Perceptions of Jewish History Drive the War of the Hostile Elite Against the Trump Presidency

I begin with a thumbnail sketch of Jewish perceptions of their own history as a prologue to thinking about why a long-term goal of the organized Jewish community has been to make alliances with other groups with grievances against the traditional American nation. Jewish perceptions of their own history reflect traditional Jewish fear and loathing of outgroups with power, particularly given their perceptions of their “lachrymose history” among Europeans as nothing but a vale of tears.

This lachrymose view has major implications for understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora. It proposes that, beginning with an unfortunate theological belief (that Jews killed God), Jews have been passive, innocent victims of marauding non-Jews. The lesson that Jews learned from the Middle Ages carries down to today: [According to Norman Podhoretz,” the Jews

“emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that — individual exceptions duly noted — the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied — whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant — and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget” (Review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberals?, p. 29).

These perceptions are fundamental to Jewish education and to Jewish identity. Jews therefore—far more than non-Jewish Europeans—have an overwhelming sense of their own history. From far left to the neoconservative right, Jews socialized in the Jewish community imbibe a history of what they see as vicious persecution of blameless Jews in the West going back even prior to Christianity—to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.

Within this worldview, the Middle Ages were a period of completely unjustified expulsions from many areas on Western Europe, motivated not at all by Jewish behavior but by vicious, fundamentally anti-Semitic Christian theology. The Enlightenment resulted in “Jewish emancipation” in the sense that the paradigm had shifted from a corporate Christendom with its anti-Jewish theology to an individualist model of society where each citizen was to be stripped of group allegiances.

Jews were welcomed into these newly reconstructed Western societies, but the tensions remained. Jews were now accused of remaining Jews in societies of individualists—of remaining a “state within a state,” failing to shed their ethnic identities, and continuing to engage in ethnic networking, not only in business and professional relationships, but also establishing organizations in the West dedicated to helping Jews in foreign lands, at times against the perceived interests of the nations they were residing in.

Such trends would have been little commented on if, say, Jews had the same lower-class, uneducated social profile as gypsies. The problem was that with the rise of individualism and free markets in the West, concerns about Jewish group cohesion occurred in the context of an astonishingly rapid ascent of Jews to all of the elite institutions of society—media ownership and production, universities, the professions, and a wide range of businesses, the latter generating great personal wealth and the financial wherewithal to influence the political process and culture generally. All this generated resentment, particularly given perceptions that the Jewish influence on culture was negative and deleterious to the interests of the rest of the population.

This lachrymose view of Jewish history in the West is then seen to culminate in an attempted genocide perpetrated by a modern, technologically advanced European power that was nominally at least Christian. And in the U.S., there was the added resentment that the immigration restriction law of 1924 was motivated mainly by anti-Jewish attitudes—mainly that Jewish immigrants were imbued with radicalism and pro-communist sympathies in a period of deep concern about the Bolshevik revolution—a view that I find essentially accurate (here, p. 271ff).

Given that Jews have been only a tiny percentage of national populations throughout European history, anti-Semitism at the hands of an overwhelming majority would seem to be a chronic, intractable problem. However, the Jewish solution, beginning early in the twentieth century (when Jews organized and largely staffed the NAACP), was to make alliances with other aggrieved groups. Even during the Congressional debate over the 1924 immigration law (p. 244ff), Jews advocated immigration from all groups and promoted an image of America as a proposition nation with a much larger, ethnically diverse population dedicated to various abstractions rather than any ethnic identity rooted in Europeans.

Jewish power expanded greatly after World War II and there was a drastic decline in negative attitudes about Jews. Within the Jewish community, the post-World War II intellectual scene changed also with the influence of the Frankfurt School which revolutionized Marxist ideology that had been dominant among Jewish intellectuals. Leftist intellectuals had been enthralled by orthodox, class struggle Marxism, but the Frankfurt School jettisoned the centrality of class struggle in favor of thinking in terms of race and ethnicity. This was because orthodox Marxist ideology couldn’t explain the rise of National Socialism given that the working class voted for Hitler.  Within the new perspective, the enemy was homogeneously White societies—societies that may seem benevolent to Jews at particular times but that may turn on them at any time.

