Jews and Vulture Capitalism: A Reprise, Part 1

I recently wrote a long movie review (sort of) that focused on Wall Street stories that airbrush Jews out of the picture and instead create the impression that plain old goy males are responsible for all kinds of financial nastiness when dealing with sums over, say, a hundred million dollars (and MUCH more). The review came as Part 1 & Part 2. In the review, I emphasized the plots of popular Hollywood movies and deliberately downplayed detailed accounts of Jewish financial manipulation in institutions in Lower Manhattan, reasoning that many of today’s readers would relate more to celluloid imagery than drier non-fiction.

Today I’ll do that drier writing and perform yeoman’s work in describing instances of Jewish financial chicanery far more thoroughly, relying primarily on TOO writers such as Andrew Joyce and myself, though I will bring in a few outsiders to burnish our tale by using their more mainstream credentials.

I’ll begin with a few exciting quotes about our topic before descending into a routine rendition of Jewish perfidy when it comes to large financial scandals. Recall the title of Joyce’s dangerous title last December: “Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism.” In that essay, Joyce employed provocative phrases, accusing Jewish firms such as Paul Singer’s Elliot Associates of being one of the “cabals of exploitative financiers” possessing a “scavenging and parasitic nature” vis-a-vis gentile host nations. “Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic” — results in “all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.” I daresay we are here teetering on the brink of introducing age-old canards regarding Jews and money. But are they true?

A Certain Cephalopod Encircling an Unnamed Planet

Before attempting to answer that question either way, it is unavoidable that I once again trot out Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi’s timeless quip in The Great American Bubble Machine as he described the 2008 market meltdown:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. 

And with that, we get down to the dirty business of recounting seminal instances of, well, dirty business. Or maybe it’s an historical account of the transfer of wealth from various groups to Jews. Or a biological account of energy moving to one specific colony of living organisms from elsewhere. The phenomenon can be approached in many ways.

To give this essay a suitably serious tone, we begin with the Bible, where the twin themes of Jewish resource acquisition and deceit will be familiar. In A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Kevin MacDonald describes the process:

The biblical stories of sojourning by the patriarchs among foreigners are very prominently featured in Genesis. Typically there is an emphasis on deception and exploitation of the host population, after which the Jews leave a despoiled host population, having increased their own wealth and reproductive success. Indeed, immediately after the creation story and the genealogy of Abraham, Genesis presents an account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt. Abraham goes to Egypt to escape a famine with his barren wife Sarah, and they agree to deceive the pharaoh into thinking that Sarah is his sister, so that the pharaoh takes her as a concubine. As a result of this transaction, Abraham receives great wealth . . . .

Far from being a unique story, it portrays a pattern, with MacDonald concluding, “Like the others, the Egyptian sojourn begins with deception and ends with the Israelites obtaining great treasure and increasing their numbers.”

The most famous Biblical story of deceit is the story of Exodus, where Joseph helps his relatives enter by telling them to deny being shepherds because the Egyptians dislike shepherds. The Israelites reside in Egypt and are successful: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt . . . and they got them possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly” (Gen. 47:27).

From biblical times, we jump ahead to the modern era, for Jews seemed to be in a kind of hibernation until their emancipation in Europe. With that emancipation came a resumption of the biblical trend toward obtaining great treasure and increasing their numbers. How they did this often contravened prevailing Christian norms, however, as attested to by two prominent gentile writers outside the realm of TOO or related enterprises.

These eminent writers and thinkers are Paul Johnson, a conservative British writer, and Albert Lindemann, a Harvard Ph.D. and retired historian who has written dispassionately on Jews for many years. Johnson caught my attention years ago when I somehow came across his book Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties. I was a young man then, grappling with a humanities education that left me feeling major parts of life’s stories had been left out. Given the prevailing reign of liberal thought (which was, of course, only to get far worse) I found Johnson’s contrarian conservative views refreshing, but it was his emphasis on Jewish “rationalization” of the modern world, especially in economic matters, that truly caught my attention. I can still recall the ongoing frustration I had while reading his book, principally because he would not call Jews out for bad behavior.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. What Johnson did was start by saying how much Jews had contributed to the modern world, then switch to a long, detailed list of behaviors that violated Western laws and customs. I remember wondering how he got away with that. After filling pages with shocking exposés of such conduct, he’d then close by saying how grateful we should be to Jews for “rationalizing” previously outmoded methods and beliefs. A few years later he wrote A History of the Jews, which is pretty much an expanded version of the Jewish parts of Modern Times. A History is a great reference book to have, though.

