet and all the people are their slaves…for 3.2 microseconds. The Jewish Prophecy’s will be fulfilled, they will be stuck behind a wall where they belong and we will be happy.
Now I see everything Jewish under the prism of sociopathy. Judaism as Islam are Middle Eastern religions of plunder. Deception and everything else are just fair games. Even “Islam means peace” and “Tora teaches love”.
Israel only stands together as a middle income country because of more than $10 billion annual plunder for 70 years from us goyim. Even so, there are internal dynamics in Israel that would have Zionists pull their hair. White Zionist European Jewish demographic is in collapse. Overall Jews are growing very well in Israel, but that’s the explosive Haredim demographics. These Orthodox Jews believe that men must not go to the army, must not work, only study Tora. We goyim will deliberately provide for their earthly needs.
Judaism has no future. With this kind of demographics, they will implode even if we leave them alone. All we must do is just cut the aid to Israel. The question is, how much damage will they do.
“…Now I see everything Jewish under the prism of sociopathy…”
I believe this is the only way to make sense of the Jews. Once you determine they are just a tribe of psychopaths then they become transparent. It’s like lifting a veil from in front of your eyes and you can finally see. Not all Jews and maybe not the majority but a lot. Maybe I’m wrong but if you consider the Jews a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and they will make perfect sense.