It wasn’t long before Jewish activism at all levels, from intellectual magazines to popular culture, became imbued with messages aimed at pathologizing White identification, delegitimizing White interests, and portraying immigration of non-Whites as a moral imperative. A watershed event in this trajectory, of course, was the 1965 immigration act which overturned the ethnic status quo mandated by the 1924 law in favor of admitting people from all over the world. Jewish activists played a critical role in the passage of this law, both in Congress and the Executive branch (as also noted by historians Hugh Davis Graham and Otis Graham). The law by itself would not have rapidly changed the ethnic balance of America—and indeed it was advertised as not changing the ethnic balance—because the numbers of immigrants allowed was quite small. However, in subsequent years activists have gradually upped the numbers so that we now have well over 1 million non-White legal immigrants per year pouring into the country. Needless to say, the ethnic balance of the U.S. has been dramatically affected by these developments.

In conjunction with promoting immigration, Jewish groups have cultivated alliances with other identifiable groups of Americans that have (and are encouraged to have) grievances against traditional American culture. This in effect has created a “coalition of the aggrieved” with ever increasing political and cultural power. This coalition includes not only the myriad ethnic identities of post-1965 America, but also includes sexual non-conformists—LBBTxyz. Heterosexual women have also been targeted with an ideology that traditional American culture was sexist and misogynist.

This coalition of the aggrieved has become a prominent part of universities, particularly departments of social sciences and humanities. Historically departments of ethnic and gender studies, and diversity recruits in other departments—all of which are firmly on the left—proliferated after the rise of Jews to positions of power and influence in elite universities. Since the academic world operates in a top-down manner, Jewish concerns and interests were soon felt in all areas of the university.

The results of this sea change are affecting every facet of American life, beginning with projections that Whites will be a minority with a couple decades. But already we see the effects in the dramatic upsurge in political polarization brought about by the proliferation of different racial/ethnic and gender-based identity groups that now form the basis of the Democratic Party.

The parties have been dividing along racial lines for decades—the racialization of American politics. But Trump’s election seems have put people over the edge, resulting in widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome. This political polarization—fundamentally racial/ethnic and gender identity groups—has greatly accelerated since Donald Trump’s election.

Trump’s election was mightily opposed by the entire Jewish intellectual spectrum, from far left to neoconservative right fundamentally because of his comments and proposed policies on diversity issues. For left-leaning Jews (the great majority), this is no surprise, but it was also a mainstay of the neocon #NeverTrump movement and their “angst about a fascist America.”

A commitment to immigration and ethnic, religious, and gender diversity has been a bedrock of Jewish political and intellectual activism for decades. But right from the beginning, Trump’s comments and proposed policies were potent triggers for anyone with such commitments, beginning with his comments on illegal immigrant criminals and his proposed immigration policy—which Ann Coulter called “the greatest document since the Magna Carta,” and which included cuts in legal immigration and ending birthright citizenship.

Trump was quickly (and accurately) branded as a populist in the media, and comparisons with Hitler were rife. As I noted previously,

If there has been one constant threat of Jewish intellectual and political activity since World War II, it has been to oppose populism. Obviously, they much prefer an oligarchy of the wealthy able to dominate media messages and playing an indispensable component of the donor class of both Republicans and Democrats. 

And oligarchy is what they have gotten: The idea that Western societies are democracies is an illusion. In fact, an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model (see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in Perspectives on Politics, Sept. 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“).The Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.

Racial demographics indicate that without drastic changes, America will be minority White in the coming decades However, the political racial tipping point is likely to occur long before a White minority is achieved because of the racial polarization noted above. Indeed, the tipping point may already have occurred. As Peter Brimelow notes,

Despite Hillary Clinton’s visible failure to be Barack Obama, her Presidential vote was a record 45.8% non-white—continuing a dramatic and unbroken non-white surge that goes back now for 30 years. Less well known: factoring in the share of the Democratic vote that was Jewish (we estimate 4.4%) and homosexual (3.4%), 2016 was the first election in which a majority (52.7%) of the Democrat vote was not made up what might be called, for want of a better term, normal American whites.