Johnson set the stage by documenting the rise of the Jews throughout Europe in the modern period:

Jews dominated the Amsterdam stock exchange, where they held large quantities of stock from both the West and East India Companies, and were the first to run a large-scale trade in securities. In London they set the same pattern a generation later in the 1690s. . . . In due course, Jews helped to create the New York stock exchange in 1792. . . . Expelled Jews went to the Americas as the earliest traders. They set up factories. In St Thomas, for instance, they became the first large-scale plantation-owners [and slave owners]. . . . Jews and marranos were particularly active in settling Brazil . . . they owned most of the sugar plantations [and their slaves]. They controlled the trade in precious and semi-precious stones. Jews expelled from Brazil in 1654 helped to create the sugar industry in Barbados and Jamaica.

Next, he shared how some gentiles reacted: In 1781 Prussian official Christian Wilhelm von Dohm published a tract claiming, in Johnson’s paraphrase, “The Jews had ‘an exaggerated tendency [to seek] gain in every way, a love of usury.’ These ‘defects’ were aggravated ‘by their self-imposed segregation. . . .’ From these followed ‘the breaking of the laws of the state restricting trade, the import and export of prohibited wares, the forgery of money and precious metals.’” In short, von Dohm described traditional Jewish communities as far more resembling a mafia-like group engaged in organized crime than what we think of as a religious community.

Continuing, Johnson wrote,

Throughout the twentieth century, American Jews continued to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities America opened to them, to attend universities, to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, professional men and women of all kinds, politicians and public servants, as well as to thrive in finance and business as they always had. They were particularly strong in the private enterprise sector, in press, publishing, broadcasting and entertainment, and in intellectual life generally. There were certain fields, such as the writing of fiction, where they were dominant. But they were numerous and successful everywhere.

This success, however, did not always come honorably, or at least that is what legions of gentiles have long claimed. Johnson described how Jewish involvement in financial scandals certainly became a prominent theme of modern anti-Semitism. As he wrote, “The Union Générale scandal in 1882, the Comptoire d’Escompte scandal in 1889 — both involving Jews — were merely curtain-raisers” to a far more massive and complex crime, the Panama Canal scandal, ‘an immense labyrinth of financial manipulation and fraud, with [Jewish] Baron Jacques de Reinach right at the middle of it.’” (Reinach committed suicide because of the scandal.) Wikipedia tells us that

Close to half a billion francs were lost and members of the French government had taken bribes to keep quiet about the Panama Canal Company’s financial troubles in what is regarded as the largest monetary corruption scandal of the 19th century. . . . Some 800,000 French people, including 15,000 single women, had lost their investments in the stocks, and founder shares of the Panama Canal Company, to the considerable sum of approximately 1.8 billion gold Francs. From the nine stock issues, the Panama Canal Company received 1.2 billion gold Francs, 960 million of which were invested in Panama, a large amount having been pocketed by financiers and politicians.

For once, Wiki includes the Jewish angle, writing that “The scandal showed, in Arendt’s view, that the middlemen between the business sector and the state were almost exclusively Jews, thus helping to pave the road for the Dreyfus Affair.”

Albert Lindemann chronicled similar episodes, particularly in his highly respected Esau’s Tear: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. In the book he noted that during the 19th century in Eastern Europe there were also persistent complaints about Jewish perjury to help other Jews commit fraud and other crimes. For example, in Russia a neutral observer noted that judges “unanimously declared that not a single lawsuit, criminal or civil, can be properly conducted if the interests of the Jews are involved.” Writing in 1914, American sociologist Edward A. Ross similarly commented on Jewish immigrants to America that “The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. … In the North End of Boston ‘the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.’”

Lindemann echoed Johnson’s description of the rise of Jewish power paired with Jewish involvement in major financial scandals. In Germany, Jews “were heavily involved in the get-rich-quick enterprises” of the period of rapid urbanization and industrialization of the 1860s and 70s. “Many highly visible Jews made fortunes in dubious ways . . . Probably the most notorious of these newly rich speculators was Hirsch Strousberg, a Jew involved in Romanian railroad stocks. He was hardly unique in his exploits, but as Peter Pulzer has written, ‘the . . . difference between his and other men’s frauds was that his was more impudent and involved more money.’”

Like Johnson, Lindemann delved back into the nineteenth century, writing that

In the summer of 1873 the stock markets in New York and Vienna collapsed. By the autumn of that year Germany’s industrial overexpansion and the reckless proliferation of stock companies came to a halt. Jews were closely associated in the popular mind with the stock exchange. Widely accepted images of them as sharp and dishonest businessmen made it all but inevitable that public indignation over the stock market crash would be directed at them. Many small investors, themselves drawn to the prospect of easy gain, lost their savings through fraudulent stocks of questionable business practices in which Jews were frequently involved. 

