The Levers of Sociobiology: Power Laws from Stalin to Starlings

They strut, they chatter, they gleam with gem-like colours: starlings are one of the joys of summer right across Europe. You could spend a lifetime studying them, but one thing is already certain. There has never been a starling Stalin.

Khans and canals

In other words, no individual starling has ever been millions of times more powerful or influential than the average starling. No starling has ever exercised power over a vast number of other starlings like Josef Stalin (1878-1953) or left a genetic legacy like that of Genghis Khan (c. 1162-1227), who is the ancestor of about 16 million men in modern Eurasia, according to DNA analysis. By exploiting certain aspects of human sociobiology, Genghis Khan achieved huge political success and thereby won sexual access to vastly more women than the average man. Stalin pulled the levers of sociobiology in a comparable way but, at a later period and in a different culture, didn’t translate his political success into offspring as Khan did.

Stalin vs Starling

But the similarities between the two men are more important than the differences. Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan were clearly exceptional members of their species, Homo sapiens, in a way that no starling ever has been of its species, Sturnus vulgaris. It’s interesting to ask what aspects of biology permit human Stalins and prevent starling Stalins. Human beings and starlings are alike in that no individual in these species is, as an individual, vastly more intelligent or physically powerful than other individuals. Stalin could not have dug the White Sea Canal or designed and built the T-34 tank by himself. Nor could any other individual human. Those were collective endeavours, but they expressed the will of the individual known as Stalin or of the small number of individuals at the top of Soviet society.

Flight is not might

Starlings too engage in a collective endeavour known as flocking, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual birds behave as a single coordinated entity. But there is no guiding mind in a flock, no controlling will, and no individual starling could exploit the power of a flock to win itself vastly increased social and reproductive success. Why not? Well, try a thought experiment and imagine that you were an omniscient biologist who could completely control the behaviour of an individual starling. How would you turn it into a starling Stalin or starling Genghis Khan? You couldn’t, because certain levers are missing in starling biology.

The most obvious missing lever is language. Starlings can’t give or follow orders. In a hierarchical species, language is the key to what you might call force-multiplication. Stalin was dominant in more than a crudely physical sense: he was also charismatic, that is, he could beguile and dominate people with his words and manner. That is how he was able to rise steadily in an organization that enabled him to give orders and have them obeyed. He was able to translate his individual will into collective action against those individuals who opposed him. In Mongol society, Genghis Khan must have been charismatic and dominant in a comparable way. A warrior nation like the Mongols could not have been led by a weakling or a mild-mannered scholar.

Crook in the Kremlin

Centuries later, Stalin did not have to be a literal warrior to become leader of his collective. It’s true that he first made his name with daring physical exploits like bank-robberies, but he left such things behind as he began his climb to true power. Nevertheless, you could say that the ferocious will and lupine cunning that took him to the top had been forged by millennia of real fighting and theft. Stalin was Georgian, not Russian, and his birthplace, the Caucasus, is renowned as a land of clans, feuds and banditry. It’s also mountainous and some Caucasian groups, like the Chechens, are comparable to the mountain-dwelling Alawis of Syria, whose will-power, cunning and aggression won them dominance over the majority Sunnis (for more on Syria and the Alawis, see “The United States of Syria: Domestic Lessons in a Distant War”).

And Stalin may even have been a Genghisid, or literal descendant of Genghis Khan, because the Mongol invasions left a genetic legacy across a vast swathe of the northern hemisphere, including the Caucasus. But Stalin’s mentor Vladimir Lenin is a likelier Genghisid, because his paternal grandmother was Kalmyk, from a Mongolian group in south-western Russia. Unlike Stalin, Lenin didn’t start his rise to power as a bank-robber and bandit. His dominance was never physical, but always linguistic—perhaps reflecting his Jewish ancestry. He was a bureaucrat-tyrant who won control of a vast nation with his pen and his tongue, not with his fists or his sword-play. Lenin thereby fulfilled a prophecy reported by the Polish philosopher and historian Leszek Kołakowski in his magisterial Main Currents of Marxism (1978):

[The anarchist Mikhail] Bakunin [(1814–76)] … not only combated Marx’s political programme but, as he often wrote, regarded Marx as a disloyal, revengeful man, obsessed with power and determined to impose his own despotic authority on the whole revolutionary movement. Marx, he said, had all the merits and defects of the Jewish character; he was highly intelligent and deeply read, but an inveterate doctrinaire and fantastically vain, an intriguer and morbidly envious of all who … cut a more important figure than himself in public life. (p. 248) Bakunin … inveighed against universities as the abodes of elitism and seminaries of a privileged caste; he also warned that Marxist socialism would lead to a tyranny of intellectuals that would be worse than any yet known to man. (Op. cit., Vol. I, The Founders, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 250)