And this coalition of aggrieved racial/ethnic and gender non-conformists does not include groups such as Middle Easterners who are counted in the census as white. This coalition can only expand in the future as a million plus legal non-White immigrants continue to crowd our shores.

Now imagine yourself as part of the mainstream Jewish left—the 80% of Jews who voted for Hillary Clinton. This new majority of the Democrat Party is indeed the coalition of the aggrieved, the creation of which, as noted above, has been the centerpiece of Jewish activism for over a century.

Imagine the frustration. All the polls were predicting a huge win for Clinton and likely Democrat control of Congress. With a Clinton victory, Democrats, along with the many pro-immigration Republicans, could pass an immigration amnesty/surge bill along the lines of the notorious “Gang of Eight” bill from 2013. Such a bill would accelerate the replacement of White America—it would likely more than double legal immigration and amnesty millions of illegals.

A Clinton victory would also have resulted in at least one Supreme Court appointment—for Antonin Scalia’s seat—that would tip the balance to the left and likely result in gutting the First Amendment. Intellectual rationales for curtailing First Amendment freedoms, and in particular speech critical of the multicultural ideal, are already common in liberal academic circles (see Jared Taylor’s review of Jeremy Waldron’s The Harm in Hate Speech), awaiting only a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

The architects of coalition of the aggrieved had victory in sight.

But it was not to be—at least not yet. Trump’s hostile hijacking of the GOP nomination and his victory in November meant that Republicans controlled the presidency and both Houses of Congress. The frustration among the architects of the coalition of the aggrieved went through the roof.

The organized Jewish community, Jewish-owned media, and Jewish producers of media content had consciously determined that immigration policy (as well as the impending minority status of white Americans) be kept out of public debate had very real concerns. What if, rather than immigration policy remaining on autopilot (as it would have with a Jeb vs. Hillary election), it became the most important issue for a solid majority of white Americans as they were exposed to constant news stories about building the wall, immigrant crime, drugs pouring over the southern border, travel bans from terrorism-exporting countries, and proposals to end birthright citizenship?  (We already see an increase among White voters in the importance they attach to immigration.) The current elite consensus on immigration might have been threatened beyond repair.

And what if Trump managed to make good on his campaign promises—promises that in effect would have placed a major damper on the ascendancy of the coalition by severely limiting legal immigration, ending birthright citizenship, and deporting illegals? Who knows what might happen if such policies were enacted? White America may come to accept—far more than they already have—the idea that the immigration onslaught is indeed a threat. And would an immigration-conscious white America desert the Democrats? Indeed, Brimelow asks, whether whites would “suddenly stampede for the exit [of the Democrat Party], a phenomenon well-documented in neighborhoods and schools?”

The massive frustration engendered by Trump’s election has led to two years of unprecedented hostility to a sitting president. Everything possible had to be done to prevent the worst fears of the Jewish intellectual and political activists from becoming reality—a fascist America dominated by Trump-Hitler (as recounted in my VDARE series on the 2016 election). As I noted in the last of these articles (August, 2016):

Trump’s candidacy is an implicitly White revolt motivated by fears about what being a white minority in a majority black and brown America would mean for the future for their families and our institutions— entirely reasonable concerns. …

Trump has been hit with a deafening crescendo of hostility from the Main Stream Media, as well as blatantly-orchestrated defections and denunciations from prominent Republicans. [Which Republicans Oppose Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheetby David A. Graham, The Atlantic, August 11, 2016.]

Obviously, this has not relented.


21 replies
  1. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    The official Catholic position on the murder of Jesus is that mankind in general committed the deed through its stubborn adherence to sin. I do not think that is the fundamental issue in anti-Jewish behavior. The Jews of ancient Judea began persecuting Christians, which the New Testament reports. Jesus’ disciples hid in the Cenacle in “fear of the Jews.” Later on, Christians were expelled from the synagogues. The Talmud most certainly shows no friendship towards Jesus and his followers, claiming that Jesus sits in Hell, boiling in excrement and that His mother was a whore who took up with a Roman soldier. Today, most Christians seem to have no inkling of such history.

