“King of Kings” (1927) and the Origins of Jewish Cultural Censorship

“My own suggestion would be … both in your interest and in the interest of the cause of the Jews of the world to strike out the words ‘Crucify Him’ entirely.”
Rabbi Edgar Magnin to Cecil B. DeMille, 1927. [1]

Initially established in 1913 to manage fallout from the conviction of Jewish murderer Leo Frank, the ADL’s first major effort to engage in cultural censorship began in the early 1920s in the form of a campaign against Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent essay series “The International Jew.” The campaign began with a cross-denominational conference in September 1920, during which Orthodox and Reform rabbis gathered in Chicago to develop a strategy that would suffocate Ford’s momentum and stifle growing American anti-Semitism.[2] The chosen approach was based on crypsis. The rabbis agreed that rather than condemn Ford themselves, they would draw up a statement condemning his writings as un-American and un-Christian and have it signed by prominent non-Jewish American luminaries. This crypto-Jewish manifesto was then signed by, among others, President Wilson and former President Taft, before being published to a gullible public.

The manifesto, however, was later deemed to have had only a minor effect in diminishing Ford’s momentum, so further, more direct, action was undertaken. Detroit’s Rabbi Leo Franklin was dispatched with instructions to personally influence Ford against further publishing against Jews. When Franklin failed to weaken Ford’s resolve, the ADL drafted “anti-discrimination bills” they hoped would preserve the image and status of American Jews, and mailed them to Jewish bodies across the country for lobbying purposes. Concurrently, the ADL initiated a boycotting campaign targeting the Dearborn Independent’s advertising revenue. Ford finally ceased discussing the topic when he was personally targeted in an individual libel lawsuit by Jewish lawyer Aaron Sapiro.

The episode demonstrated that, even in its nascent stages, Jewish censorship strategies were flexible and multifaceted, with efforts being undertaken in the social, political, economic, and legal arenas. In the following essay, I consider a less well-known, but equally important, instance of early Jewish cultural censorship — the ADL’s battle against Cecil B. DeMille’s 1927 biblical epic King of Kings. The King of Kings case, it will be seen, provides considerable insight into Jewish approaches to (and fear of) Christianity, as well as pathological levels of Jewish anxiety about security, and the remarkable variety of Jewish tactical approaches to perceived anti-Semitism. Perhaps most crucial of all is the insight provided into the nature and direction of Jewish social and cultural control, especially the overwhelming need for control over what the majority population believes and perceives, or is allowed to believe and perceive. The story of the ADL and King of Kings is ultimately about the contest over ‘ways of seeing,’ a contest that prefigured very similar reactions to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004), and that remains at the heart of American life almost a century later.

The Uneasy Identity of Cecil B. DeMille

Cecil B. DeMille (1881–1959), regarded by many as one of the greatest filmmakers of his era, was in some ways an unlikely candidate for an ADL-designated public enemy. He was halachically Jewish via his mother Matilda Beatrice Samuel. He worked closely with Jewish producers Jesse Lasky and Schmuel Gelbfisz (later Samuel Goldwyn), and he enjoyed his greatest success in an industry dominated by Jews. His relationship to Jewishness, however, was complex. His mother disowned her family and Jewish roots when her parents objected to her intentions to marry a Christian, the Episcopalian businessman Henry Churchill de Mille. She later engaged in an apparently sincere conversion to de Mille’s religion. There were no trappings of Jewishness in DeMille’s childhood home, and both Cecil and his brother William were reported by friends and relatives to have held anti-Semitic views as adults. They are also said to possess a subtle resentment of their partial Jewish ancestry. Biographer Scott Eyman has argued that DeMille consistently emphasized only his Episcopalian background to the press during his early ascent in the movie industry, prompting “people who knew his mother in New York” to “assume a covert anti-Semitism, a stance that would only be strengthened by his future status as a pillar of California’s right wing.”[3] William DeMille’s daughter Agnes, a dancer, recalled her father at times railing against her “Broadway Jew manager,” and that her uncle Cecil once confided to her “I don’t like the Jewish people out here.” Cecil DeMille’s longtime screenwriter, Jesse Lasky Jr, commented after DeMille’s death: “He did not heavily identify himself with Jews.”[4]

Despite discomfort with his origins, DeMille was intelligent enough to use his Jewish ancestry, in the right company, to help him navigate a heavily Jewish industry. The Jewish Tribune pointed out in the late 1920s that DeMille “considers it of great commercial and strategic importance to boast of the Jewish blood in his veins.” And, as will be discussed below, in certain contexts, DeMille would often praise Jews and their characteristics. DeMille thus comes across as an opportunist, who identified with his own success more than any ethnic cause or group, and who could simultaneously hold deep ambivalence about his Jewish background while understanding that this uncomfortable fact would be useful for his career in an industry that operated like a Jewish cousinhood. Jesse Lasky Jr probably summed it up best when he argued that DeMille ultimately didn’t identify with anyone: “He had a suspicion that most people might not be worth identifying with anyway. He served his own Gods.”

King of Kings

By 1926, DeMille had made a personal fortune directing movies for Jewish producers. It seemed a logical next step that he should strike out on his own, and DeMille Pictures Corporation was born. His first two pictures, however, The Road to Yesterday and The Volga Boatman, were a flop and a hit respectively, thus cancelling each other out and placing the new production company, now bleeding capital, in significant peril. He needed a significant hit. In May 1926, Denison Clift, a DeMille studio contract writer, wrote a memo to DeMille:

Why skirt around the one great single subject of all time and all ages — the commanding, majestic, and most sublime thing that any man can ever put upon the screen: the Life, Trial, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ: in other words: the LIFE OF CHRIST, with its awe-inspiring power, its simplicity and its unutterable tragedy. … The title of the picture would be: THE KING OF KINGS.

DeMille threw himself into the project with intensity, working with screenwriter Jeanie MacPherson on a script that closely followed the Gospels with one exception. Reflecting his penchant for more seedy material, and the perennial notion that “sex sells,” DeMille personally held the belief that Judas had not betrayed Christ for money, but because Judas lusted for Mary Magdalene and had been frustrated by Christ’s conversion of her. DeMille expected that this change, even introduced subtly, would result in some minor complaints from Church authorities, but he was extremely pleased with a final script that ran to a mammoth 366 pages. In the end, DeMille had little to fear from the Church.

The Synagogue was a different matter. DeMille was aware, from the earliest stages of the project, of a need to manage Jewish sensibilities. On August 23, 1926, the day before production began, DeMille assembled all senior cast and crew for a six and a half hour meeting at his home. At one point, DeMille told those present:

We have to protect all classes of people, especially the Jew. The purpose is to treat all classes fairly and particularly the Jew, because the Jew is put in the most unfortunate place of any race in the Bible because it was not really a matter of the Jew having persecuted Jesus, it was Rome — Rome with her politics and graft. … The Jews are a very great race, a very sensitive race and we have no desire to hurt them, nor do we desire to hurt anyone.

DeMille also expressed the opinion during the early stages of filming that the movie would bear great responsibility not only in fixing in the public mind an image of Christ, but also an image of those responsible for his crucifixion. In addition to his own anxieties, at least one major film executive wrote to DeMille expressing the hope that DeMille would do all he could to “get around the Bible’s anti-Semitism,” mainly by opening the picture with a caption stressing Roman dominance in Judea and other rhetorical conceits intended to portray the Romans as the primary antagonists. Eyman argues that, throughout filming, DeMille “strove to ameliorate any charges of anti-Semitism.” DeMille completely removed Matthew 27:25 (“His blood be on us, and on our children”) and instead inserted a line for Caiaphas the High Priest during the earthquake the follows the Crucifixion: “Lord God Jehovah! Visit not Thy wrath on Thy people Israel — I alone am guilty.” The move was designed to completely side-step the issue of Jewish communal and generational guilt for the death of Christ.

Caiaphas (Rudolf Schildkraut) pays Judas (Joseph Schildkraut)

While showing tremendous sensitivity to Jewish interests in the text of the film, DeMille was stunningly unaware of the implications of his casting choices. Jesus and the Disciples were portrayed by young actors of northern European heritage, while DeMille insisted that the Jewish mob was played by extras culled from nearby Jewish quarters, along with Caiaphas and Judas, who were played by the Jewish father and son Rudolph and Joseph Schildkraut.[5] This practice of ethnic casting alone was to prove infuriating to Jewish authorities across America, who insisted that, despite DeMille’s alterations to the Gospel, the film remained an anti-Semitic Blood Libel.

The Jewish Reaction

DeMille’s King of Kings was released to huge public acclaim on May 18, 1927, and was every bit the commercial and critical success that DeMille hoped it would be. In fact, the only negative reaction to the film came from the organized Jewish community, which reacted to King of Kings with what can only be described as extreme vitriol. In the words of Jenna Weissman, “Where Christian America showered the film with hosannas, Jewish America pummelled it with brickbats.”[6] The Jewish Tribune led the initial campaign against DeMille with some deeply personal comments concerning racial betrayal:

[DeMille] brooks no argument, no contradictions, no independence, no apologies reflecting upon him. … Cecil is the real son of his mother … an English Jewess who embraced the Christian faith early in her life. … Mrs. DeMille does not consider herself a Jewess, but Cecil even now likes to repeat to every handy listener how proud he is of having a Jewish mother. … It is as if he were naively, yet sincerely, saying to the Jewish press and pulpit which accuse him of the betrayal of the Jewish race, “Can a man who is proud of his Jewish origins betray the Jewish race?”