Bakunin was right: Karl Marx was indeed “highly intelligent.” But if we assume an average IQ of 100, Marx probably wasn’t more intelligent than the average intellectual in nineteenth-century Europe. Nevertheless, he has been millions of times more influential and historically important than the average intellectual, rather in the way that billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are millions of times richer than the average person. There are levers in human society and human sociobiology that allow individuals to translate limited advantages in variables like intelligence into vastly larger advantages in ideological influence, political power and wealth.

Consider the cube

Power laws are at work in more senses than one, because the mathematical relationship between variables of, say, intelligence and accumulated wealth is not linear. Departures from linearity are most obvious at the high and low ends of the IQ distribution, with a broad swath in the middle not showing an upward trend. IQ is like the side-length of a cube and wealth is like the volume of a cube. If the side-length of a cube doubles, that is, increases by 2, then the volume octuples, that is, increases by 8. A sober linear progression in side-length like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… becomes a much more impressive progression of 1, 8, 27, 64, 125… in volume.

IQ and accumulated wealth

For “side-length,” read intelligence or ethnocentrism; for “volume,” read wealth or political power. When you see power laws at work, it becomes easier to understand how a tiny group like the Jews, whose average intelligence and ethnocentrism are not vastly greater than the White average, has nevertheless come to dominate vast areas of Western culture and politics. In short, power laws are powerful. And they’re everywhere in the living world. As a recent scientific report put it: “the properties of biological systems are often governed by power laws, rather than linear relationships.” Culture and politics are biological systems too, and the same insight applies. The relative sizes of competing groups do not tell us about their relative power. A small group can manipulate and dominate a larger group, just as a microscopic parasite like Toxoplasma gondii can manipulate the brain of a rat or even a human being.

Controlling signals

Toxoplasma manipulates its host by interfering with chemical signals in a rat’s brain. Manipulation among human beings often involves another form of signalling. It’s the most complex and scientifically interesting signalling so far observed in the universe: language. But when we examine the “tyranny of intellectuals” inspired by Marx’s ideology, we can see that language wasn’t the only key to power. Silence was vital too. The Bolsheviks ruled not only by using language, but also by suppressing it. In other words, they censored their opponents. If Tsarist Russia had had a secret police as ruthless and effective as the Cheka or NKVD, it might have prevented the spread of dangerous ideas by destroying Marxist literature and newspapers. But the Tsars didn’t suppress the language of their opponents as the Bolsheviks later would.

For example, Leon Trotsky (né Bronshtein), Lenin’s second-in-command and Stalin’s rival, first made his name as a journalist and editor. He even enjoyed the smell of printer’s ink, because it filled him with a sense of power and possibility. He was a highly intelligent man, but his arrogance was a fatal handicap. Stalin easily out-witted and out-manoeuvred him, but you could say that he saw it coming. Trotsky once said something that offers a vital insight into the levers of human sociobiology. Let’s have the quote first in Russian:

Но внутренней партійной политикѣ эти методы приводятъ, какъ мы еще увидимъ, къ тому, что партійная организація „замѣщаетъ собою Партію, Ц. К. [Центральный комитет] замѣщаетъ партійную организацію, и, наконецъ, „диктаторъ замѣщаетъ собою Ц. К. (See here)

If you’re like me and don’t understand Russian, the quote above will be meaningless. But that makes an important point about information: controlling it is key to power. As I pointed out in “Words as Weapons,” there is a linguistic asymmetry between Israel and gentile nations in that Israeli intelligence can easily find Jewish speakers of English or Russian, while rival intelligence agencies don’t find it easy to find non-Jewish speakers of Hebrew. But before Israel was created and Hebrew was revived as a living language, Jews had still tried to maintain a linguistic asymmetry to their own advantage. The Jewish language Yiddish is a dialect of German and much of it can easily be understood by speakers of standard German. But Jews wrote Yiddish in Hebrew characters and effectively screened it off from gentile eyes.