    • Willehad Meadyoaker
      Willehad Meadyoaker says:

      Indeed, Jews acknowledge these facts (though they remain little-publicized) in academic tracts and monographs dedicated to the history of Jewish-Christian relations. By way of a general review of these works, a number of which I have read including Schäfer’s Jesus in the Talmud, it seems that they are not uncomfortable discussing the anti-Christian views of Orthodox Judaism so long as it’s all framed as a response to Christian persecution. They see their history as a tit-for-tat, but of course the original offender was always the other group—Egypt, Amalak, Haman and family, Rome, Edom (a mixture of anti-Roman and anti-Christian sentiment), Germany, and now all white gentiles for their general crime of not involving themselves in Jewish affairs during the 20th century (i.e. while ostensible genocide was the German crime, not stopping it was the crime of the English, French, Nords, Slavs, etc).

  2. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I have a few observations which may seem contrary to the article, but are not.
    The 1965 Immigration Law didn’t actually change much. All legislation comes with regulations, that is, rules on how the law will be applied. The regulations are procedural matters, and seldom dealt with by legislators. The Jews were already well placed, in government administration, to create and skew the new regulations to alter the pattern of immigration.
    The same would apply to census taking. Was the intent of the law really to ignore race and count mulattoes, mestizos, and others as White/Caucasian? Were the legislators only concerned with the demographic of numbers? I doubt that.
    The success of Byzantium was said to be that they kept Jews out of government, finance, and education. The Jews have become most successful in nations where they were free to roam. Every single one of those nations is now a country dedicated to the self destruction of globalism through multiculturalism.
    The hysteria about Trump, who is nominally a nationalist, is not only about immigration. He campaigned on less global intervention, which would mean no more wars for Israel. That is a non starter for the Zionists. The fact that he keeps appointing the swamp to positions of power, is a sure sign that he has been neutered.

  3. Ecoute Sauvage
    Ecoute Sauvage says:

    Prof. McDonald
    The distinction you note (correctly) among whites was not yet visible to all Republicans in the immediate aftermath of the 1965 catastrophic end of European preference in Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation. See, e.g., page 6 of memo attached to 1970 White House correspondence from Rumsfeld to Haldeman:
    “…White ethnic groups, descendants of 19th and 20th century immigrants, have long been the bulwark of the Democratic Party in the cities
    and inner·subitrbs. Persons in this category, largely working and middle
    class Catholics and Jews, have become increasingly restless as they
    . watched the loss of their political strength in the urban areas.
    After a long period of decline, white ethnicity has enjoyed something
    of a resurgence. This resurgence is attributed, in part at least, to a
    down-grading in the media of the working class and its values. A return
    to the more obvious forms of ethnic ‘allegiance has been an outlet for
    these frustrations. ”
    N.B. my name is a pseudonym.

  4. Jim Russel
    Jim Russel says:

    I think the big question is whether or not the actions of this powerful ethnic minority are planned and coordinated. Without some type of secret Sanhedrin to set new policies and to settle disagreements how else could they be so effective in achieving almost total control of the world’s money and media, along with the education system of the entire Western world.

    If the goyim revolt when people start to see through all their lies will the Wizard of Oz crash the world’s economies to quell the unrest? It could happen next year or it might take decades but sooner or later we’re headed for a big world war using nuclear weapons or economic depression, or both of them together. Their goal is a one-world government based in Jerusalem.

    BTW, the Blogroll has a dead link for Council of Conservative Citizens, which is now
    and I respectfully suggest that the John Birch Society also be added after taking a look at the issues they highlight

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Without some type of secret Sanhedrin to set new policies and to settle disagreements how else could they be so effective in achieving almost total control of the world’s money and media, along with the education system of the entire Western world.

      There are disagreements and struggles and power-plays within the Jewish community, and there are also many powerful Jewish organizations that hold private meetings. That aside, if the average Jew operates from an “us vs. them” worldview (with “them” being European Christians), then their combined work would give the impression of an anti-European conspiracy. A better explanation is that it is a group evolutionary strategy.