The article went on to state that DeMille was a new Henry Ford, with King of Kings likely to become the motion picture equivalent of The International Jew. The remarkable assertion was also made, despite all glaring evidence to the contrary, that the film was a flop, and had only been rescued by publicity surrounding its anti-Semitism. As DeMille biographer Scott Eyman points out, the Jewish Tribune, consumed with hysteria, had abandoned all logic:

The Jewish Tribune tried to have it both ways: castigating DeMille for freely acknowledging his Jewish heritage, when they would have undoubtedly castigated him even more had he avoided the matter, then bewailing the way the Jewish media had risen to take the director’s bait even as the article itself was part of the protests.

Prominent Zionist and Jewish activist Rabbi Stephen Wise entered the fray, saying the film would not have been made if a single Jew in Hollywood had acted “with the stature of a man.” Wise was the first major Jewish figure to call for the complete censorship of the film, telling one reporter, “I do not believe that the picture is curable. The only way to mend it is to end it. … The blood of Jews will be on the heads of the owners of this picture.”

Eyman writes that DeMille was “bewildered by this criticism,” having gone to great lengths to absolve Jews of any communal responsibility for Christ’s execution. Eyman suggests that DeMille probably reflected back on the September 1926 letter from an unnamed executive demanding that the movie place all blame for the crucifixion on the Romans. In DeMille’s opinion at the time, this would have represented too great a departure from the Bible, so he opted instead to attempt to place blame solely on Caiaphas. And DeMille had invested much in this attempt at pacification. Caiaphas is introduced in the film not as a Jewish High Priest, but as a “Roman appointee.” When Pilate asks the crowd, “Shall I crucify your king?,” it is not the entire collective of chief priests—as in John 19:15—but Caiaphas alone who responds “We have no king but caesar.” Throughout the film, Eyman stresses, DeMille reconfigures the blame solely upon this Romanized High Priest. It was now clear to DeMille, however, from the Jewish reaction to King of Kings, that any suggestion that Jesus was executed at the instigation of even a single Jew was more than the Jews of America would tolerate. They wanted nothing less than a rewrite of the Gospels.

DeMille was furious. During the latter stages of filming, he was often seen quietly staring at a portrait of Christ that he had placed on his desk, prompting at least one close associate to speculate that DeMille was beginning to become “deeply religious.” Jewish reactions to King of Kings certainly hit a strong nerve with DeMille, something indicated in a letter to a non-Jewish colleague:

I felt [the Jewish leaders] would greatly harm the Jewish race by bringing the matter to an open fight. … Someone in the Jewish race is trying to start trouble. This trouble should be stopped immediately for the good of all, as it could very easily lead to a situation that might be very destructive. Those Jews who are raising these rather violent objections would crucify Christ a second time if they had the opportunity, as they are so ready to crucify what, for want of a better term, I shall call His second coming upon the screen.[7]

Demands for changes to the film were formalized and broadened via the intervention of the ADL, with demands for substantial cuts and rewrites in return for a cessation of Jewish protests. The ADL contacted Los Angeles-based Rabbi Edgar Magnin, an associate of DeMille’s, and asked Magnin to persuade DeMille to acquiesce. The ADL projected power but was clearly only too aware of the popularity of the film and of DeMille, with the result that the ADL was as keen to see an end to the furor (though with its interests achieved) as DeMille. This tightrope situation was expressed succinctly by Magnin in a letter to DeMille dated September 28 1927:

An open rupture between [the Anti-Defamation League] and you could do absolutely no good to either and would likely result in harm to both. … Strike out the words ‘Crucify Him’ entirely. It would appear to me the action in itself is descriptive enough without the title. … Please give this your most careful and thoughtful consideration in the next few days, and if you can possibly do so, accede to the request of the League.

DeMille attempted to buy time by hastily preparing a memo describing actions he had taken to protect Jews during the making of the film, but the Jewish pressure continued. Resolutions condemning the film were passed by the United Synagogue of America, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, and numerous similar groups across the country. Private detectives were hired to follow H. B. Warner, who played Jesus, in the hope that any discovered revelations about his private life (he did have a drinking problem) would help diminish ‘Jesus’ in the minds of the viewing public. The Schildkrauts, who played Caiaphas and Judas, were attacked as race traitors in Jewish editorials for allowing themselves to be cast in their villainous roles. DeMille later recalled, “Joseph was frightened. Joseph thought his career was through.” Felicia Herman writes that “the controversy over the film raged through November and December, receiving almost constant attention in Jewish newspapers through the nation.”[8] The ADL began making calls for the wholesale banning of the film, and then, in December, a three-page ADL ‘shopping list’ of proposed cuts and alterations arrived in DeMille’s office. Among the demands were:

  • Eliminate all scenes of the lashing of Jesus barring the first.
  • In the scene where a Jew, in answer to the question, ‘What evil has he done?’ shrugs his shoulders and jingles a coin, eliminate the jingling of the coin.
  • In the scene where Pilate washes his hands and puts the responsibility for the crucifixion on Caiaphas, let Caiaphas say “I assume the responsibility …”
  • Tone down the crucifixion.

The ADL also demanded that the film open with a foreword explaining that “the Jews were no longer an independent people,” and that all legal decisions at the time of Christ were ultimately the responsibility of the Romans. Coinciding with the arrival of the ADL “shopping list,” MGM announced that it would not release the film in eastern European countries “where it might inflame existing prejudices against the Jewish community.”[9]

DeMille’s will collapsed. In January 1928 a new version of the film was announced and released, incorporating the changes demanded by the ADL and others. By March 1929, DeMille was telling the Jewish Daily Bulletin that he regretted ever making the film. Even with the large number of changes, remarks Steven Carr, subsequent showings of the film

were subject to everything from accompanying benevolent ministerial statements to outright censorship. For example, in 1937 when the film was shown to churches in California, two entire reels were censored. The deleted scenes involved Judas accepting the bribe, the betrayal of Jesus, mob scenes, the activities of the high priest, and the Crucifixion itself. Before the film, a minister was to make a statement “completely exonerating the Jews” from any responsibility for the Crucifixion.[10]

The ADL used the battle over King of Kings to establish a permanent relationship with the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA). Thereafter, the MPPDA (1915–1936) would facilitate an “official Jewish representative” appointed by the ADL who would liaise with the MPPDA and enable the ADL to screen any film for anti-Semitism before release to the public.


One of the most remarkable features of the battle over King of Kings is the extent to which the entire affair was subject to the grossest of exaggerations. Even for its time, the film was remarkably tame, and of course it had been thoroughly sanitized by DeMille prior to release. The severity of Jewish reactions therefore suggests one of two possibilities, or perhaps a combination of both. In the first instance, it’s clear that Jews have a strong fear of the portrayal of Jews in the Gospel stories in their unadulterated form, a fear that resurfaced on the release of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. In my own personal interactions with Jews over the years, I’ve constantly observed a strong and deep-seated unease when Christianity is discussed. In the realm of scholarship, it’s commonplace in Jewish historiography to see anti-Semitism portrayed as fundamentally theological in origin, despite a wealth of evidence suggesting far greater socio-economic influence in the development of anti-Jewish attitudes. Many Jews, engaged in self-deception, probably do believe that the New Testament is the sole reason why they have experienced hostility. In the context of such anxieties, no matter how misplaced, it should come as little surprise that Jews would react with extreme horror towards any representation of the New Testament, and especially any representation of the trial and execution of Jesus.

On the other hand, much of the Jewish behavior surrounding this episode appears extremely calculated and well-organized. Relations between the MPPDA and the ADL were already embryonic prior to the filming of King of Kings, and there is some reason to suspect that the entire episode was exaggerated in order to manufacture a crisis that demanded a response (greater formal Jewish involvement in the censorship of mass media). There is of course a possibility that Jewish fear and Jewish ambition have merged in this instance.

Reading much of the material relating to the King of Kings controversy, I found myself quite disturbed on realizing that much of contemporary Christianity resembles DeMille’s butchered film. Almost everything that gave it some teeth in past centuries has been excised, leaving for the most part a rather toothless brute that is a tame lapdog scared of its own shadow. Yes, Christianity, excepting a few corners of resistance, has been censored. It’s been rendered safe. It’s been declared “Jew-friendly.” Most importantly, it looks nothing like its original form, its ‘Director’s Cut’ so to speak. The fact that Jews even feel secure enough to now demand that the New Testament should come printed with “anti-Semitism warnings” really says it all.