Also like Johnson, Lindemann believed that accusations of fraud against many European Jews were not based on mere fantasy. With respect to the Panama Canal scandal of 1888–1892, for instance, Lindemann wrote:

Investigation into the activities of the Panama Company revealed widespread bribery of parliamentary officials to assure support of loans to continue work on the Panama Canal, work that had been slowed by endless technical and administrative difficulties. Here was a modern project that involved large sums of French capital and threatened national prestige. The intermediaries between the Panama Company and parliament were almost exclusively Jews, with German names and backgrounds, some of whom tried to blackmail one another . . . .

Thousands of small investors lost their savings in the Panama fiasco. . . . A trial in 1893 was widely believed to be a white-wash. The accused escaped punishment through bribery and behind-the-scenes machinations, or so it was widely believed. The Panama scandal seemed almost designed to confirm the long-standing charges of the French right that the republic was in the clutches of corrupt Jews who were bringing dishonor and disaster to France. 

In many cases, the Jewish nexus of the financial scandal involved the idea that Jews implicated in financial scandals were being protected by other highly placed Jews. Lindemann: “The belief of anti-Semites in France about Jewish secretiveness was based on a real secretiveness of some highly placed and influential Jews. What anti-Semites suspected was not so much pure fantasy as a malicious if plausible exaggeration, since solid facts were hard to come by.” This secretiveness among prominent Jews is another example of the operation of the Talmudic Law of the Moser (which forbids informing on other Jews) and once again shows that illegal and unethical behavior is sanctioned within the Jewish community. The only crime would be to inform on other Jews.

Not surprisingly, however, the best contemporary discussion of Jewish financial power over the last two centuries comes from E. Michael Jones, publisher of Culture Wars and author of the 1200-page Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (2008). He outdid himself by releasing in 2014 an even longer book called Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury. Naturally, because usury was a key topic, Jews are a primary topic of discussion.

Jones’ star is clearly rising, principally due to his presence on the Internet. Like TOO’s Kevin MacDonald, Jones ceaselessly appears in podcasts and is catholic in his willingness to appear on a wide range of shows.

With respect to Barren Metal, I will begin my consideration of Jews and usury from Chapter 64, “Napoleon Emancipates the Jews.” Previously, Jones had described many gentile financiers, but from Chapter 64 onward the pronounced Jewish role crescendoes to the point that, were the book divided in two and the second book to begin with Chapter 64, the sub-title would have to change to “Jews, Capitalism, and Usury.”

A main theme of Barren Metal is that “Capitalism is state-sponsored usury.” This is hardly a new idea, since German writer Werner Sombart explored the concept in depth in Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911). Jones describes Sombart’s idea thus: “capitalism is the philosophical and political sanctification of usury. Because money-lending, according to Sombart, is ‘one of the most important roots of capitalism,’ capitalism ‘derived its most important characteristics from money-lending.’”

Particularly with the rise of Protestantism in parts of Europe, usury lashed to state power altered the age-old economic foundation of the continent and Britain. In turn, this elicited the rise of modern anti-Semitism in Europe. For instance, Jones points to Wilhelm Marr, “the patriarch of anti-Semitism” (interestingly, three of Marr’s four wives were Jewesses), whose racial animus toward Jews may have masked an economic cause, which was usury. Marr wrote:

The burning question of our day in our Parliaments . . . is usury. . . . The political correctness of our Judified society helps it to sail by the reef which is the usury question, and as a result poor folk from every class become the victims of the Usurers and their corrupt German assistants, who are only too happy to earn 20 to 30 percent per month off of the misery of the poor. . . . In the meantime the cancer of usury continues to eat away at the social fabric, and the animosity against the Jews grows by the hour . . . so that an explosion can no longer be avoided.

In short, “This looting is, of course, to no avail because no force on earth can keep up with compound interest, which is the heart of usury.”

The climax of Barren Metal comes toward the end of the book in the chapter on the Vatican-approved periodical Civiltà Cattolica that in 1890 forthrightly addressed the Jewish Question. Far more than in modern America, enormous financial scandals in Europe of the era were directly and openly linked to Jews. In 1882, for example, the Union Generale bank collapsed and Jews were explicitly blamed for it. Its former head, for one, fumed that the Jewish financial power of the day was “not content with the billions which had come into its coffers for fifty years . . . not content with the monopoly which it exercises on nine-tenths at least of all Europe’s financial affairs.” This power, the man claimed, had “set out to destroy the Union Generale.”

In response to this collapse, famed writer Emile Zola published a novel in which a fictional young Catholic banker seethed at Jewish deceit. The Catholic character

is overwhelmed with an “inextinguishable hatred” for “that accursed race which no longer has its own country, no longer has its own prince, which lives parasitically in the home of nations, feigning to obey the law but in reality only obeying its own God of theft, of blood, of anger .  .  . fulfilling everywhere its mission of ferocious conquest, to lie in wait for its prey, suck the blood out of everyone, [and] grow fat on the life of others.”