      As explained in this very article, the prevailing Jewish worldview frames the European Christian majority as an existential threat. Some Jews can put that aside and more or less assimilate. That the rest tend to work against our interests follows quite logically. Would you behave any differently, if you belonged to a small population living with a much larger and potentially genocidal group?

      The problem is the Jewish diaspora doesn’t seem terribly interested in moving to Israel. If they would just combine into one nation like a normal people, maybe they’d be less paranoid about Europeans and we could all get along for once.

      • Jim Russel
        Jim Russel says:

        You asking me? I was born Jewish. I know all about them and am now a Christian; most of the national socialist folks consider me a Jew always and forever.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        “whether or not the actions of this powerful ethnic minority are planned and coordinated”
        The higher ones such as The Board of Deputies endorse pro-immigration groups, so in this sense it is co-ordinated by endorsement. And they do not hide their aims eg the Website HIAS has 1000 rabbis supporting them and they leave this up for other Jews to be influenced, even though it is also used against them when quoted in blogs. Personally I think if they planned and co-ordinated it a bit more they would take down the ‘1000 rabbis write letter supporting immigration’ as it is an own goal and reveals their true aims.

        Let us suppose for a moment that the top Jews suddenly realise that destroying the hand that feeds them is actually not in their best interests (ie making the West 3rd world will remove the source of their wealth and security – as it did in S.Africa). Let us suppose their great minds realise that burning down all the hotels one after another (many are leaving France) means that in the end they too will have nowhere to live. Let us suppose the top ones realise this is actually not a good strategy to kill the host, and is AGAINST their self-interest, and let us suppose they change tactic and busily start campaigning to ‘Build the Wall’

        If the Jews are co-ordinated then all the other Jews would listen and stop being hostile and become friendly to the West. Can anyone think this would happen? Suddenly the TV shows white couples again? In my view it would not happen as the hostility is not connected to self-interest in the first place, and it arises from their animal behaviour side, which gives them an inner hostility to other tribes. The reason Westerners do not understand this is because we have no such feelings ourselves.

        There are other feelings that arab-types have which we do not. We have a sense of morals that judges others as individuals, and does not make their tribe/race part of the judgement, but the arab/indian/Jew genes are not like this. In its extreme case this process of having no respect for other individuals and thinking only of what the the group wants, this leads to honour killings within a family (1000 per year in Pakistan). I doubt that one case has existed in the West of a father and brother and mother and uncle all getting together to strangle the daughter for wanting to marry the wrong man. Such a high level of separation of thinking, where the bell curves do not touch even, this can only be explained in terms of fundamental biological differences in the animal behaviour thinking. Because we do not possess these genes and this wiring, we cannot understand them. We cannot comprehend honour killings and neither can we comprehend how ((one tribe)) can hate the host nation that offers it the hand of friendship.

        So it is not necessary to plan or co-ordinate as they are just acting on their inner animal behaviour instincts. Even they do not know why they are hostile, but try and think of reasons to justify it. (The Holcst)

  5. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again because it’s worth repeating, I am confident that theirs will be a Pyrrhic victory.

    It seems hard to believe that the two things, without which life for us is impossible, have never been put together and taught at in any of our teaching-learning institutions. I’m referring to Explanation and Social-Institutions.

    We can ignore them all we want. But the fact is, as social life gets more complex we are growing more and more dependent on what, in terms of Explanation, is best characterized as Gossip. But our social-institutions can’t live off of Gossip.

    Even by 1600 Europe had created the most sophisticated Explanatory Culture the world has ever known, and the modern world was still around the corner.

    The reason for this sophistication is simple. Whites became more and more willing to expose their ideas to a continuous process of feedback and correction. That’s why the most advanced ditched religion as the supreme explanation for ideology. And then later the most advanced ditched even that for the arts and sciences, both of which influenced each other and came in time to help us understand Explanation itself and its function in human behavior, especially as it is played out in our social-institutions.

    Because Jewish thought operates entirely in the realm of the absolute they never question their explanations, because they’re so full of themselves they don’t see the need. But this is a judgment made in error.