The King of Kings censorship campaign also highlights the unique relationship that Jews have with censorship. Cultural censorship, of course, is not limited to Jews, and calls to limit speech or expression have also been common among Jews and Christians. The difference is that Christians in the twentieth century were often most heavily involved in attempts to limit or remove obscenity in culture, whereas Jews were most often leading the battle to advance the same obscenity in the name of “free expression.” American Christians, and Catholics in particular via organizations like the National League of Decency, often campaigned for censorship on behalf of abstract moral values like decency and modesty rather than for themselves as a church or a people. Jewish involvement in censorship, on the other hand, is without exception always self-interested. As mentioned above, Jews are extremely liberal in their advocacy for the freedom to view or consume material regarded as morally destructive, but have been nothing less than relentless in their pursuit of legal methodologies and other forms of pressure designed to limit any speech or activity that would bring them into criticism or otherwise harm their interests as a group.

The episode has clear parallels with our contemporary situation. Many of the tactics pioneered in the Ford-DeMille years remain in place a century later. Blackmail, spying, boycotts, and behind the scenes pressure remain the mainstays of the ADL’s tactical bag of tricks. The old MPPDA-ADL partnership sees its postmodern equivalent in the form of Big Tech companies that allow the ethnically solipsistic fanatics of the ADL to declare what is or is not hateful content that should be censored from public view.

If I have a lasting frustration with the King of Kings story, it is that millions of Americans stood and watched as a tiny hostile minority—a minority that had not attained anywhere near the power they would achieve in later decades and had only recently lost their campaign against the 1924 immigration restriction law—dictated what they could and could not see on a subject no less than what is supposed to be, for most of them, their most sacred scriptures. This was at a time when the ADL’s power in relation to DeMille’s involved considerable bluffing, as they themselves conceded in some of the Jewish correspondence of the period. The sheer gutlessness of that generation which collapsed in the face of Jewish pressure left a heavier burden for the subsequent generation, and that burden has been getting heavier ever since. Censorship brings a multitude of victories for the censor. What is truth if it can’t be spoken?

[1] Cited in S. Eyman, Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).

[2] D. D. Moore, B’nai B’rith and the Challenge of Ethnic Leadership (New York: State University of New York Press, 1981), 115.

[3] Eyman, Empire of Dreams.

[4] Ibid.

[5] For an interesting perspective on the casting of the Schildkraut’s see A.K. Koslovic, “The Deep Focus Casting of Joseph Schildkraut as Judas Figure in Four DeMille Films,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 6 (2004).

[6] J. Weissman, Set in Stone: America’s Embrace of the Ten Commandments (Oxford University Press, 2017), 40.

[7] M. Bernstein (ed), Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Radio Era (Athlone, 2000), 80.

[8] F. Herman, Views of Jews: Antisemitism, Hollywood, and American Jews, 1913-1947 (Brandeis University Press, 2002).

[9] K.R. Phillips, Controversial Cinema: The Films That Outraged America (Praeger, 2008),139.

[10] S. A. Carr, Hollywood and Anti-Semitism: A Cultural History up to World War II (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 81.

93 replies
  1. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I do not think that anti-Jewish sentiment comes from the actual crucifixtion of Jesus. I learned in Catholic school that He suffered and died for the sins committed by the whole world. Also, Jesus Himself asked the Father to “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The suspicion and hostility to Jews comes from the continued persecution of Christians after the Resurrection. St. Paul, a Jew, admits that he persecuted Jesus. His disciples hid in an upper room “for fear of the Jews.” The Talmud condemns Christians: : “Christians are allied with Hell and Christianity is worse than incest.” (Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 17a)….”Going to prostitutes is the same as being a Christian.” (BTAvoda Zarah)….”Those who read the Gospels are doomed to Hell” (BT Sanhendrin 90a)….”When the Messiah comes he will destroy the Christians.” (BT Sanhendrin 99a) (from Michael Hoffman’s book, “Judaism Discovered.”) I believe that the anti-Christian activities of modern Jews has continuity with Christ’s enemies in the New Testament. While Christian influence has resulted in Hollywood making many films sympathetic to Christians and Christianity, I do fault Catholics and Protestants for failing to challenge effectively the near monopoly Jews have exerted on the film industry.

    • Sandy
      Sandy says:

      I have heard that the “forgive them” was directed at the soldiers doing the dirty deed; not the conspirators.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        That was my immediate interpretation, as a kid in school. Considering the importance of forgiveness as a virtue in Christian moral theology, I think it would have to include Jews and others.

    • Heymrguda
      Heymrguda says:

      I’ve given my wife, family members and friends numerous articles outlining the topics covered here. No one can or tries to debate the accuracy or legitimacy of them. They just don’t want to hear it.

  2. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler corresponded on a friendly basis, and it was Hitler’s desire to provide to the German people what Ford had provided to the American people – an affordable car for everyone.

    Hence the advent of the Volkswagen (German for People’s Car) Bug. While Willy Messerschmidt was primarily responsible for the motor and drive train, it is a little known and censored fact that Hitler – with the irrepressible artist’s desire – lent a significant hand in the design of the body of the VW Bug.

    I used to have a photograph of Hitler and Messerschmidt climbing into a VW Bug prototype in 1938. Strictly a photo op – Hitler never learned to drive.

    I often thought it ironic that one of the favorite automobiles of the leftist hippies of the 1960’s was the VW Bug – the hippies were blithely unaware that the man they despised created the design they embraced.

  3. Mrs Soapovich
    Mrs Soapovich says:

    Excellent as usual. Informative and easy to read.

    Andrew, when are you resuming your podcast?
    Greetings from Argentina.

  4. Patrick Pappano
    Patrick Pappano says:

    I am in agreement with Mr. Joyce’s sentiments regarding the success of narrow Jewish interest to muzzle legitimate non-Jewish expression. But I disagree with his characterization of the ADL as the 800-pound gorilla in the action. The 800 pound gorilla, he says it, is the gullible Americans. As long as there are Americans who fall in line behind every Jewish claim of abuse or denial of entitlement, there is not much that can be done. The gullible Americans will forever be in the majority and red meat for the ADL That is the genius of the Jews; they know who they are and what the program is.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” As long as there are Americans who fall in line behind every Jewish claim of abuse or denial of entitlement, there is not much that can be done.”

      Superb observation .

      Numerous Holy Bible scriptures asserting explicitly/implicitly the special divinely chosen status of the jewmasterss has apparently gotten into White Christian DNA and will likely remain there for many generations after any mass de facto abrogations of Christianity .

  5. Ted Weiss
    Ted Weiss says:

    Hollywood is NOT sympathetic toward Christianity, and in fact, is rabidly anti-white and anti-Christian.

    I’m always baffled by absurd claims that The New Testament is pro-Jewish, when the Jews in the story
    are clearly the bad guys.

    The Scofield Bible cucked Christianity, and it’s true that Christian Zionists have been misled and are engaged
    in heresy.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Most of Protestantism advocates the biblical divinely chosenhite status of the jewmasterss/Israelites whom are tacitly not members of the Synagogue of Satan . White Protestant Christians , in their religious modes of discourse , typically conflate good jews and bad jews into one big divine hoi polloi of chosenhites .

    • Rae West
      Rae West says:

      You’re missing an important point. The ‘New Testament’ is Jewish in the sense that its entire content is Jewish. It’s not clear what the messages are, naturally, since saying goyim are worthless isn’t a good sales message. The only reason that rubbish is widely-known is because it has been pushed widely, for example by the ‘King James’ version, which is deliberately written in almost incomprehensible flowery language. It was pushed for economic reasons.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        The only reason that rubbish is widely-known is because it has been pushed widely, for example by the ‘King James’ version, which is deliberately written in almost incomprehensible flowery language.

        Flowery? Here is a typical “flowery” passage from the Old Testament, and here is a similarly “flowery” one from the New, both from the KJV.

        As virtually everyone who frequents this site knows, “heareth” and “wert” and similar declensional verb forms were the common coin of ordinary English conversation, correspondence, and documentation in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Otherwise, there is strikingly little in the vocabulary or mechanics of the text that might have constituted an obstacle for an auditor or a reader in either 1604 or 2021. Indeed, one of the more striking aspects of the KJV is the care the translators took, especially in the interest of intelligibility when the Scriptures were read aloud during public worship, to keep sentence structure as familiarly simple as possible.

        • Rae West
          Rae West says:

          This is of course nonsense. There are many Biblical passages of the type “They raped and murdered all of them” and all such passages are expressed in flowery terms by specially-selected translators.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            You may think that your “of course” will look to everyone like an adequate response to the actual text evidence proffered. Aside from your fellow hardline Christophobes, few, I suspect, will be fooled.

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      At least in the past, Hollywood made films sympathetic to Catholics and other Christians. That does not mean that Hollywood gave up its fundamental hostility to the followers of Jesus. A Jewish guy wrote the screenplay for “The Song of Bernadette,” a film about the apparition of the Blessed Mother at Lourdes.

      • Rae West
        Rae West says:

        You’re assuming there’s a distinct separation between Jews and Catholics. In fact, Jews started the Roman Catholic movement, and throughtout thers been symbiosis. Generally Catholicism supported Jews in an indirect way, in exchange for money and things like rent. And they supported Jewish use of prostitution.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          The RCC Pope Francis recently made world headline news for kissing the tattoe of an Aushwitz Jew survivor .