Internal politics

But Trotsky didn’t want to screen his writing off from the eyes of strangers. On the contrary, he wanted to spread it as widely as possible. His own ideas didn’t remain in Russian, where their impact would have been limited, but he couldn’t have translated and transmitted them entirely on his own. He relied on a small but effective collective, which is why I can now offer his vital insight in English:

In the internal politics of the Party these methods [of control] lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation “substituting” itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee. (Our Political Tasks)

Trotsky said that in a pamphlet first published in 1904. In other words, he prophesied the rise of a Stalin, a man whose cunning, ruthlessness and charisma allowed him to follow Trotsky’s recipe for power and become the supreme ruler of a nation of many millions. But as Trotsky foresaw, Stalin didn’t have to outwit or manipulate every individual in that nation, or indeed every individual in the Communist party. Even the arch-conspirator Stalin had limited time and energy, but he applied them at exactly the right points in the power-structure. By dominating the bureaucracy of the Communist party, he was able to control the appointment of officials, promoting his own allies and blocking the advance of his opponents’ allies.

No ethnic Russians

But he controlled something else. Here’s Leszek Kołakowski again: “Having successfully achieved control over the information that reached Lenin, who was ill and infirm, Stalin ruled the party with the aid of Zinovyev and Kamenev and systematically excluded Trotsky from power.” (Op. cit., Vol. III, p. 20) Information is central to language and communication, and so is also central to the power laws that operate among human beings. And it’s very interesting that some of the information in that quote from Kołakowski is rigorously controlled in the modern West. The quote is about the supreme leaders of Bolshevik Russia, but no ethnic Russians are mentioned in it: Lenin had German, Mongol and Jewish ancestry; Stalin was Georgian; Trotsky, Zinovyev and Kamenev were all Jewish – they were first known as Lev Bronshtein, Hirsch Apfelbaum, and Lev Rozenfeld, respectively.

That mix of minorities was not good for ethnic Russians. Like Ba’athist Syria, Bolshevik Russia is an example of what happens when vengeful minorities win power over a majority against whom they hold strong historical grudges. But twenty-first-century historians find it dangerous to discuss the racial patterns in Russian history, let alone to identify related patterns in, say, American immigration legislation and Australian campaigns against “hate-speech.” In America and Australia, Jews have also been dominant figures despite being a small minority of the general population. They’ve achieved this dominance in many ways and one of them might be called camouflage. Trotsky, Zinovyev and Kamenev were fully aware of their Jewishness, which is why they abandoned their clearly Jewish birth-names. Camouflage and crypsis, which again involve the control of information, are widespread both in the natural world and in the world of politics and culture. But what about Lenin and his Jewishness? According to a recent biographer, he was “almost certainly unaware of his partially Jewish ancestry.”

Face the family: Lenin (bottom right) and his folks

I would qualify that claim: Lenin may not have been consciously aware, but that does not exclude an unconscious awareness. Jaydar, a blend of “J(ew)” and “radar,” is the humorous term for the ability to sense Jewish ancestry in a stranger. It’s a real phenomenon and it seems to have played an important role in British politics, as the Jewish Tory Lord Finkelstein has described in the Jewish Chronicle. He is writing about George Osborne, formerly a powerful figure in the part-Jewish David Cameron’s government and now the editor of the London Evening Standard:

That mysterious sense of Jewish connection

Some of my best friends are Jewish. Well, all right, most of my best friends are Jewish. And I’ve been thinking about why.

This week [in May 2018], reports on the wedding of George Osborne’s brother Theo included accounts of an Orthodox ceremony and Theo’s discovery that his maternal grandmother was Jewish. In other words, George himself is halachically Jewish [i.e., would be allowed to emigrate to Israel as a Jew].

This is the second time that one of my small circle of very close non-Jewish friends has turned out, in fact, to be Jewish. Something that not only I didn’t know when we first became friends, but they didn’t know either.

In George’s case this is made even more intriguing and amusing by the fact that I have often joked to him about how he seems to have made so many close Jewish friends and how striking that was. (George has often talked about being jealous at school of his friends having barmitzvahs. Former Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub responded by presenting him with a fountain pen.)

Which has led me to wonder whether this is all more than mere coincidence. … [T]here is the undoubted bond that exists with other Jews, sometimes even complete strangers. Take, for example (although, yes, I’m fully conscious this is a ludicrous example) other Jewish members of the House of Lords.