    Explanation is central to social-management and therefore to the functioning of our social-institutions. But, again, driven, or obsessed, by belief over facts and conseuqences, Jews seem to show no inkling of this. Hence the dysfunctional world they are creating around them.

    Sure, they might succeed in pushing Whites out into the ocean, or oceans (or maybe not). But they’ll soon follow. Of that I have no doubt. Their command at Explanation functions on the level of Gossip and Propaganda (same thing) and even that they never question. So they tend toward the low-down and dysfunctional.
    Or, as an old Jewish professor used to like to say, “We’re the smartest and dumbest people at the same time. Here, I believe, is the reason why.

  6. George Romanian
    George Romanian says:

    @Jim Russel
    ” the big question is whether or not the actions of this powerful ethnic minority are planned and coordinated. Without some type of secret Sanhedrin to set new policies and to settle disagreements how else could they be so effective in achieving almost total control of the world’s money and media, along with the education system of the entire Western world.”

    I often asked myself the same question. I don’t think the transmission of instructions from a Sanhedrin towards lower ranks is formalized or rigid. However, a loose connection exists between diaspora Jews. The “lachrymose view of Jewish history in the West” makes them far more active and responsive to unofficial “orders”. They have an acute sense of trends that their people must follow.
    However, we tend to see Jews as a unitary block marching in lockstep. In my opinion, this is false. There are factions, for example ultra -religious Jews strongly disagree with Liberal Jews, but are united against the Goyim. I follow from time to time rabbi Joseph Mizrachi’s conferences. The rabbis are an excellent mean of transmitting the “orders” or trends that the (religious) community must follow. He is a very strong supporter of Trump, while secularized Jews are at his throat. So, I think there is an internal conflict within the Jewish community. Maybe the White and Christian peoples will take advantage of this situation.
    Another reason for feeling optimistic is….demography. The demographics of rich and influential Jews doesn’t look so good.

    • pj dooner
      pj dooner says:

      Some jews think it’s more important to continue to destroy the white race and other jews, like the rabbi you speak of, think they still need what’s left of the white race to support Israel-the factions only differ in what they believe is best for the jews!

  7. Aitch.
    Aitch. says:

    How about Masonic lodges as a means of transmitting their wishes and coordinating their actions? Or are the Jews not so influential in these organisations?

  8. T
    T says:

    K MacDonald writes: ‘The Enlightenment resulted in “Jewish emancipation” in the sense that the paradigm had shifted from a corporate Christendom with its anti-Jewish theology to an individualist model of society where each citizen was to be stripped of group allegiances.

    Jews were welcomed into these newly reconstructed Western societies, but the tensions remained…’

    There was an article linked below that juxtaposes well with this entry of MacDonald’s published in an October, 1870 edition of the then highly influential Boston based Atlantic Monthly (now the still quite influential Washington DC based Atlantic) in an apparent attempt to ease these ‘tensions’ in integrating the Jewish people into Anglo-Saxon society. It was written by a James Parton and entitled ‘Our Israelitish Brethren’ which in more modern English would translate as ‘Our Jewish Brothers’.

    It’s well worth the time to read in its entirety as it is telling.

    As part of the background to this article, in the northeast in particular, and based upon a perceived Anglo-Saxon inherent superiority, there seems to have been a widespread and almost unshakeable and misbegotten belief amongst powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon elites and hangers on of their ability to make any and every group they would ‘integrate’ into Anglo-Saxons, both racially and intellectually, rather than seeing the possibility of the reverse occurring.

    I’ve excepted here a few of the more interesting quotes:

    ‘Who can estimate the reparation which Christendom owes this interesting and unoffending people? How abundant, how untiring, should be our charity in judging the faults of character which our own superstition has created or developed!’

    ‘Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last ten centuries,—the huge Andersonville outrages,—few readers need to be reminded. In the slaughter of the Jews of Seville, in 1391, thirty-five hundred families were murdered. In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, three hundred thousand heroic Israelites preferred exile to apostasy.’ [edit: The emboldened is a reference to the Southern Confederacy’s Andersonville camp and the now generally acknowledged fraudulent accusation of the planned systematic mass murder of Union prisoners there for which its commanding officer Wirz was hanged in 1865.]