While Zola employed fiction to make his point, Civiltà Cattolica used reason, facts and argumentation to chronicle how the Jews were able to foist their immoral ways (according to Christian mores) onto European society, and “the main way that the Jews achieved their hegemony over Christian societies was through ‘their insatiable appetite for enriching themselves via usury.’” The verdict? “The source of Jewish power is usury.”

From this central fact rolled well-known consequences:

Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in a short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything: gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointments in political administrations, in the army, and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending upon them.

With control of gold came control of Christian society, particularly through the public press and academia, since “journalism and public education are like the two wings that carry the Israelite dragon, so that it might corrupt and plunder all over Europe.”

In the same chapter on Civiltà Cattolica, Jones discusses how the writings of one German, Father Georg Ratzinger, informed discussions in the Vatican periodical. As the name suggests, Fr. Ratzinger was indeed related to Joseph Ratzinger (his great-nephew), who became Pope Benedict XVI. The elder Ratzinger pointed directly to Jewish usury as the bane of Christian culture, which, when left unchecked, resulted in the enslavement of the surrounding Gentiles. Previously, of course, traditional Christianity forbade usury, meaning that the popes thus “deprived [Jews] of their ability to occupy the choke points in the culture.”

Ratzinger insisted it was foolish to abandon these tried and true Christian practices because Jews learned from their Talmud that “cheating the goyim was a virtue.” Linking free trade, capitalism and Jewish methods of conducting business, Ratzinger concluded that it was “to be expected that the Jews, who with centuries of practice became skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare and acquired the arts of exploitation to perfection, would take center stage under the regime of free competition.” It was not knowledge or ability, in Ratzinger’s opinion, that “makes the Jew rich and admired in society” but, rather, “deception and exploitation of others.”

Of course Ratzinger did not think Gentiles were totally blameless in these cultural and economic wars, for at a time “when Jews stand by even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews. In Parliament,” Ratzinger wrote, “no Jew need defend another Jew when their Christian lackeys do that for them.” (I wonder if there was a contemporary German term meaning “cuckservative.”)

Civiltà Cattolica is a treasure, as valuable now as it must have been over a century ago. I strongly encourage every serious TOO reader to familiarize himself with this tract, which can be found here.

Another fascinating topic Jones covers concerns the relationship between landed English gentry and Jewish moneylenders. “Stated in its simplest terms, the Jewish Problem involved the inverse relationship between debt and political sovereignty.” This antagonism toward growing Jewish power was common among the British aristocracy as well as politicians. The 1891 Labour Leader, for example, denounced the money-lending Rothschild family as a

blood-sucking crew [which] has been the main cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between the States which ought never to have quarreled. Wherever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumors of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbance.

An exemplar of this was the extended Churchill family, which fell into the clutches of Jewish moneylenders. Randolph, father of Winston and born in 1849, grew up in an era in which “spectacular bankruptcies” would plague aristocrats for much of the century. Much of this suffering was, of course, brought on by shameless profligacy among landed aristocrats, and Jones offers the Churchills as an example of this blight. Randolph—and in turn Winston—were very much in this mold, and fell straight into the hands of Jewish moneylenders, with profound consequences for Britain and all of Christendom by the time of Winston’s terms as Prime Minister.

As far back as 1874, the Churchill family was forced to sell wide swaths of land along with livestock  to Baron Rothschild in order to settle a serious debt. Randolph, who had grown up amidst rich Jews with opulent tastes, made the mistake of thinking that he could indulge such a lifestyle without the necessary funds to back it. What he didn’t understand was that “he was on the wrong side of compound interest and they [his Jewish friends] on the right side.”

What followed was predictable. Randolph eventually contracted syphilis and lost large sums of money while gambling in Monte Carlo. In this instance, a Rothschild came to his rescue—but at a price. “The Jews who were supporting Randolph’s syphilitic fantasies and the extravagant lifestyle that went along with it . . . [were] willing to write off 70,000 pounds in bad debt because [Natty Rothschild] needed a friend in high places who would share Cabinet secrets that could be turned into hard financial gains.” Finally, consider this unsettling conclusion: In time, “the British Empire would become an essentially Jewish enterprise over the course of the 19th century.” By the end of the century, Jones concludes, “The British Empire had become one huge, Jewish usury machine, administered by impecunious, extravagant, perennially indebted, morally depraved agents like Randolph Churchill.”

Since Jones saw a reason to largely skirt over events from the 1890 publication of Civiltà Cattolica until the late 1940s, I’ll do the same. The founding of the Federal Reserve, for instance, is covered in a scant eight pages, the Depression is not much more than a footnote, and The Second World War is ignored. Jones resumes his tale with the rise of University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, who was instrumental in creating the Chicago School of economics. Being helpful, Jones translates this development as: “The Jewish usurers’ Utopia which Milton Friedman promoted under the name of Chicago School economics was the mirror image of Communism, another Jewish Utopia, because both claimed that if their programs were implemented heaven on earth would follow.” Naturally, these claims were insincere (or could have been part self-deception) and Friedman’s advocacy of transferring public works projects into private hands, therefore, “was another looting operation.”