There is no doubt that across parties and across the House there is a connection between those of us who are Jewish. It isn’t a political connection particularly (although there have been moments). It’s more a sympathy and an understanding of where we are coming from. … A sense that we are all family. And that every time you meet another Jew for the first time, you are really taking part in a family reunion. (That mysterious sense of Jewish connection, The Jewish Chronicle, 22nd May 2018 / 8th Sivan 5778)

Daniel Finkelstein, Jewish but not conservative

Finkelstein offers us a very interesting glimpse into the way Jewish networking has allowed his tiny ethnic group to achieve wholly disproportionate influence in British politics. It’s long been obvious that Jews control the governing Tory party, for example. But that obvious fact can’t be mentioned in respectable society, because Jews have also pulled levers in the British media and legal system. However, Finkelstein wasn’t writing just about conscious Jewish networking. He liked Osborne as a Jew before either man was consciously aware that Osborne had Jewish ancestry. Furthermore, Osborne “made … many close Jewish friends,” who undoubtedly assisted him in his rise to the top of British politics. When he got there, he shared power with the part-Jewish David Cameron and the fully Jewish Lord Feldman, the limelight-shunning businessman who was first Chief Executive of the Tory party and then Chairman.

What would Sigmund say?

That is George Osborne and British politics. But was Lenin’s partnership with Trotsky, Zinovyev and Kamenev based on a similar intuitive recognition of genetic kinship? Lenin was certainly prone to Jewish supremacism, because he once said: “An intelligent Russian is nearly always a Jew or a person with an admixture of Jewish blood.” It followed, then, that Lenin himself, as a very intelligent “Russian,” should have thought himself very likely to have “an admixture of Jewish blood.” Lenin may not have consciously reasoned like that, but his subconscious may have arrived at the truth, as Lord Finkelstein’s did in the case of George Osborne.

It would be good to have Sigmund Freud’s verdict on Lenin and his Jewishness. Freud was, after all, both an ethnocentric Jew and an expert on the subconscious. And the movement he founded is another example of power laws at work. By controlling strategic points in publishing, academia and the media, a small group of disproportionately Jewish intellectuals was able to make Freudianism one of the most successful ideologies of the twentieth century. But it was successful as an ideology, not as a science: like Marxism, Freudianism claims an epistemological status that, in the opinion of countless critics, it emphatically does not deserve.

Falsehood is no handicap

In politics and culture, the falseness or vacuity of an ideology is not a barrier to its success. Indeed, questions of truth and falsehood can be irrelevant. So can questions of relative complexity or worth. They don’t apply to Marxism and Freudianism any more than they do to a simple parasite subverting the nervous system of a much more complex animal. Marxism was the justification for Bolshevik power, but its strictures did not constrain the individuals who controlled the Soviet state. To quote Leszek Kołakowski again: “… during [Stalin’s] years of power, there was scarcely any other brand of Marxism than his, and since the Marxism of those days can hardly be defined except in relation to his authority, it is not only true but is actually a tautology to say that for a quarter of a century he was the greatest Marxist theoretician.” (Op. cit., Vol. III, p. 26)

Stalin was the greatest theoretician because he controlled Soviet publishing, which allowed him to spread his ideas and impose his will with great effectiveness. Writing and the printed word are force-multipliers, and they’ve been central factors in the success of Jewish ideologies. They’re also the closest human beings have yet come to conquering death. Lenin and Marx are long-dead, but their influence lives on through the power of print — or the power of pixel, as it often is today. Modern technology has given individuals an unprecedented ability to exchange information and ideas. As the rise of Donald Trump and other populists has shown, control over traditional media is no longer enough to guarantee control over politics.

Information wars are raging

That’s why Jewish groups like the ADL and SPLC are now trying hard to choke the internet into submission. The recent “de-platforming” of Alex Jones and his highly popular Infowars was indeed a blow struck in the information wars. The outcome of those wars will determine the future of the West, but there are already many signs that things are turning decisively in favour of the realitarians, not the egalitarians (sincere and otherwise). By the standards of cultural Marxism, the realitarians are blasphemers, because they do not accept the Psychic Unity of Mankind or believe that “There Is Only One Race — the Human Race.” Instead, they believe that race definitely exists and that the continued presence of non-Whites in Western nations is not good for the Whites who built those nations.

Power laws are at work again and realitarian ideas are rising in influence and effect. Realitarians like Occidental Observer writers have not needed to be the majority to achieve success — and we have a great advantage over ideologies like Marxism and Freudianism. Our ideas are in accordance with reality, not at odds with it. Human beings are not a post-biological species and the science that applies to starlings can also apply to human beings like Stalin. And remember this: Stalin out-manoeuvred the Jews who were such an important part of communism. Trotsky, Zinovyev and Kamenev were all once more powerful and important than he was. But Stalin pulled the levers of sociobiology more effectively than they did. What he did then, the realitarians can do now.