          Is Vatican Jesuit Pope Francis a crypto-Jew ?

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Why make an enemy when you can make a friend–not just an ordinary enemy but one which can do real damage?

  6. Emma
    Emma says:

    “Jesus and the Disciples were portrayed by young actors of northern European heritage, while DeMille insisted that the Jewish mob was played by extras culled from nearby Jewish quarters, along with Caiaphas and Judas, who were played by the Jewish father and son Rudolph and Joseph Schildkraut”

    Quite right, too. Christ and his disciples were Israelites. A completely different race to the Edomite Caiphas. That’s what they really dont want people to know.

  7. Jacobite
    Jacobite says:

    Some years ago I read an article about Jewish finagling to have changes made in the script of the Oberammergau Passion Play. It seems that an influential figure was bribed (by promised professional advancement through Jews in film/theater) to have the alterations made. I’m sure I didn’t dream this up, but it does sound insane. Considering the nature of the writings in the Talmuds (and, more recently, the instantaneous substitution of BCE and CE for B.C. and A.D.), I’ve long wondered if totalitarianism itself isn’t an hereditary trait of the Jews.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Of course totalitarianism is a Jewish trait. It was totalitarian ghettos that 99% of Jews lived in, for like 3,000 years, clinging on like parasites to Christian or other civilisations. The rule of the Rabbi was absolute, that’s why in these ghettos they never-ever produced any culture. No art, literature, architecture, even comedy. All forbidden.
      They were only allowed to do two things: study the Talmud and make money, preferably by swindling the goyim.
      You get all this from Israel Shahak’s book ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion’. This ain’t me saying this, this is him, so if you doubt it you’d need to debunk his book(you can’t debunk him, as he is dead). And it was a book that was published widely with much fan-fare, if I remember right, it had blurbs by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens on it’s cover. It really is the only book you need to read to understand our dilemma.
      These Rabbis were aghast when Napoleon went around Europe liberating the Jews from this nightmare, or maybe they liked it, I don’t know. The JQ originates from this time. Why do you think so many Jews saw themselves first and foremost as Germans or Brits? They knew exactly what the alternative was. And many of these ‘assimilated Jews’, who were hated by the Rabbi/Jewish supremacist types more than they hate us, were loyal citizens. We all know loads fought for Hitler, etc.
      In my view, Zionism, Marxism, the Comintern, all the Jewish plots & Organised Jewry itself is in fact simply an effort to recreate the glory days when all were under the cruel, ruthless boot of the Rabbis. Unfortunately we are included in these maniac plans now.
      Hasn’t anyone ever wondered why there is no organic Jewish art, even although they’ve been around for 3,000 odd years? Even the most primitive Abo tribes produce something. The Jews produced NOTHING. Quick, name a famous pre-Napoleonic Jewish painting, statue, artist, architect, writer, philosopher, composer? (Spinoza is the exception that proves the rule, if the Christians of Amsterdam hadn’t protected him, the Rabbis would have killed him, and no one wld have ever have heard of him)
      Anything they’ve produced since then is simply a degenerate impression of what went before.
      They do say that the Devil cannot imagine, he can only imitate, the arguments for the Jews being the children of Satan just pile up without end.

      It’s also worth pointing out that Nazi Germany, never mind Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain or 40’s Croatia was NOT totalitarian. It was simply authoritarian. All these nations had independent legal systems(separate from the state), plus a hundred other liberties you don’t get in totalitarian nations.

      The masses have been brain-washed into imagining you can get to totalitarianism from the right or the left, both are false. There is no such thing as ‘right-wing’ totalitarianism. Right-wing people simply don’t care enough, haven’t the fanaticism.
      So called ‘totalitarianism’ is simply unrestrained rule by Jews. Only Jews have the zeal, the neuroticism, the megalomania, the paranoia and the sadism to inflict ‘totalitarianism’, which is actually just a reversion to the old fashioned way Jews used to run their societies.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” So called ‘totalitarianism’ is simply unrestrained rule by Jews.”

        Superb observation .

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Thanks. I’ve long mused about the decristification of historic time. There’s got to be a great yarn behind that secularization.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … the instantaneous substitution of BCE and CE for B.C. and A.D. …

      It was far from being instantaneous. I first became aware of BCE and CE, presented as seldom-used alternatives to BC and AD, during the mid-sixties, while I was in college. The active campaign for substitution first came to my attention in the seventies in an article the New York Times Magazine. The article’s author characterized the new terms as already being widely used by scholars who wished to wean chronology from its addiction to religion.

      By the mid-eighties, when I began working full-time in academic and scholastic publishing, BCE and CE had become well established as either acceptable or required alternatives for the older forms, with the authors or editors of a given publication usually being the ones who made the rules for use (if any). Then in the late nineties, at such places as the academic divisions of Scribner, Macmillan, Grolier, and Oxford, the exclusive use of BCE and CE became formally reified as a matter of the company’s editorial guidelines, which were to be used in all contexts except instances of direct quotation. Editorial policy at most if not all specialized academic journals was largely the same, although an author’s preferences to the contrary had a better chance there of seeing the light of day than they did at reference-book publishers.

      Overall, the slow but steady pace at which the new terms moved from marginal to policy status in the scholarly world functioned as a model for what happened a figurative ten paces to the rear in the popular media, where the transition began a bit later and successfully escaped widespread notice for almost thirty years.

      If you think about the circumstances for a few moments, however, the near opaqueness of the process won’t seem especially surprising. How often, after all, does one encounter a reference in general-circulation newspapers, popular fiction, or movies or on TV or the Internet to a person or event (1) that happened prior to the birth of Christ and (2) needs to be identified by a specific date?

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        Berlin’s JUEDISCHE ALLGEMEINE is dated, for today [ Saturday ], as May 22, 2021, AS WELL AS 11 Siwan, 5781. Presumably BCE, in order to wag their fingers, mounted with scopes, at those pesky interlopers who jumped the line during the interim, while the lawful owners were merely vacationing in Egypt.

        To demonstrate further, their demanded separation of [ our ] religion from [ their ] state, said paper reminds you, under its rubric of Religion, to light your sabbath candle at exactly 20:47, on Friday, May 21, and to extinguish it at exactly 22:17 on Saturday night.

        Rules for Thee but not for Me: underlying their entire history. Minus 2 % demands changes from the remaining 98 + % ! . Weimar’s proportion was even appreciatively less, and we all know its outcome for our race.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        The substitution of BCE for B.C. is just another salient example out of a multitude of the Babelonian Gambit of the Ages
        ( infiltrate , subvert , then conquer ; beginning with language confusion injections into the vernacular ) that originated at the Tower of Babel incident in the Torah Book of Genesis .

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          Unsuperb observation.

          Replacing B.C. and A.D. with BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) makes excellent sense, inasmuch as it’s meant to reflect unbelief in a person and narrative in whom and in which there is no good reason to maintain belief.

          I’m not Jewish–and I entertain FAR, FAR less reverence for Hebraic religion than do christians, as my religiosity is, unlike theirs, absolutely unrelated and indeed alien thereto; nevertheless I wouldn’t be caught dead using B.C. or A.D.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            Thanks for the informative rationale that drove the change . Nevertheless , the change from BC to BCE caused some confusion among the public as most changes do and can rightly be considered another instance of The Babelonian Gambit of the Ages since Jews drove the change as they have done a huge multitude of times worldwide since The Tower of Babel sabotage about 2500 years ago . It is what they do , among other things including assassinations , to subvert a nonJewish culture before their final conquest of it . Little bits of confusion multiplied by a multitude creates a huge bunch of chaos .

            The Christian Whites have great difficulty sorting out Jewish created confusions and other subversions , from the chaos , whenever they are sometimes lucky enough to do so .

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          Well I guess the old saying “It’s an ill wind that blows no good” proves apt yet again. Yes, Jews do innumerable subversive and injurious things to us, but if indeed they alone are responsible for BCE and CE they’ve done us a favor.

          I value anything that might estrange us from dogmas filled with human self-hatred and self-disgust. We can do very well without the psychopathological belief in collective/congenital guilt, not to mention a continual slandering of this beautiful and miraculous Existence and a slavish docility in the face of aggression. An essential element of European greatness for a long time was HYPOCRISY, but we gradually descended to the level at which we could, en masse, practice christian altruism, and that seems probably fatal.

          Your faith REQUIRED to believe in the historicity of the Tower of Babel tale, in the Wholly Babble, is touching.

          P.S. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have profound respect for Jesus the Christ. He’s one of the great figures of literature–up there with Snow White, Rumpelstiltskin, Cinderella and the Little Mermaid.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            The reality is that whether we use the Church-based or the humanist-secular designation, those dates mean exactly the same thing. The newer time-tracking style is based on the older. It is merely a cosmetic change.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Your faith REQUIRED to believe in the historicity of the Tower of Babel tale, in the Wholly Babble, is touching.”