These assets that were the product of years of investment of public money and labor should, in Friedman’s view, “be transferred into private hands, on principle.” This public to “private” wealth transfer will soon be the focus of another discussion about Jews and money later in this essay.

First, however, I’ll mention in passing the subject of Jones’ Chapter 98, the leveraged buy-outs of the 1980s. Professor Benjamin Ginsberg was hardly alone in noticing that Jermome Kohlberg, Jr., Harry Kravis and many others involved in these buy-outs were Jews. As always, Jones does not disappoint in his ability to summarize this trend: “The concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of a few avaricious Jews has led to corruption of both discourse and culture.”

This era was the focus of my recent essay, Vulture Capitalism, Jews — and Hollywood, where I showed how Jewry hides in plain sight their ongoing looting of gentile wealth by creating blockbuster movies which feature no Jews, instead casting famous gentile actors as financial malefactors. (See Part 1 & Part 2 here.) Thus, I’ll pass over this important era in order to focus on another looting operation that is still almost invisible to the world’s public. This operation is the one a mostly Jewish cast imposed on a newly freed Russia that was ripe for exploitation at the hands of Jews “skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare.”

Go to Part 2.

27 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    It’s not “smarts” or “IQ” that gives jews an advantage over gentile whites, but is their rabid insistence on cultural and social cohesiveness, insularity and nepotism (but only for themselves) that gives them an “advantage”.
    This same cultural and social cohesiveness that is prized so highly by jewish interests is denied to gentile whites.
    Jews, to a man will fight to deny this same cultural and social cohesiveness to gentile whites that they themselves enjoy as it is a major part of the jewish purpose–the destruction of gentile white culture, which IS superior to any jewish cultural or social society. If jews did not possess this power, they would most likely be rag merchants, liquor merchants, or furniture merchants–nothing more.
    As I have previously stated, jewish success is based on cultural and social cohesiveness and insularity–NOT “smarts” or “IQ”.
    Once enough jews get into a position of power in the work world or education systems, they will hire and promote their own, even bypassing more qualified gentile white candidates.
    Jews have latched on to cultural cohesiveness and nepotism, as it serves their purpose exceedingly well.
    At the same time, jews pushed the concept of racial “equality”, (but only for gentile whites), backing it up with “civil-rights” and “equal accommodation” laws which are enforced by governments–but only against whites. These “civil-rights” laws are used as a “battering ram” against gentile whites to diffuse and fragment any semblance of gentile white solidarity and cohesiveness that may arise.
    Jews are the only group that lacks a moral component. Jews are very amoral, think nothing of screwing a “goy” out of money, possessions, or even reputation or life. You see, the jewish talmud elevates the jew above all others, “goyim” being “livestock with souls, created only to serve the jew”.
    This amorality is a critical component in jewish life and is partially responsible for jewish successes. When one does not possess a moral compass that defines and separates “right from wrong” THAT in itself gives the jew greater latitude to “get what he wants” as there are “no limits” on what a jew may do to gain the advantage in just about any situation. The lack of a moral component within jewish life is a major reason for jewish supremacy in civilized societies.
    A great reckoning dealing with the jews is coming. As gentile whites become more marginalized, the accusation of being tagged as “racist” or a “holocaust denier” is rapidly losing its “sting”.
    Increasingly, jews are more wary of being “called out” and recognized as “jews”. One can call a jew a shyster, shylock, bankster, criminal or ne-er-do-well, and it will roll off his back like water off a duck, BUT call a jew a “jew”, and he will recoil in horror, having been “found out”. This is a major reason why so many jews change their names.
    One last point is the jewish practice of “male genital mutilation” (circumcision) (bris) performed on the eighth day after birth.
    This barbaric practice contributes to mental illness among jews in two ways:
    –one, the practice itself which inflicts unnecessary pain on the infant and is traumatizng to the point of inflicting future mental illness.
    –two, the practice of the “mohel” fellating the infant (metzitzah b’peh) after the “deed is done”. This is a sure way of passing on the STDS that are infecting the “mohel” to the infant. As most STDs do not manifest themselves until later in life, mental illness is the result. Maybe this is a reason why many jews are so “twisted”…

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Aren’t the circumcised Whites also subject to this trauma? btw How did this jewish practice become adopted by Whites?

      Physical pain causing mental illness- the engram theory of Elron Hubbard. . .