22 replies
  1. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Most here love to hate Spectre of US, Israel and Sweden and are familiar with her now famous but disappeared brief psychopathic video, initially made for exclusively Israeli audiences.

    Have a look at the extensive coverage below, by Swedish investigative journalist Carlqvist, to understand the extent of their grand design.

    Spectre accused the Swedish Central Bank of dealing in Nazi era gold. Investigated and denied.

    HOWEVER, SHE THREATENED THE GOVERNMENT WITH ALLEGATIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM,
    — BACKED UP BY THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ITS MORAL AUTHORITY UNDER CANADIAN TAX EVADER [ 800 MILLION ] AND PRESIDENT BRONFMAN , SUPPORTED BY ITS 25 YEAR PROTECTED PEDERAST VICE PRESIDENT LORD JANNER MP, HOUSE OF LORDS.

    The Swedish Treasury gifted her $ 4 million to finance its and our own destruction.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAzwR48IDKc

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Not a single complaint that my above link accidentally leads you to Count Dracula, rather than his wife, the Duchess Barbara Lerner Spectre.

      On the outside chance, that you may not know all about her, google: Red Ice with Ingrid Carlqvist. Among well-ploughed furrows she has some extraordinary new items, eg in 1964 an h survivor by the name Schwarz appeared, wrote articles on immigration, then published a related newspaper.

      We always appear to think of 9/11 and Iraq as the commencement of our replacement, with the predictable refugees these wars would provide.

      Her research demonstrates a much earlier onset for their most recent plan for their destruction of Sweden: starting at the top.

  2. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    “As the rise of Donald Trump and other populists has shown, control over traditional media is no longer enough to guarantee control over politics.”

    The traditional media’s eclipse suggests no more than a change in the ruling faction. Out, Diaspora globalists, in, Likudniks (and media Breitbart, Rebel, etc.). The new populists, are to a man, strongly pro-Israel and anti-Islam, and their popularity is aligned with the Likud’s project of militarily reshaping the Middle East.
    http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2016/03/30/salvini-agrees-with-lieberman_4773f517-cf1b-41c5-83f4-ca1b827a8c43.html
    https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Northern-League-leader-says-Italian-society-threatened-by-Islam-536816

  3. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    This article by the very productive Tobias langdon is notable to this reader for several points, which he may or may not claim as original to him, but, I am grateful to him for them in any case.

    First,. is this idea of force multipliers as applied to human endeavors and cultural groups. One immediately thinks of the Jews in this regard, because they were hardly a force 200 years ago without the benefit of all those, er, ah, ‘force multipliers”:finance, journalism, academia, sciences, the industrial revolution, etc. that have gradually come into existence. Well, if the Romans thought they had problems with the Jews, they were very naive.

    Second, he pointed out something else which we have in common with the Russians: in addition to having been successively “used” by the Jews for one of their long-running sociological experiments (an unsuccessful go at Communism, which we shall just call Socialism), it looks like we are also being set up for a takeover by a vengeful mob of minorities. This is still out ahead of us and something that we can do something about IF we wake up. As a decade-long resident of Venezuela during the “good times”, I have called attention to this cautionary tale. There are some structural differences, but the important point is that all we need to replicate this tragedy is a few million more voters, who won’t be Harvard graduates, to decide to vote. We don’t even need any more immigrants. Only 55% of our eligible electorate voted in 2016. Our problem is that we think they will treat us as nicely (as history goes) as we have treated them.They won’t. They don’t have 2500 years of culture behind them. Plato had it right in the Republic. We have to reverse the false narrative before it’s too late.

    Third, I’m aware that the party was over for the Jews in the late thirties under Stalin, but I never followed through to the conclusion that he, the realitarian (a new term for me), won out in the end and that gives me hope.

  4. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    “Jewdar” makes sense within Genetic Similarity Theory. Greg Johnson has spoken about feeling on the same wavelength as his biological kin, something missing from his life as an adopted child. And he points out the same feeling is expressed even more strongly in identical twins, suggesting the most harmonious society would likely be one made up of clones.

    It’s not that difficult to understand; as a white man I would certainly feel more kinship among other whites than a room full of blacks, and they feel the same way (black college students now complain that they feel alienated in majority white classes). Jews being so inbred (as many studies have shown) suggests they would feel a similar connection with other Jews, even if they don’t realize they have Jewish ancestry.