            Have you not noticed several of my previous comments in other TOO commentaries that identified the biblical Tower of Babel narrative as an allegory for when the circa 585 BC/BCE Tower engineering project slaveworker and founder of Judaism — Abraham — and his small band of co-conspirators victoriously sabotaged the project and coincidentally established
            [ The Babelonian Gambit of the Ages ]
            which starts with infiltration/employment ;
            then subversions beginning with the injection of little bits of numerous language confusions into the workplace vernacular ;
            and the subversions escalate into
            lying/cheating/stealing/assassinating/warring ;
            until eventually TPTB that rule over a major cultural affair , such as The ToB , either abandon it or they are conquered/executed/(or duly subjugated ).

  8. Rae West
    Rae West says:

    There’s an alternative interpretation of Henry Ford here


    by ‘Hexzane’ who says in effect that there had to be a coherent view of Jews in the USA, to be passed on to Germany and Hitler. He says there just wasn’t very much information about Jews to ordinary Americans. Please, please, take these things seriously. Everyone here needs to rise above the KMac level of naivete.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Very interesting article .

      The possibility that Ford was a bogus anti-Semite cannot now be dismissed .

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        You are always quick to fall for evidence-free accusations, arent you? People with more than half a brain have no trouble spotting the manifold absurdities in that self-important idiot’s article.

        The reference to Rerevisionist, combined with the backhanded slander directed at Professor MacDonald so characteristic of Rerev, strongly hints at who is hiding behind the cloak of the “Rae West” identity.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          You do not seem to know much about how secret societies ( especially satanic ones ) operate .

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            You and people like “Rae West” go overboard in accepting or considering as fact any conspiracy theory that anyone proposes. You bring the *level* of discussion here way down, although the *number* of comments goes up. The number of comments has become the sign of how successful a site is, unfortunately, rather than how solid the thinking/reasoning presented thereby is.
            The use of pseudonyms encourages this, which is why I so often criticize this practice … not because I want to “dox” people.

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            Carolyn Yaeger (next post) says I ‘accept as fact any conspiracy theory that anyone proposes’. In fact I’m careful to check theories as well as I can, and I have very considerable logical, scientific, and historical knowledge. Yaeger could find this out by simply reading my site – or she could if she were competent.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Rae West writes: “Carolyn Yaeger (next post) says I ‘accept as fact any conspiracy theory that anyone proposes’.” In fact, I had written, ” people like “Rae West” *go overboard in accepting or considering as fact* any conspiracy theory that anyone proposes.”

            I did not say “accept as fact,” did I? I said *accept any theory or consider it as fact*. Not the same. Thanks for demonstrating just how *un-careful* you really are. I have zero respect for you and people like Mathis, whom I have read on some topics I know well and find him using OBVIOUSLY bad sources and outright dishonesty in connecting dots that don’t connect. It is too bad there are so many people who enjoy your type of stuff. It’s why I believe in Eugenics, so as to raise the average intelligence of the public. Of course, it’s also cultural conditioning — but it’s harder to condition people who can think.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      You comment on KMac’s naivete, then proceed to write your unmitigated shit, based on an article by one of those dime a dozen, self-styled intellectuals who convince you to admit your collection of errors, made over decades of discriminatory, corroborated study.

      Hexzane’s building is constructed, from footing to roofline, entirely of undocumented material. The roof is then represented as the result of a great number of prior facts. F in Logic.

      Germany needed exactly zero knowledge from the US to understand what was at stake to survive. . 800k of the weakest, starved; that territorial, trade and financial Versailles shit; Rothschild’s timely collapse of his Viennese Commerzbank, engendering inflation and putting it at the financial mercy of the USA; dear Uncle Joe’s looming Operation Icebreaker, preceding Barbarossa; shall I continue ?

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Germany needed exactly zero knowledge from the US to understand what was at stake to survive.”

        Germany needed the U.S.A. to stay out of the playground and apparently did not know it would jump in . Hardly an issue of zero knowledge .

        • charles frey
          charles frey says:

          01 I was referring to what genius hexzane was spouting and being peddled by Rerevisionist aka Rae West: proving de Craon’s premonition respecting the ” cloak “.

          02 The then Polish Ambassador to Washington wrote publicly about the inordinate effort of the US Jews pushing hard for war: editorially, institutionally and privately.

          03 Of course Hitler, in your and hexzane’s infallible opinion would not have read this. Nor would he have been informed by the then still many German CEOs running German-owned/controlled corporations in the US: watching the gathering storm.

          04 FDR DISCLOSED, before Congress, in December ’40, Hitler’s SECRET MAP to conquer the Americas, including invasion routes. A map fabricated by the MAN CALLED INTREPID, WIILIAM STEPHENSON. a British agent, in his ample spy operations venue in Manhattan: causing much deserved hilarity among Hitler’s live audience and increasing with each naming of additional Banana Republics. [video]

          05 We all know, that FDR depended on the attack on Pearl Harbor to declare war. That was manipulated by Morgenthau Jr. and his tribal bum-boy Harry Dexter White [ Weiss ]; himself handled by GRU HQ [ Operation Snow ] in Moscow.

          06 Weiss had dictated a deliberately unacceptable note to Japan, which diverted it from attacking the SU and instead turning to SE Asia to assure its entirely absent supplies of oil and resources.

          07 All those dead American farm boys to save Harry’s ” ideological homeland ” : history’s first triple-loyalist.

          08 Keitel and Jodl, Chief and Chief of Operations [ both hung at Nuremberg ] must have been surprised by William Stephenson’s Secret Map. .

          09 Hitler was thus aware of what was coming, without the necessity of anything additional from the Jew-determined US war machine.

          10 Having survived all that as a child in Berlin, nevertheless I ask myself, for 80 years, whether I am entitled to believe and state, that it was all worth it.

          11 My answer is yes. My hope is, that all that suffering, on all sides, will not be allowed to be trifled away by the certifiably insane and abundantly funded Left: starting in the US.

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            You seem to be a survivor of the US/UK/USSR attacks on Germany. Perhaps you’re still a believer in Hitler. It’s hard to tell. Hexzane lists about 30 episodes of WW2 that cast great suspicion on Hitler; he looks like a crypto-supporter of Jews. You may well have been through horrific experiences, but that doesn’t mean Hitler told the truth. Since (e.g.) 1940 was 80 years ago, you would have been young at the time.

          • charles frey
            charles frey says:

            @ RAE WEST : MAY 24, 09:54

            01 Thanks for the math.

            02 My godmother, Madame von Scheele, was close friends with Magda Goebbels and in and out of her house several times a week meeting many other functionaries.

            03 For a prolonged period after the War, I was privy to their conversations during Kaffeeklatsch at our own residence.

            04 You appear to be among those who failed to watch the personal interviews, on video, with Hitler’s secretaries, pilots, drivers, friends and military colleagues, who, without fail, spoke highly of him.

            05 Had he been, as your idiot mentors suggest, a tool of the West [ and East ] it would not have been his charred skull that is in the custody of Moscow, but the rest of his attached, healthy body as well, that would have been living in a suburban palace outside of Moscow, with a mini-palace in Sochi.

            06 How would your idiot mentors write off the fact, that the German aviatrix Hanna Reitsch, landed her light Fieseler Storch on the Siegesalle, west of the Brandenburg Gate, walked to the Bunker and offered to fly Hitler and Braun out ???

            07 Instead, as we know in detail, he took poison, then shot Braun and himself, after having given orders how to cremate him outside, where the Red Army found him.

            08 Ask Mathis and zany hex where Elvis is really living !

          • charles frey
            charles frey says:

            CORRECTION TO MY NO. 4 ABOVE !

            FDR hyped the fabricated map at a talk at the Mayflower Hotel in DC in Nov. 41. Williamson had a staff of ca. 1,000 in the US and again that many throughout the remaining Western Hemisphere, solely for DISINFORMATION, distributed via papers, news agencies etc..

            The Jewish community established its very own News service to work hand in glove with W. Quelle surprise !

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            I’ve noticed, of course, that people who were attracted to Hitler get a lot of publicity, by Jews. Perhaps you should wonder why that is. But your comments are such a mass of confusion I don’t want to spend time on this.

  9. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    I wish that where the crucifixion of Christ is concerned that the other side of the story receive just as much attention but alas it hardly ever or rather never gets the attention it needs or deserves. O, but what exactly is that? Simple no one could kill Christ without him allowing it. This He made abundantly clear:

    “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” John 10:18

    “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matt. 26:53

    Why must it happen this way? Because there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood period. Christ died because if it were left to us to pay for our own trespasses there would literally be nothing left of the human race. God would be forced to punish every single last one of us for our evil ways. In the days of old that is the Old Testament days it was treason pure and simple which forced God’s hand! And So God Himself through His Son took that punishment upon Himself and all he asks in return is to believe on his name and repent recognizing that sacrifice of His. It is frustrating that the Jews don’t understand this wanting to restart the blood sacrifices of birds and animals at some new temple?

    Standing in the Garden of Gethsemane was not just a mere man but an extremely dangerous individual who could with a simple 5 word sentence ended the Roman Empire. He could have picked up Caesar by the scruff of the neck and threw him clear out into the street and locked the doors of the palace behind him! That was who was standing before the Jewish high priests.