    ‘Many of them [the Jewish people] found a resting-place only in the grave or in the depths of the sea; for neither Portugal nor Italy nor Mohammedan Morocco would tolerate the presence of a people who would not comply with their superstitions, and who, by their frugality, continence, temperance, and industry, absorbed the wealth of every country in which they lived.’

    ‘The favorite office of the Spanish Inquisition for two centuries was to “question” the sincerity of those two hundred thousand Jewish converts; and the national amusement was to witness the burning of Jewish Rabbis and Jewish maidens. Similar atrocities were committed, as we all know, in England, Germany, and France.’

    ‘But there is a wrong which all Christians, for many hundreds of years, have done to all Jews, all the time,—we have despised them.’

    ‘In Protestant Holland, down nearly to the days of Louis Bonaparte, Jewish paupers were compelled to say their prayers bareheaded, and to work all day Saturday, although they begged the privilege of doing in five days their whole week’s work. It was not till 1790 that this poor boon was granted them. Some of the watering-places in Germany could show, among their chartered privileges, the right to exclude Jews. At Strasburg, within the recollection of living persons, a Jew had to pay three francs a day merely for the privilege of staying in the town. In Switzerland, as late as 1851, the contemptuous law was re-enacted, imposing a fine of three hundred francs upon every Christian who gave a Jew employment. In Russia, at the present hour, the government presumes to prescribe what shall be the garb of a Jew. In New York, London, Paris, and other cities there is an alliance, or society for the sole object of promoting the emancipation of the Jews from the remaining disabilities which the aversion of Christendom has imposed.’

    ‘Within the recollection of men still young, Jews have been admitted to the British Parliament, where, I am informed by a distinguished Rabbi, who gloried in the fact, no Jew has ever sided with the party of reaction, except one, and he a renegade. The Jews to-day in the House of Commons vote on important measures with John Bright. The professor of Hebrew in the London University is a Hebrew; and among the Jewish students last year at Oxford and Cambridge, one was a senior wrangler and another the crack oarsman of his college. In London one of the noted clubs is Jewish, and there are so many Jews in the city government that they may almost be said to have the controlling influence.’

    ‘Our Israelitish brethren in the United States have their own battle to fight. It is substantially the same as ours. They, too, have to deal with overwhelming masses of ignorance and poverty, just able to get across the ocean, and arriving helpless at Castle Garden. They, too, have to save morality, decency, civilization, while the old bondage of doctrine and habit is gradually loosened. In this struggle Jews and Christians should be allies; and allies are equals.’

  9. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “was to make alliances with other aggrieved groups. ”
    (I realise K MacDonald did not list the left as a separate aggrieved group).

    Despite the Jews strongly supporting the left, the home of the aggrieved groups, whilst at the same time trying to personally distance themselves from the effects of lefty policies, for example not sending their children to the kind of schools they advocate for others, despite this support for the left by the Jews, the left do not respond in kind, and are very hostile to the notion of Israelis having more land in Israel. There are no TV programmes t that side with the Jewish land claims. There are never any maps shown on TV showing the relative sizes of Israeli lands and arab lands. This could be because the Left see the Jews in the Middle East as more civilised than their neighbours (Westerners can stay in Israeli hotels without being kidnapped), and the Left simply hate the civilised wherever they are.

    But the left are more than happy to go along with the H and fully support it, as it is their main stick to beat nationalism, and the left use the H to portray any whites seeking self-interest as ‘Nazis who gas Jews’.

    This is important as it shows the Jews do not have enough power to make the MSM support Israel. They have only the power that they have in education, politics and the MSM because they and the Left follow the same agenda in these areas. When they do not share the same goals (Israel/Palestine) the Left get the upper hand.

    This applies to Britain, but I am pretty sure CNN etc or Fox even do not side with Israel in the Israel/arab land conflict.

    I am not sure it is a good idea for the ‘right’ to side with the left on the Palestinian land claims. First of all, a large and secure Israel would mean more Jews could go there from the West. One day they might need a place to go to ie where there is room for more of them and they cannot say it is dangerous and insist on staying in the West.