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      All the examples you give in double quotes, such as “civil-rights”, “equal accommodation”, “civil-rights”, “goy”, “livestock with souls” [surely this ought to be ‘without’?] , “racist”, “holocaust denier” are Jewish phrases. Just a sample, of course. The whole world of discussion has to be redefined against Jews. Notably including finance, wealth, ownership, ‘rich countries’, reserves — the entirety.

  2. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “von Dohm described traditional Jewish communities as far more resembling a mafia-like group engaged in organized crime than what we think of as a religious community.”

    This is exactly why the West, ie; White men, ie; Public Enemy #1 in The Land Of Jewish Supremacy Inc.*, established the Rule of Law over the Rule of Man.

    He recognized his own potential for corruption and also recognized its destructive effects on his own communities.

    HIs constant moving in this direction is what made the civilization he created possible.

    You can not build a civilization on a foundation of secrecy and corruption. That’s why JSI needed the White man to build something that JSI could only then take over, subvert and destroy.

    We all know how they were able to do this, ie; in part, White gullibility and willingness to own other people’s shame (a process that starts in White families, which is why Whites should study family systems instead of yapping mindlessly about “family values”).

    So, JSI is entirely – ENTIRELY – dependent on the assests and defects of Whites.

    Let me rephrase that.

    JSI is entirely dependent on the very people they routinely violate.

    That’s why the more power they have the crazier the world gets.

    Because they’re crazy.

    What we have to ask ourselves is, what is it in us that made it possible for us to be hoodwinked by a crazy and corrupt people?

    We’re in the process of asking and answering that question.

    In doing so, we’re finding out about them, not just us.

    And what we’re finding out is that psychotics are violently resistent to exposure.

    As soon as we get our brains out of hoc and gather our wits about us we’ll have mustered the courage we need and will need to make a clean break with them – by any means necessary (to use their own words against them).

    Since their primary interest is in protecting their own corrupt trough, which, as aforementioned, is entirely dependent on others, they know enough to know that this is very possible, ie; that it’s very possible we will free ourselves from their toxic and obnoxious self-centeredness and merciless corruption and insane cruelty.

    It’s a race against the clock.

    Either way, they’re not long for this world, and for a reason devoid of any complexity. The world they think they own doesn’t belong to them because they didn’t create it. They simply exploited it, as this excellent article makes perfectly obvious.

    Once again, what we’re witnessing is nothing less than,

    The Pyrrhic Victory of JSI.

    • Caltrop
      Caltrop says:

      The Satanic law of the Judaic Talmud defined –

      Love is the Law, Compassionless Love.

      In Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche equated pity with self-annihilation. For the satanist, or Black Magician, rejection of pity is “the magical equivalent of the rejection of self-annihilation.”

      In other words, to “emancipate” or “liberate” oneself entirely from the “bond” of compassion, of empathy for other beings, is seen as an act of Self-Preservation.

      ‘Love’ in the Satanic Judaic doctrine is “Compassionless”, “pitiless”.

      The Jewish controlled capitalist scheme of values has transformed five of the seven deadly sins of Christianity – pride, envy, greed, avarice, and lust – into positive social virtues, treating them as necessary incentives to all economic enterprise; while the cardinal virtues, beginning with love and humility are rejected as ‘bad for business,’ except in the degree that they make the working class more docile and more amenable to cold-blooded exploitation.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      The repetitious assertion that ” the jews ” never created and/or never participated in the creation of a civilization does not make it true ; and moreover it appears to be a patently false premise and thus provides a false ground upon which to compete against them for resources ( includes people ) needed to build and maintain a civilization .

      Western civilization was built upon a money economy where ” the jews ” were the masters of it . Money is not merely “grease” but rather an indispensable [ catalyst ] needed to make things happen .

      The goyim , especially Whites , have been historicly and are to this day typically not as knowledgeable of money matters as ” the jews “. Furthermore , jewish crimes , including money crimes , horrendous as they are , did not prevent the build-up of the West nor jewish participation in the build-up .

      ” The jews ” are legitimately , notwithstanding criminality , co-owners of Western Civilization ; in fact , they are the dominant majority owners because nonjewish Whites never had the political intelligence , including money mastery ( ie. money intelligence — not IQ ) to establish a cohesive identity nation and make or purchase a majority ownership claim . Therefore , ” the jews ” were and are the primary and dominant owners of many if not most of the indispensable corporations upon which Western Civilization was built ( asserted as a fact and not an excuse for their perfidy ) .

      Please keep in mind that [ truth ] is usually the first casualty of war . Not good .

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Civilization isn’t just money. It’s art, music, literature, philosophy, law, politics, government, religion, exploration, invention, etc.

        The Jews never created a civilization of their own and have contributed very little to Western Civilization. In fact, study of the writings on this website shows that their net impact has been profoundly negative.