    The more important and significant matter however is this:

    Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

    “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14:62

    Imagine someone who is about to be murdered saying this meaning essentially the future is in his hands along with all of us including a Jewish nation which by the look of things in Gaza today desperately want and need a political savior. They however, along with the rest of us will look in horror at what is about to happen to us all I’m afraid on this sin cursed place called planet earth.

    Make no mistake the words “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a living God” will come into full view soon enough. Actually study what the bible teaches about climate change and one will have all the answers one could possibly need and proof that what I have said is true and provable!

    King of Kings indeed!!!!

    But all we ever hear is Deicide this and Deicide that. Please hear and understand the other side of the story.

  10. Loren
    Loren says:

    It is true in my experience, the people really responsible for the total destruction of the West are Christians. Mostly evangelical/Protestant but even Catholics have been basically neutered on the subject. How can you read the Old Testament and say these people are not the most barbaric, evil people ever to walk the Earth? Chosen people? More like biggest con artists ever.
    Almost every single Christian I talk with puts their finger in their ears and goes nah nah nah nah nah! “The Bible says they are the Chosen People”! No matter that every thing they do is the opposite of what the Bible says is good and Holy.
    Chosen by themselves is the Truth.

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      Modern Jews are not the Chosen People. Christians have replaced them as the true sons of Abraham.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Christianity in general does not seem to acknowledge receiving that memo they are the new chosen people .

    • Betty Fordham Jones
      Betty Fordham Jones says:

      The Jews were the chosen people but they blew it.

      Christians who think the Jews are still the chosen people are not simply wrong;
      they are INSANELY wrong, as believers (Jew and gentile) are now the chosen
      people of God.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …” as believers (Jew and gentile) are now the chosen
        people of God.”

        Thank you for warning that an historicly consistent and ineluctable treacherous alliance is once again being formed to assure a victory , for Jewish/Christian/Islamic “believers” in the Jewish deity called “God”
        ( aka Jehovah/Yahwuh/Allah/JC ) ,
        in the frequently predicted imminent
        ww3/( worldwide Great Reset depopulations)/
        (ILLuminati global population exterminations).

        Please note the great distinction between
        [ religion ] and [ science ] :

        Religion requires a lot of faith and is notoriously bereft of facts ;

        whereas Science requires a lot of facts and is notoriously bereft of faiths .

        The most venerable symbol in all the world of the
        ” indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.”
        is the ancient oriental Yin-Yang symbol which expresses the pure essence of that “indissoluble Trinity” as well as or better than the (Jewish Menorah)/(Christian Cross)/(Islamic Crescent Moon). Furthermore , authentic/genuine science acknowledges the true reality of the Yin-Yang expression of dualism .

        The historical ramifications of the “chosen people of God” are well-known among the worldwide intelligentsia .

        Thanks again for your warning .

  11. Desert Flower
    Desert Flower says:


    “[m]illions of Americans stood and watched as a tiny hostile minority…dictated what they could and could not see on a subject…”


    “The sheer gutlessness of that generation which collapsed in the face of Jewish pressure…”

    I share Professor Joyce’s frustration about this. And I am enraged that it is still happening, and it is even worse now. I’ll permit my rage to have a greater say in my life choices going forward. This Christian is growing some spine and teeth.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      The 1968 musical Oliver! (composed by dissolute songwriter Lionel “Bart”) gives us a lovable Fagin – sure, he was filthy and in private moments fondled the expensive gold jewelry stolen by his little boy thieves, but all in all he was a good man, you see, providing employment and a place to live for these oh-so-happy and contented, sticky-fingered little fellas. Never mind that their breakfast consisted of moldy sausages and gin. Ain’t that cute! What a great life!

      At the end, Fagin escapes punishment for his life of crime and joins up once again with The Artful Dodger to continue his way of life, Dodger just having presented Fagin with a well-lined wallet. Clicking his heels and prancing off into the sunset, Fagin, accompanied by Dodger, sings his favorite tune. Awwww.

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        “After a Private Screening for the Anti-Defamation League of BNai Brith, Fagins portrayal by Alec Guinness was deemed a grotesque Jewish caricature stereotype.” Aware of this reaction, Breen assured the PCA office that Rank had no intention of releasing the film in the U.S”

        God only knows how many movies, documentaries, plays, books, etc. have been reviewed privately by them prior to release to the Gentile majority. And yet it’s all about White Supremacy, right?

  12. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Yes Dr. Joyce your last paragraph hits home and deeply so. You may or will be very interested in a very important and shocking essay posted at this link. A must read.


    Reading it reminds of the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky {1821-1881}:

    “Why hast though come to hinder us? We are working
    not with Thee but with him {Satan}…We took from him
    what Thou didst reject with scorn, the last gift he
    offered Thee, showing you all the kingdoms of the
    earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of
    Caesar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the
    earth…We shall triumph and shall be Caesar’s, and then
    we shall plan the universal happiness of man… Hadst
    though accepted the last counsel of the mighty spirit
    {Satan}, Thou wouldst have accomplished all that man
    seeks on earth -that is, someone to worship…Who can
    rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in their hands.”

    We may be arriving very soon to what is written about the End of the World and this shocking word from the book of Revelation:

    “They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lord will
    overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of
    kings-and with him will be His called, chosen and faithful
    followers.” {Rev. 17:14}

    What kind of people, a created by God people, Adam and Eve’s progeny literally would today in our post modern world with its fascinating military complex would have the audacity to think they can take on God Himself in a war for planet earth? I guess when one redefines God as an alien [UFO phenomena} well what does one expect.

    “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” {Revelation 19:11- 21}

    I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called faithful and true. With justice, he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but He himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh, he has this name written:

    Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords.

    And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, ‘Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. {Revelation 19:11- 21}

  13. Rae West
    Rae West says:

    It’s fascinating to see groups of people unable to reply. Let me make a few points nobody here seems to understand, let alone face.
    [1] Everyone seem to be assuming there’s a distinct, clear-cut, set-theory style, separation between Jews and Christians. In fact there are interactions, as is obviously possible in view of the almost complete secrecy within Talmudic groups and also Freemasons and other such groups. Please consider the idea that Catholics explicitly disallow interest, even if it’s obviously needed. This often forced ‘goyim’ into relations with Jews, who of course exploited them in full. Meanwhile Jews funded such things as Cathedrals and mercenaries. That’s how one country after another was picked off for ‘conversion’ and how phonies like Craon feel justified in insulting other people.
    [2] I think hexzane527 is the most interesting writer I’ve found, possibly because the French were the first in modern times to feel the brunt of Jewish money, and also were caught up both with being invaded and with victory, and were involved with empires, for example in Vietnam, where the viciousness in effect was funded by Jews, as with the British Empire and e.g. South Africa.
    Hexzane527 simply assumes that Jews run things. He assumes Ford was Jewish or a crypto, or something. He thinks Americans had to be tipped off about Jews, which Ford did. And that WW2 was a decision by Jews, who promoted Hitler, making the ‘Nazis’ the most efficient ZOG power there has been (perhaps) yet. These are not stupid beliefs, and there is plenty of evidence for them.
    … He predicts WW3 in a rational way (assuming the object is a greater Israel) and even thinks the Jewish aim is to whiten the world. He looks at WW2’s odder events and considers they are compatible with Hitler acting in Jewish interests. He’s not the only one but has put a lot of energy into these things. I don’t think he can be suspected of entanging Jewish issues, in the way that ‘Christians’ do, in their money-grabbing short-term mode.
    [3] I referred to KMac as ‘naive’ because he is.
    … He thinks the US ‘civil war’ was proof of amazing altruism; he really beliefs that the vast destruction in Georgia etc is proof they wanted to abolish slavery. I simply won’t bother to go into that; life is short.
    … His views on individualism as the foundation of the USA, ignoring the use by Jews of its money-making potential, his use of ‘puritanism’, his belief that on balance Christianity worked, show he’s fallen for Jewish control, notably after 1945, of the US educational/ media/ entertainment saturating propaganda, is ‘naive’. It’s worrying to see him in conversations putting out bit and pieces (including definite stuff on the remote past) on things like ‘farmer genes’ and ‘hunter gatherers’ omitting chunks of the human experiences.
    I’m only typing this through exasperation. There’s a lot to find out, and it’s not going to be made easy.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Meanwhile Jews funded such things as Cathedrals and mercenaries. That’s how one country after another was picked off for ‘conversion’ and how phonies like Craon feel justified in insulting other people.

      In English translation, what you’ve apparently written goes something like this: “Jewish funding supported the building of cathedrals and the outfitting of mercenaries. The Jewish-funded mercenaries then brought to heel all of Europe by means of forced conversion to Christianity, one nation after another. Also thanks to this Jewish funding, Craon feels justified in insulting other people.”

      As you can’t even express your utterly disjointed, unsubstantiated notions in anything approaching intelligible standard English, for any insults that come your way—seems you’re pretty thin-skinned, too—you have no one to blame but yourself, Rerevisionist (to call you by your far more familiar handle).