    While many Jews do seem to possess higher than average intelligence, it seems to me that ethnic networking plays an even more important role in their “cubed” success. It’s as if having a Jewish name automatically grants the privileges that come with membership in a secret club. As you point out, controlling information is key. With so many Jews working in media, it is easy for them to manipulate who gets favorable reviews in any category, or even simply published at all. I would not be at all surprised to learn that Jews working at Youtube have secretly aided Jewish presenters by gaming algorithms (such as spots in “recommended videos”) to ensure that those channels rise to the top.

  5. Rever Leo
    Rever Leo says:

    Before the shutters come down Tobias, download the contents of http://age-of-treason.com.
    A computer programmer has studied the JQ from a different angle than Kmac. Crypsis, parasitism, genetics fraud, gaslighting etc. He’s not an academic but has skin in the game. These and many other perspectives are treated in the radio section with a full footnotes transcript.

  6. Lon
    Lon says:

    Great article : The rise of Hitler I am sure you tried very hard to side step Ha Ha. Do the Jews Hate Hitler so much , because he beat them at their own game ? And of course Hitler is relevant (very). Except Germany is a different culture than USA. (Which is Anglo-Saxon in character) USA is more like Russia in character – making your article important.

  7. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    200 jews crossed Germany in 1939 by train with no problems. They ended up in my village.
    My Mother had me Jewd by the Rabbi.
    Her family are part owners of the Bank of England and they contacted me by what they call a Useful Peasant.
    He told me that the BofE funded Lenin.
    Stalin lived for a time in London , like Lenin, so it is possible that he was funded by the B of E as well.

    @Mr Frey
    My exciting story was monitored when we got to excited Lenin’s trousers. It amused Stalin but he was just a PhDless
    ruffian like me.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Yes, many months ago, right here, you left Pierre and me thoroughly confused, and omitted to shortly clear it up, as promised.

  8. Mark
    Mark says:

    Robert Reich wrote something similar describing a meeting with Alan Greenspan:

    “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.”

  9. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    I’m amused and exasperated by the mixture of truth and rubbish here. What’s wrong with these people? Langdon refers to ‘Jews’ as “egalitarians”! So-called Jews are probably the LEAST egalitarian of any human group. Langdon must know that. Langdon says Stalin was the only ‘theoretician’, as though Stalin’s Jew-centred garbage was “theory” or a “theory”! It’s like saying Churchill or Beria was a ‘theoretician’. Langdon says Stalin was ‘charismatic’ – this is of someone unable to speak fluent Russian, and a Yiddish or Hebrew speaker to boot. Try to find a ‘charismatic’ speech by Stalin! You won’t find one. Langdon talks of Stalin as an individual, ignoring all the milions of Jews happy and willing to kill for Jews. It wasm’t Stalin’s ‘charisma’ that made Jews running the USA give billions of dollars to the Soviet Union. If Stalin had died, of course some other poser, Jew or otherwise, would have been installed, provided of course that the Jew collectivity approved. The Jew press and publishing and TV etc industries say, or said intil the directive changed, Stalin was a singleton individualist type; this is just more Jewish rubbish. It’s a sort of film-star version of politics. No wonder Jews laugh at simple goyim.

  10. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    A great deal of emphasis seems to be placed on “smart” Jews. I don’t have an accounting of where these people are getting their information, but, if you live in Brooklyn, home to over half a million Jews, at least a half of whom are on welfare, either Orthodox Talmud readers whose wives have an average of eight children or “persecuted” former Soviets who frequently divorce so as to double their public income, you can easily get the impression that there are a lot of “dumb” Jews in the world.

    One of their “special” deals is to have the Rabbis collect the welfare checks of their “constituents” so as not to draw attention to their collective dependence on our society by having them noticed en masse milling around the concerned municipal building on paydays. This practice also facilitates, as you can imagine, political control by the Rabbis, who are able to bring plenty of political pressure to bear on the appropriate people to extract financing for favorable projects.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      @ Robert Keith:
      Good points. Thanks for shedding light on that “milling” and the withholdings.

  11. Guest
    Guest says:

    Lenin’s assistant and wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, was a half-smart, ambitious Russian ex-aristocrat and revolutionary. Stalin threatened her that if she did not keep her mouth shut, he would trot out an old bolshevik lady and claim she was actually Lenin’s wife. Krupskaya complied, played the greiving widow and was made Deputy Minister of Education.

  12. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Moderator, I would like to register a customer’s complaint. You charged me for 20 comments, but when I unwrapped them at home, I found merely 16.

    ——

    (Mod. Note: Charles, the inability of the software to count accurately is something you should take up with WordPress.)

Comments are closed.