        They have been civilization destroyers more than civilization creators. And right now they are in the forefront of destroying Western Civilization through Cultural Marxism, feminism, and mass Third World immigration into white nations.

        Jewish usury has never done anything more than enrich the few at the expense of the many.

        If your position is that what we have now — a tiny billionaire class, a middle class in which both husband and wife have to work in order to survive (they didn’t used to have to do this), a working and lower class living paycheck to paycheck or welfare check to welfare check — constitutes something worthy of being called a great civilization, I have to disagree.

        A great civilization would reward saving and thrift, not debase the value of money, reward all who contribute, and not require “perpetual war for perpetual peace” in order to sustain itself.

      • Ed Connelly
        Ed Connelly says:

        That sounds very similar to the Paul Johnson works I cited where he credits Jews for many of their financial “advances.” Based on the evidence I gave in my newest TOO essay, I can’t share with you your sense that the Jews have done something laudable.

  3. michael severson
    michael severson says:

    Most interesting and well-research and well-presented.

    I’m grateful for it and express agreement and appreciation for expanding a relatively unpublished history, about which more should be made available.

    While knowing a fair knowledge of the likes told here, how some things are unacknowledged, even censored or denied, to discover such is real history.

    My degree in history did not delve into things of this sort, what-so-ever. Only my own reading began to pry open the purposefully hidden aspects. One small example, was when Malcolm X Autobiography was published, I read it and I was almost surprised (educated, really) to read of his saying that large areas of New York tenements and slum areas were Jewish owned and that the Blacks–then often referred to as Negroes–were subject to neglected maintenance and higher prices for occupancy.

  4. Aitch.
    Aitch. says:

    Sadly, the cheapest secondhand copy of ‘Barren Metal’ on Amazon costs well in excess of £100, ironically rendering it unobtainable to all but the well-heeled.

      • Aitch.
        Aitch. says:

        Thanks for that. Unfortunately, I live in Britain, and when the cost of shipping these books to me from the USA is added to the price of the book itself, the transaction becomes unacceptably expensive. As far as I can see, there’s no British source for Dr.Jones’s books. If there were, the postage cost at least would become more manageable.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          For what it’s worth, “Barren Metal” and “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” both weigh in at well over 1,000 pages of small print. Each one is the equivalent of five average books in terms of word count. So while the price is very high, you’re getting a lot for your money. If I were to pick just one of the two books, I’d go with “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.” It covers economic factors and everything else about the Jews.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Big debate coming up between EMJ and Jared Taylor.

        Jones is anti-Jew without being pro-white.

        Taylor is pro-white without being anti-Jew.

        Of course, both are wrong. The correct position is to be pro-white and anti-Jew.

        But they are both very good at the good things they do.

        No one calls out the Jews better than EMJ in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.”

        No one defends white people better than Jared Taylor in “White Identity.”

        Take the good, leave the bad.

  5. Luke
    Luke says:

    When I read articles like these, I fall into a black pilled state that lasts for weeks.

    And, I hear a voice inside my head ask me over and over and over: Is it even possible to rid our nations
    of termites that are as deeply embedded as these termites?

  6. Caltrop
    Caltrop says:

    Money is a store of labour and Banks don’t labour and sweat. They are parasites.

    money includes:

    (a) currency (whether of Australia or of any other country); and

    (b) promissory notes and bills of exchange; and

    (c) any negotiable instrument used or circulated, or intended for use or circulation, as currency (whether of Australia or of any other country); and

    (d) postal notes and money orders; and

    (e) whatever is supplied as payment by way of:

    (i) credit card or debit card; or

    (ii) crediting or debiting an account; or

    (iii) creation or transfer of a debt.

    Banks purchase your labour in the form of a promissory note. They then with little or no effort pretend they are lending the fruits of their labour to you, and then they have the hide to charge you interest on top.

    The banker deceives you into believing that they really created a loan when they enter numbers called dollars into your account, but which in reality is a nullity in book keeping terms.

    From The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, Collins-World Publishers

    That the commands of Moses concerning clean and unclean beasts, etc., were all designed for a spiritual significance.

    4. Neither, says he, will you eat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the crow; that is, you must not keep company with the kind of men who do not know how to get themselves food by their labor and sweat, but injuriously steal the things of others and watch how to lay snares for them, when at the same time they appear to live in perfect innocence.

  7. Caltrop
    Caltrop says:

    Debt and usury

    The moral association between financial debt-creation and corruption of social values was less obscure in the early days of the development of banking. Like Judaism and Islam, the Christian Church banned usury because the necessity to go into debt was a sign of misfortune. An individual normally fell into debt only when they hit hard times, through sickness, crop failure or some other disaster. It was considered moral to lend, but immoral to benefit from another’s misfortune by requiring the loan to be repaid with interest. The Medici and other bankers of the Italian Renaissance City States found various ways around the Church’s ban on usury such as disguising transactions as ‘international’ currency exchanges between independent states. Banking practices were further developed by the Lombards, who argued that a money-lender who financed a profitable trading venture had a moral right to a share of the profit.