      As Kevin MacDonald is well able to speak for himself if he so chooses, I shall ride to his defense only to the extent of saying that your characterization of his opinions about the Civil War amount to ignorant caricature. You do realize, don’t you, that this matter and a great many other things are well documented and readily confirmable?

      • Rae West
        Rae West says:

        Well, let me try again. Jews funded Roman Catholics, who agreed to take vast wathes of land and paid positions for their absurd rubbish. Pierre Craon wants money for talking rubbish – he must think, why not, it’s been done before.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Who precisely might be interested in paying me for what little I write? As for “want[ing] money for talking rubbish,” an income stream of any sort nowadays would be most welcome, even one for rubbish.

          Who pays you, I wonder?

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            Roman Catholicism depended on land ownership and on Jewish money. They did very well out of it. I’m assuming you like or liked that state of affairs. If you’re now not doing well out of it, it’s your problem. I get a pension and a few donations but am not funded by anyone else.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I get a pension and a few donations but am not funded by anyone else.

            Alas, there seems to be no shortage of deluded white people!

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      I would respond to a well-argued paper on all this. Saying, for example, that I claim that “the vast destruction in Georgia etc is proof they wanted to abolish slavery” is ridiculous. It’s critical to understand the moral idealism of the West, and to make an argument you would have to somehow claim that the nineteenth-century intellectuals and politicians I deal with didn’t really believe what they wrote and said. This moral idealism is killing us now.

      • Rae West
        Rae West says:

        Of the many problems with your [KMac’s] work, one of the most important in practice is your apparent inability to understand the power of Jewish control of money. In (just one example) a discussion on Sweden, you seem unable to realise that not speaking out by Swedes against their replacement and selective rehousing of aliens is related to money: they don’t want to be deprived of money. Nothing to do with genetics. In the USA, now, Jews fund many blacks – for example I understand George Floyd relatives (or something) have now got a few million dollars. Jews fund many churches worldwide to do what they’re told. They fund ‘universities’ – your ex-university has or had I believe 60,000 students, who you seem to think are ‘individualists’ despite virtually all doing nothing to combat the situation.
        I don’t really want to write specifically about this (or for that matter talk) since I don’t think I’d get suitably condensed answers. But who knows?

        • Kevin MacDonald
          Kevin MacDonald says:

          I write and talk about Jewish money a lot–it’s critical to the American political scene, and in Sweden I emphasize the power of the Bonier media empire. But what is your evidence that ethnic factors are irrelevant to Swedish attitudes?

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            Well, in cases of extreme coercion, genetics (I’m assuming normal bodies etc) are not the deciding features. If someone is thrown out of a plane, or women are raped at gunpoint – a couple of examples of US behavior – then long-term evolution, however it works in the long term, is a bit short-circuited. It’s fairly obvious. To take modern Sweden, the legal system opposes native whites, if I’d understood the system there.
            You get a bit worked up about the US civil war, more or less the first use of extensive rifle and field gun usage, with enormous death rates. I said you claim “the vast destruction in Georgia etc is proof they wanted to abolish slavery” – and I say that’s absurd. It’s faintly analogous to a family saying they hate what other members of the family are doing, so they will blow them all up and shoot them.
            You say it’s “critical to understand the moral idealism of the West”, but in fact it’s critical to understand the way people can dress up their actions verbally – in the manner ascribed to Jews, though non-Jews can do it too. The evidence that the North cared nothing for slaves seems to me convincing, though it rests on such things as the US Constitution. The “nineteenth-century intellectuals and politicians” may or may not have been honest. It’s something you may just possibly have noted in more recent times.

        • charles frey
          charles frey says:


          Three separate times you threatened to abandon us altogether.


          And don’t try to sucker us with a yet third different handle. Forensic handwriting experts don’t merely rely on handwriting alone, but analyze syntax, punctuation, topics, attitudes vis-a-vis topics, vocabulary, etc.

          Instead, ask your geniuses Mathis and zany hex whether they agree with you, that Stalin, had re reached the Channel, would have decided against crossing it as well, after having clad Europe, from Norway to Spain in Red Army uniforms: enthused and emboldened by Ehrenburg.

          • Rae West
            Rae West says:

            It’s difficult to know what point you’re trying to make. The whole point about WW2 was that it was arranged by Jews. Stalin wasn’t an independently acting unit, any more than Churchill and Roosevelt and Einsenhower etc were.
            I note you try to insult Mathis and hexzane527, but fail to give even a single example of one error by each. I’d suggest you learnt to express yourself better.

  14. Jez Turner
    Jez Turner says:

    Splendid article. They censor everything. It is, for instance, an interesting exercise to examine how any novel or play is adapted to radio or TV/cinema, by first listening to/viewing the adaptation and then going back to read the original. For example, the movie Quo Vadis is an excellent film, but once you’ve seen it go and read the book by Sienkiewicz! The key scene where Nero’s Jewish mistress Poppaea brings the Jewish leaders of Rome to meet and persuade Nero to deflect popular antagonism away from them by launching a persecution of the Christians, is of course missing from the film.

    • Foxton
      Foxton says:

      The Richard II adaptation for the BBC Hollow Crown series in 2012 edited John of Gaunt’s “sceptered isle” speech considerably, a notable omission being the reference to “stubborn Jewry.” Of course it is in the nature of performing Shakespeare to make cuts, even for the stage. Other long speeches were shortened for that version, and as Jews play no part in Richard II, unlike in Quo Vadis, the cut seems comparatively trivial. But surely by now it’s naive to think that omitting such a reference, however fleeting, isn’t strategic.

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      I greatly admire the film, “Quo Vadis,” for its explicit support for Christianity. I especially like St. Peter’s (played by Finlay Currie) recitation of the Sermon on the Mount. Peter Ustinov’s over the top portrayal of Nero should not be missed. I am eager, now, to read the original novel.

  15. Brittany Rothchild
    Brittany Rothchild says:

    Your comments are amazing. Glad you post here.
    “Rae” is FOS.
    Henry Ford purchased his very own newspaper as a means to educate people on the JQ.
    He hired the best writers he could find. “The International Jew” was a long running series and it’s
    an amazing read in book form, filled with facts and figures and truth regarding Jewish power.
    Ford and Lindbergh were great Americans and they tried to warn us.

  16. Oera Linda
    Oera Linda says:

    Censorship, gaslighting, sabotage, critique, control and chutzpa resulting in us being 2nd class citizens hating ourselves and being hijacked in an alien paradigm while being holocausted into oblivion by the fifth colomn of They Live.

  17. 9593
    9593 says:

    If you can find it, the entire “International Jew” is well written, not at all in collective hate. I have the four-volume set, 86 chapters (if I recall correctly). Here is an abridged version in pdf: https://cdn.mashreghnews.ir/old/files/fa/news/1393/11/7/879852_794.pdf
    Henry Ford and Rabbi Leo Franklin were friends before the censure. Ford periodically provided Rabbi Franklin with a Model T, for use in his ministry.
    When Rabbi Franklin refused any further use of loaned Model T’s, Henry Ford was reportedly shocked at the renunciation of friendship, arguing that he wrote only about bad “International” Jews and had nothing against good “work a day” Jews. – and that he was doing a service to Jewry in criticizing miscreant “international” Jews. But of course, to no avail. It seems now that no article of any length can be written about Henry Ford, and published, without declaring up front that Ford was an anti-semite. (Same for Charles A. Lindbergh)
    It is amusing to note that in Hollywood today the Wall Street villains are played by the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio.

    • Aristo Boho
      Aristo Boho says:

      Dear 9593 Et Alii,

      The complete four volumes of Mister Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” might still be available from Mister Serpico’s publishing house and book store, Omni Christian Publications. You must telephone because at this moment the book site is dysfunctional. It would have been more precise, correct, if Mister Ford had titled it “The International Criminal Financial Banking System”. The average Jew has nothing to do with these nefarious machinations. History shows those at the top are never the ones who get clubbed on the head. And this economic network has its non-Jewsih aiders and abetters allies also in high places.
      Publisher in Palmdale, California
      Address: 38602 6th St E, Palmdale, CA 93550
      God Bless, Aristo Boho
      Phone: (1661) 274-2240

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” The average Jew has nothing to do with these nefarious machinations.”

        Probably not . However , it is glaringly apparent that “the average Jew” is a notable coincidental beneficiary of those “nefarious machinations”.