    Secondly, the Alt-R siding with Palestine places the Alt-R in conflict with the ordinary right, who are on the Israelis’ side in the Israeli versus muslims land conflict, as they still believe that the Jews are their friends and worth helping in Israel. The ordinary right see Israel as a ‘Western’ nation surrounded by Islamic fanatics (which is sort of true – the second part is). What is gained by the Alt-R siding with Islamic fanatics in Palestine just at the time when the rest of the right do not want to side with the muslims anywhere in the world?

    Siding with the Palestinian muslims just puts ppl off the Alt-R.

    • Col. B. Bunny
      Col. B. Bunny says:

      The surreal anti-Russia hysteria, wars in Syria and Iraq, anti-Iran fabrications, absurd fiscal transfers, and distortion of our foreign policy, combined with Pollard, the Liberty, the Lavon operation, AIPAC, 9-11, and Israel’s attacks on Syria and executions in Gaza and on Israeli soil leave me hostile to Israel and not at all impressed by its being a somewhat western country in the ME. It’s no friend of ours and any normal conservative who is reflexively pro-Israel just doesn’t get out much.

      I am hostile to any Muslims anywhere in the West as they don’t belong there. Period. However the Palestinians do belong in Palestine and the Israelis act like swine to them, as they’ve acted like since to us. They chose to take their land by terror and military force. They just showed up, mouthed some garbage about Balfour and “their ancestral land, ” and took over.

      I don’t see any contradiction. Jews are ardent proponents of Muslims in the West and they dispossess and kill Palestinians.

  10. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    The real question is not what the Jews are doing but how will we get rid of them? As best as I can tell the behavior of a large number of Jews over thousands of years moving into your country is identical to a tribe of psychopaths invading the country. Whether all Jews are psychopaths or not is irrelevant as the behavior is the same. Maybe this is why the Jews have been thrown out of every single country they’ve been to in any great numbers. People can only stand psychopathic behavior so long then they must get rid of them to save themselves.

    None of the problems we have with other races or indeed any problems we have to solve at all will be dealt with as long as the Jews are in our country. As long as they own the media, the banks and “I believe” the whole entire US economy, (Bought with near zero interest rates given the banks during the bank bail out). Nothing will ever change unless we drive them out. It would be great if we can do this peacefully but it must happen by any means necessary if we are to survive. Never forget what they did in Russia, Hungary and Germany when they had the power to do so. They murdered people as fast as they could and all of us here will be the first to go when they get the power.

    If any of us look at the history of the Jews in Europe, and anywhere else they’ve been, the only way to deal with them is to drive them out and make sure they have no say in our affairs.

  11. Ken
    Ken says:

    Why the silence on the present genocide against whites in the US via massive legal and illegal non-white immigration and the murderous black criminal cancer?Because of the third world invasion, whites will soon be a racial minority in a country founded by our ancestors. This is a deliberate action perpetrated by the Democratic Party in a diabolical plan to keep them in power and impose socialism on us. They try to silence us by screaming “racism,” “xenophobia,” and other epithets. It is for us, the victims of this massive social engineering project, to resist our demographic replacement. We have to resist. Go to numbersusa to protest; contact congress to demand and end to this invasion. If you do nothing, you are part of the problem. Build the wall now.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The democrats funded by jooish bankers founded the KKK to stop Irish Catholic immigration to North America. Needing conscripts to fill the ranks of the Union army and cheap labor that didn’t have a value such as the voodoo negro, the North continued accepting the Irish. Eventually the KKK the ranks being filled out by Southern Baptist WASPS turned on its founders the Democrats and the JOOZ.

      It was the Democrats and the JOOZ that replaced the KKK with Whites being forced until the end of days of Whites having to tithe 50% or more of White productivity and fortune to the savage unproductive negro

  12. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    “The democrats funded by jooish bankers founded the KKK to stop Irish Catholic immigration to North America.” I never heard of this (surprise!). I certainly hope that this has some good documentation. Please.

Comments are closed.