    The practice of taking a money reward for merely lending money is so central to the market economy of the present age that its justification needs to be closely examined. The Lombard bankers financed the merchant ships of Venice, Genoa and other Mediterranean ports, the key centres of world trade at that time. A merchant sending a ship out to India might make a profit equal to thirty times the money spent on the outlay. The Lombard bankers argued that if they financed a merchant they were putting their money at risk if the ship did not return. Furthermore, the money-lenders also argued that they could alternatively fund a profitable venture of their own with any potential loan………………”

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “. . .so central to the market economy. . .”

      . . .which we do not enjoy. . .for example, there are no central banks in a free economy. . .our economy is a splendid mixup of communism and markets, with the market part operating by permission, and not by right. . .the technical term is fascism. . .”The State in all, all in the State, nothing outside the State”- Mussolini

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      Good points. As I mentioned, in “Barren Metal” Jones spends the first half of this huge book discussing Gentile moneymen. How one person can know so much about so many things amazes me. If someone can explain Jones’ genius, please do!

  8. Eric
    Eric says:

    The Jews controlled the world economy long before they were emancipated (in Western Europe) by Napoleon in the early 1800s.

    I urge everyone to read Menasseh ben Israel’s petition to Oliver Cromwell for the readmission of the Jews to England, written in 1651 (you can google it). Even before then, Jews were “the king’s possession,” members of his court, exempted from military service, serving as tax farmers and treasurers. The Jews were given free reign to squeeze as much wealth out of the peasants as they could, give a portion to the king, and keep the rest for themselves. When the peasants rose up against this oppression, the Jews would be temporarily expelled, and then let back in to resume the process.

    Being dispersed throughout Europe and the world — which would normally be considered a disability — was actually an advantage for the Jews. They built up a network of trade, communicating in a language only they understood, and worked across borders as a team — as they do to this day with their thousands of organizations. The Rothschilds, with their banks in five different nations, were only an intensification of what had been going on for hundreds of years.

    Accumulated wealth made banking on a large scale possible, which in turn made usury an added source of profit. The non-Jewish leaders of the different nations needed to borrow money to conduct wars (much easier than imposing taxes on their subjects) and support their lavish lifestyles. In return for the loans (often forgiven), the aristocrats gave up their estates, married Jews, and allowed Jews into the government.

    The icing on the Jewish cake was the formation of privately owned “national” banks that issued national currencies. When the Federal Reserve was formed, every printed dollar became a loan to the American people, to be paid back with interest by American taxpayers. American leaders who resisted this take-over of the national currency — Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy — were either assassinated or targeted for assassination (in the case of Jackson).

    Between 1789 and 1918, the royal houses of Europe fell one by one, targeted by paid revolutionaries, anarchists and assassins. Louis XVI, Louis XVII, Czar Alexander II, Count Stolypin, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Czar Nicholas II, and more were targeted. The Jewish press demonizes these royals to this very day. Even crossword puzzles associate “tyrant” with “Czar.”

    The old system of kings who cared about their kingdoms and the well-being of their subjects had to be done away with in order for the Jewish New World Order to achieve supremacy.This was especially true when monarchs undertook projects of liberalization (the freeing of the serfs in Russia, e.g.). A popular king was the greatest threat to the emerging New World Order of rapacious capitalism and faux democracy.

    What was truly wanted — and still is — was a globalized system of total exploitation as described in La Civilta Cattolica in 1890 . It didn’t matter whether it took place through capitalism or Communism. Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution, which was strongly supported by Jews, even though Jews were exemplary capitalists.

    The end goal was Jewish world supremacy — either in the form of an international Communist nomenklatura (the comfortable elite of party leaders in communist Russia) or what we are seeing today — and international billionaire class that is accountable to no one.

    ATBOTL says:

    “From biblical times, we jump ahead to the modern era, for Jews seemed to be in a kind of hibernation until their emancipation in Europe. With that emancipation came a resumption of the biblical trend toward obtaining great treasure and increasing their numbers.”

    What? Jews were obtaining great treasure and increasing their numbers in Europe for the entire middle ages.

  10. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    “With control of gold came control of Christian society”

    Jews, despite their riches, never *controlled* gold. Only with paper money, fractional reserve banking and the concomitant legal tender laws came the money franchise of which Jews are substantial, but non exclusive, beneficiaries. “Usury” is a meaningless term. High interest rates may well be warranted to compensate for greater default risk.

  11. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Linking the rise of Jewish power to the foundation of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System and their tutelage of commercial banks is more correct.

Comments are closed.