        • Aristo Boho
          Aristo Boho says:

          Dear Money Talks,

          I am glad you agreee with me. Now, it’s very true that average Jews are beneficiaries of these nefarious machinations, but not all. It is never everyone. Although I’m not attemtping to deny as you can see what you have replied to me. Let us not forget, there’s an average non-Jew who also benefits. I just cannot see everyone, associations, groups, religions, persons, as one monolithic whole. God Bless, Aristo Boho

          • Aristo Boho
            Aristo Boho says:

            Dear Money Talks,

            Discriminatory! How splendid there is someone who understands in to-day’s culture that this word is not definitively negative. I thank you. Although I’m a strong person, it is rather a healing salve to the spirit. My objectivity and the relative knowledge I have based upon my own empirical occurrences, have caused at times persons who are unhinged, unlike yourself, to accuse me on the one hand of being an anti-Semite and on the other a subversive pro-Zionist. With age and experience I’ve become immune to much of this. Please keep well and whatever you do, don not run out of money, we need your interlocution! God Bless, Aristo Boho

  18. Rae West
    Rae West says:

    I’m quite surprised not to have been censored; so thanks for that.
    People wanting to look intoFord’s background might look at Miles Mathis’s long piece, which includes many other people. It doesn’t say much about Ford’s reasons for advertising Jews. (Some of his supporters might check how much Ford published about the Federal Reserve, the getting of the US into WW1). My copy is on
    https://big-lies.org/mileswmathis/ford.pdf and he has a good piece on Linbergh.
    Perhaps I could comment on Andrew Joyce. I’m afraid he strikes me as being a bit naive, too. He’s inclined to quote Jews because their quotations exist, without filtering through heavy scepticism. Considered a great filmmaker? Released to great public acclaim? Targeted for a lawsuit? – These all sound as though they might be publicity stunts for what after all was a dim black-and-white multireel thing at a time when films were regarded widely as cheap unwatchable junk for the plebs. He seems to lack scepticism for the whole Biblical junk mess – which Jews after all supposely wrote and in a sense were the copyright holders. He doesn’t seem to have penetrated back to grasp the full impact of Jews stretching back a few millennia.

  19. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    “The sheer gutlessness of that generation which collapsed in the face of Jewish pressure left a heavier burden for the subsequent generation, and that burden has been getting heavier ever since.”

    Dr. Joyce, I think your “lasting frustration” can best be summed up by words from their own scriptures quite well from the book of Daniel 12:7:

    “When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.
    I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?
    He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.”

    The ‘holy people’ spoken about is the Christian believer whether Gentile or Jew. The pressures and group conflict exerted by our enemies upon the Christian Church has simply been enormous and unfortunately it will only get worse until we are all broken completely.
    To look at the history of the 20th Century it is hard to really comprehend how murderous a generation this has been. The wars and the amount of killing well as anyone of us know all too well we have killed more people in just 130 years than in the last thousand years combined. To live in the midst of all of this pain and suffering while trying to live a holy righteous life is hard and as we approach the final conflict it will only get worse and worse. If I have have any thing to add or say it is simply this Christ was right a kingdom divided against itself will never stand and the Christian Church has certainly fulfilled that completely. We had victories here and there but unfortunately Christ’s words about being as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves were few and far between. What if anything did 2 world wars accomplish really but pit christian nations against one another while our real enemies sat back and laughed and said to themselves their just Christians.
    Some time ago I had a kind of awakening about how truly evil and sinful this world really is and it is truly that or as Dr. Martin said a Satanic Ball.

    John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    I imagine heaven must be a strange place with no lying whatsoever about anything from anyone period. Imagine if only planet earth was like that and imagine is this what God wanted from the people of the Promised Land? Holy and righteous? And they think to get there, a return to blood sacrifices of animals is the way to redemption? How many ten’s of thousands of birds and lambs etc would need to be sacrificed for that and look Christ threw them out of the Temple all the while realizing He was to become the final Lamb!!!

    I can’t begin to imagine how strong His tears must have been for these people and this nation:

    “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

    • lydia
      lydia says:

      very well said, I always though the Lord Jesus’ statement “and your children within you.” had to do with the ending of their physical line and it is said that there are only 10% Sephardic or semitic jews to 90% ashkenaz jews or Gog.

      Gods Kingdom dot net has some very good articles on all aspects of scripture including Gog and the creation of the jewish state.

  20. katana
    katana says:

    Revision Media – Andrew Joyce – Infiltrators of Western Civilization – Mar 14, 2021 — Transcript



    (52:20 mins)

    Paul Stevenson: I’m with historian and writer at The Occidental Observer, Andrew Joyce. He’s a prolific writer and historian. And I believe that you’re also working on a couple of books you mentioned on email. Do you want to just give us a quick analysis of that, Andrew, the books you’re working on? And then we’ll get into the other stuff we mentioned.

    Andrew Joyce: Well one is finished and is sitting with Richard Spencer at Washington Summit Publishers. That’s just basically a collection of, or a volume, of essays that I’ve written that are introduced with a 10,000 word introduction, providing an overview of jewish history.

    So anyone who’s been following any of my writing over the last almost 10 years at The Occidental Observer will be familiar with the type of content that’s going to involve. The second book which I have an agreement to publish, …

    Paul Stevenson: That is Talmud and Taboo isn’t it?

    Andrew Joyce: Yes. It’s been renamed “On the Jews”.

    Paul Stevenson: Okay.

    Andrew Joyce: And the second book which I’ve called The Foundations of the 21st Century. And I have an agreement to publish with Arktos Publishers, is basically a political philosophy unique to me. It’s where I see the world. It’s my worldview in total. So there is a chapter on jewish issues. But there’s also chapters on, for example, feminism, or relations between the sexes, on mass immigration, on economics, on the technology question, and so on, and so forth.

    So that book will basically be, if you have any inclination whatsoever to find out how Andrew Joyce sees the world, some of you will think that’s a good thing, the more sensitive among you might think that [chuckling] my world view is very twisted indeed! But that will be an insight into sort of a coherent systematic way of me looking at the world.

    So it’s something very different. And all of that content will be brand new. It’s just being a busy man, I try and find as much time as I can for podcasts, I try and find as much time as I can to write essays for The Occidental Observer, and between all of that, and the activities and tasks of day-to-day life, it’s trying to find time to finish these books.

    One wishes that one had all the time in the world to complete these things. But being a wage slave this is the sort of the longer time span that it’s taking me to complete these things. So all I will say is, stay tuned. It will be published at some point in the future.


    Paul Stevenson: All right. Where can we find those books?

    Andrew Joyce: Well, the first one isn’t published yet, that I was talking about, but it will be published by Washington Summit Publishers. The second one will be published by Arktos who have been publishing a lot of stuff, very, very good stuff recently. And I’ll be reviewing some of that shortly for The Occidental Observer. But when they’re published I’ll provide all the necessary links through social media, and so on, so that people can go and purchase them as soon as possible.

    Paul Stevenson: All right, okay. So the last time we spoke we were talking about censorship, and we were also talking about Charlottesville. And, as I said, just off air, Charlottesville, the Capitol building is just Charlottesville all over again on steroids. And they’re now actually censoring, not Andrew Joyce, not Paul Stevenson, not E Michael Jones, but the President of the United States! And that even though I’m aware of jewish aggression and audacity, it’s just unprecedented this year, just want to comment on that?

    Andrew Joyce: Yeah, this morning I was having a conversation with Nick Griffin. And we were talking about the assault on big tech. And what one of the big things that’s happened over the last four years that we were discussing is the Left wing always did have an unhinged element to it.

    But over the last four years we saw the start of it with “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. But it’s reached a hysteria. Now part of that hysteria is genuine. A lot of the Dems and these liberal types and soyboys do have a feminized nature. They are overly sensitized. And some of the things that Trump has said, and some of the ways that’s been twisted in the media to make it look even worse, has caused them to have extreme reactions. And they do go into sort of a fearful and emotive panic.

    But there’s also an element that’s always been there where there’s a kind of “knowing hysteria” by which I mean, that certain organizations and certain interested parties – and we know who these people and individuals are – are quite content to act hysterical, and to pretend like Nazis are coming down Pennsylvania Avenue. And all of this is with the express intention of shifting the Overton Window in their direction, and in, as Kevin MacDonald’s phrase goes, in shaping “ways of seeing”.

    They want the lexicon that we use to describe our politics to shift dramatically in favor of their politics. And one of the offshoots that we’ve seen recently of all of this activity has been that there has been a change in the terminology from describing our politics simply as bigotry, or simply as racism, or ignorance, towards describing what we’re doing is “terroristic”, “criminal”, and so on, and so forth. And all of this cultural change the shaping of ways of seeing.

    This change in the language has had the effect of softening up certain bodies, particularly the tech industry, but also believe me it’s going to move into the judiciary, and into the interpretation of existing laws very, very soon. All of this has the effect of paving the way for mass censorship.

    And I’ve noticed in recent years, in particular I’ve been writing about it since 2016, probably 2015 actually, is that organizations like the Anti-Defamation League in the United States, organizations like the Community Security Trust in Britain, or the Campaign Against Anti-semitism, or the Board of Deputies of British jews, or the Council of jewish German citizens of the jewish Faith. All of these international bodies are very much interested in censorship. And they’ve stopped going after individuals, and individual videos.

    I mean, you’re talking there earlier Paul, about how the last podcast that we recorded. One of which was on jewish history, the other was on sort of jewish responses to Charlottesville. Those videos were very, very quickly censored on YouTube. And it’s actually very difficult for anyone to have an interview with me on YouTube regardless of how careful and polished my language might be, regardless of how well referenced the things that I’m discussing are! They will be removed very quickly.

    Cont’d here: https://katana17.com/wp/2021/05/24/revision-media-andrew-joyce-infiltrators-of-western-civilization-mar-14-2021-transcript/

Comments are closed.